611–620 of 1001 posts
Hijacking the top comment: Can someone explain me why EU was considered knowledgable about the internet in case of GDPR, but isn't now? Have they lost their knowledge in the meantime?
Also: Democracy (a 2015 Documentary by David Bernet)
This is wrong on more levels than it seems from the first glance: 1) I've witnessed creeping internet censorship starting just like this: first it's something as innocuous as "let's protect creators" or "let's protect children from harmful content", then 6 years later you can't criticize the government. They've just created a legal framework for massive automated censorship, and also Overton window was moved. I expec…
Where have you witnessed creeping internet censorship starting like this? (Not disputing, I'd just be interested to study it)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
well google in the end can just shutdown google news.
> well google in the end can just shutdown google news. That's the expected (and fair) outcome. To be fair, why should a multinational be entitled to profit from unauthirized access and distribution of third-party content while the content creators are left with the bill of creating it?
Why should news organizations be entitled to profit from unauthorized access and distribution of third-party content while the creators are left with the bill of creating it? Shouldn't they be paying the celebrities they gossip about for doing all the "noteworthy" things they do and giving them something to drive readership with?
The obvious flaw is that it's a symbiotic relationship. News organizations want traffic from Google in the way that celebrities and companies and politicians want news coverage (in the "no such thing as bad press" sense). They see Google's market cap and think they're making all this money, but the money isn't from news aggregation. That's peanuts. And if you're making a dime and they're making a nickel and you demand a dollar more, you don't get a dollar more, you get a dime less.
"Article 11 is intended to give publishers and newspapers a way to make money when companies like Google link to their stories…” Is there anything stopping a search engine like Google choosing not to link to a newspaper? Surely they can’t be required to link to a newspaper AND then pay that newspaper to do so? The trade-off if Google chose not to link to the newspaper would be a (slightly) less useful search engine,…
The problem is that Google is without question a monopoly, and so I think that there is a valid argument that it needs to be regulated and be forced to be impartial in the results shown. The fact that they show people's content without giving them page views (in a world where page views are how you get significant amounts of money, not to mention subscription opportunities) is a conscious decision to implement a feat…
Also by previewing they prevent load as well and boost relevance. That favors real data instead of SEO page caching garbage that tries to get matched to every common keyword. You do not have a right to a business model, much less it being unchanged by time.
Business's who depend on the livelihood of free speech: Google, Facebook, Apple, Cloudflare, Netflix, Salesforce, et all need to get together and say "No, or we'll stop doing business in the EU". This is beyond ridiculous.
> Business's who depend on the livelihood of free speech: Google, Facebook Given this legislation virtually guarantees their hegemony over European content distribution, I don't expect too much complaining.
This is wrong on more levels than it seems from the first glance: 1) I've witnessed creeping internet censorship starting just like this: first it's something as innocuous as "let's protect creators" or "let's protect children from harmful content", then 6 years later you can't criticize the government. They've just created a legal framework for massive automated censorship, and also Overton window was moved. I expec…
Where have you witnessed creeping internet censorship starting like this? (Not disputing, I'd just be interested to study it)
In 2007, a website appeared, that criticises the law, and claimed that using a web crawler, they had found that actually over 95% of the blocked addresses contain only legal porn. Also legal gay porn was quite overrepresented in the block list. Occasionally also for example www.w3.org was on the block list. And a memorial website for a dead princess of Thailand, which caused a minor diplomatic crisis, since defaming the royal family is a severe offence in Thailand.
And then in 2008, the Finnish police also added the aforementioned criticizing website to the block list, although the law clearly said that it applies to blocking foreign, not domestic, websites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Considering that communists are historically against private property and their usage as a means of production No, Communist are against “private property” where “private property” is specifically defined as exclusionary ownership of the means of production. If it isn't specifically in the means of production, “private property” in sense the term is used in the modern capitalist world is not “private property” as o…
> No, Communist are against “private property” where “private property” is specifically defined as exclusionary ownership of the means of production. ...and in this case it's the intellectual property of content providers who use it to run their business. >And it's not clear to me that intellectual property (or other intangible personal property not representing control of tangible goods), strictly speaking, can be a…
No, that's not a “means of production”, in the Communist sense, and so ownership of it is not “private property” in the sense that Communist theory opposes such.
> I'm sure that we can agree that media companies do depend on the existence of strong intellectual properly rights to run their business.
That's irrelevant to whether intellectual property qualifies as a means of production in Communist theory, which does not define “means of production ” as “anything a business relies on to run”, but instead as the physical instruments to which human labor is applied in the course of production.
Opposing media companies on this is not something which has anything to do with the Communist opposition to property rights in the means of production.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've been asking the proponents that for months. Google got a free license in Germany while Yahoo did not. Even if they ban the free license (which is a whole nother set of even bigger problems) Google can just not list them at all. It's not like they care about Google News all that much.
I agree that this is probably going to backfire spectacularly but if we give the proponents the benefit of the doubt it could be argued that while the big G might not care about Google News, users may. If these news aggregator shutdown they will look for alternatives which might create an opportunity for people to develop news aggregator that share the revenue more fairly with the newspapers. I doubt this is going to…
The problem is, what revenue? News aggregation is not a huge profit center to begin with. Then you take that already-small amount of money and split it between thousands of independent news organizations, each of which requires its own transaction costs, and the transaction costs sink the whole enterprise.
This is wrong on more levels than it seems from the first glance: 1) I've witnessed creeping internet censorship starting just like this: first it's something as innocuous as "let's protect creators" or "let's protect children from harmful content", then 6 years later you can't criticize the government. They've just created a legal framework for massive automated censorship, and also Overton window was moved. I expec…
If we look at the DMCA notice[2], you'll see that the claim was made to Google that a song belonging to Real Housewives of Melbourne breakout act, Gamble Breaux, was used on the site. There is no such song on the page.
Here's a few other sites that were taken off of Google with that claim. There's a theme.
- https://www.wbs-law.de/urheberrecht/eu-abstimmung-morgen-dro...
- https://torrentfreak.com/popular-torrent-and-streaming-sites...
- http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/leistungsschutzre...
[1] https://juliareda.eu/2018/05/censorship-machines-link-tax-fi...
This is wrong on more levels than it seems from the first glance: 1) I've witnessed creeping internet censorship starting just like this: first it's something as innocuous as "let's protect creators" or "let's protect children from harmful content", then 6 years later you can't criticize the government. They've just created a legal framework for massive automated censorship, and also Overton window was moved. I expec…
This is just how Western societies are sold China-style censorship and surveillance.