461–470 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compare that to my country, where it's perfectly legal to download whatever music or movies you like from the internet for personal use, pirate websites or not. Also a western democracy. So it's not so bad everywhere. Though a price for this is that we pay a special tax on every storage device we purchase.
If you don’t mind, where is this?
Not a western democracy, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YouTube, the company, will be fine. They'll just ban any content that triggers their enforcement systems. I'm worried about YouTube, the platform, and the bastion of free exchange of information and ideas that is has been until now. A response-type video or movie review will almost certainly be false-flagged by a system like this. Of course, I agree with you that independent platforms are going to have a rough time.…
The worse for YouTube the platform, the better for free, decentralized, federated competitor platforms like PeerTube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem is that Google is without question a monopoly This is just false. bing.com exists. news.ycombinator.com exists. reddit.com exists.... > The fact that they show people's content without giving them page views.. This is just false. Google shows at most an excerpt (that is defined by the publisher) or a headline (on news.google.com). Unless you're talking about AMP, but that's a decision made by the publis…
> [Google being a monopoly] is just false. bing.com exists. news.ycombinator.com exists. reddit.com exists.... I don't think the existence of other websites on the internet is not really an argument against Google being a monopoly. Without question, the vast majority of the population (outside China) uses Google. This means that the majority of people who use the internet are using Google as their method of accessing…
If you’re going to base it solely off number of users then you’re effectively punishing businesses for being successful and NOT from harming consumers.
UKIP and the Green Party joined forces to prevent Article 13 from getting rammed through without a public discussion. It was a good first step, but here we are, 2 months hence, and it was passed with virtually no amendments to the original text. This is an abhorrent decision by people who have no idea how the internet works. Markus Meechum (aka Count Dankula) was at the hearings, and reported that MEPs voting on the…
>> If you want a quick example of why this is bad take a look at fair use and YouTube. Article 13 would make YouTube liable for copyrighted content on its service. What exactly is wrong with that? Seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GDPR is TOTALLY different. If you can't run a business under GDPR legislation then what you're doing is almost certainly unethical or at worst mismanaged and irresponsible with customer data. On the other hand this legislation will completely change the internet as we know it.
For some companies, making the IT-related changes to accommodate for GDPR was simply too expensive.
It is an unpopular opinion, but they were given the mandate by all those cheering the internet restrictions in the GDPR. Whether you still like that law or not is unrelated to the mandate given. You should have drawn your battle lines there instead of being so dismissive of those warning about government intervention.
You can believe GDPR is a good law and this a bad one without hypocrisy. As much as you can believe murder ought be illegal but not cannabis.
A comment from someone who has actually read the article: https://np.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/9ely8y/why_the_w... For example: ...the EFF argue that the idea of what constitutes a link is not fully defined. I'm not sure what they're talking about. Recitals 31-36 set out the concepts in article 11, fairly clearly. They make it clear that what is being protected is substantial or harmful copying of significant…
The commenter you are quoting has not realized there are two problematic articles (11. and 13.) and that the "memes" story is for article 13 not 11. The entire point of art. 11 is to transfer money from Google News (and other aggregators, like Facebook) to publishers. This also covers search.
Honestly, it doesn't seem a bad thing to me. But lat's see how Google plays it out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YouTube, the company, will be fine. They'll just ban any content that triggers their enforcement systems. I'm worried about YouTube, the platform, and the bastion of free exchange of information and ideas that is has been until now. A response-type video or movie review will almost certainly be false-flagged by a system like this. Of course, I agree with you that independent platforms are going to have a rough time.…
The worse for YouTube the platform, the better for free, decentralized, federated competitor platforms like PeerTube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This continent is a mess in terms of IT, with a few exceptions (London, Berlin, Dublin, some spots in Eastern Europe). So... pretty much like the US (with a few exceptions like Silicon Valley or Austin, Tx)?
I honestly don't understand why people keep comparing the culture of American cities and states to European ones. America is one giant country - the EU isn't. The cultural differences between Detroit and, say, San Francisco is miniscule compared to differences between London and Berlin. Not every city in America is San Francisco, Seattle, or Austin, but neither one state nor one city is as technologically dysfunction…
Just the last sentence is wrong. The EU isn't a mess in terms of IT, it's merely irrelevant on the global consumer market.