California Cities Voting On Ridiculous Resolution Asking Congress For Section 230 Reform... Because Of Violence At Protests?
from the what-the-even-fuck-is-this? dept
I attended an Internet Archive event (virtually, of course) yesterday, and afterwards one of the attendees alerted me to yet another nefarious attack on Section 230 based on out-and-out lies. Apparently the League of California Cities has been going around getting various California cities to vote on a completely misleading and bogus motion pushing for Congress to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It was apparently put up first by the city of Cerritos, which is part of Los Angeles County (almost surprised it wasn't started in Hollywood, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the impetus behind it was Hollywood people...). Basically, cities are voting on whether or not the League of California Cities should officially call on Congress to amend Section 230 in drastic ways... all because of some violence at recent protests about police brutality. The process, apparently, is that one city (in this case Cerritos) makes the proposal, and gets a bunch of other cities to first sign on, and then various other cities take a vote as to whether it becomes official League policy (after which they'd send a letter to Congress, which Congress would probably ignore).
And, if you just read the nonsense that the originating proposal put out there, and had no idea how Section 230, the internet, the 1st Amendment or the 4th Amendment works, it might sound like a good idea. Except that what the proposal says is utter nonsense, disconnected from reality.
This resolution states that the League of California Cities should urge Congress to amend Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) to limit the immunity provided to online platforms where their forums enable criminal activity to be promoted.
Ultimately, the policy objectives proposed under this resolution, if enacted, would incentivize social media companies to establish and implement a reasonable program to identify and remove content that solicits criminal activity.
Except that Section 230 already says there's no immunity for platforms if they enable federal criminal activity. So this is a made up concern. Second, if you changed 230 in the manner they want, they're simply wrong that it "would incentivize social media companies to establish and implement a reasonable program to identify and remove content that solicits criminal activity." Because every major social media platform already has such a program. The problem is not that they don't have incentives. The problem is that not everyone will ever agree on what the "right" moderation is.
Incredibly, the proposal handwaves away the idea that putting more liability on internet websites might lead to more censorship:
While there is certainly an argument to substantiate concerns around censorship, the use of social media as a tool for organizing violence is equally disturbing.
Tomato, tomahto.
Also, the proposal seems to blame violence that broke out at various protests this summer... on social media, claiming that's why 230 must change.
Although the majority of protests were peaceful, some demonstrations in cities escalated into riots, looting, and street skirmishes with police. While much of the nation’s focus has been on addressing police misconduct, police brutality, and systemic racism, some have used demonstrators’ peaceful protests on these topics as opportunities to loot and/or vandalize businesses, almost exclusively under the guise of the “Black Lives Matter” movement. It has been uncovered that these “flash robs” were coordinated through the use of social media. The spontaneity and speed of the attacks enabled by social media make it challenging for the police to stop these criminal events as they are occurring, let alone prevent them from commencing altogether.
As these events started occurring across the country, investigators quickly began combing through Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram seeking to identify potentially violent extremists, looters, and vandals and finding ways to charge them after — and in some cases before — they sow chaos. While this technique has alarmed civil liberties advocates, who argue the strategy could negatively impact online speech, law enforcement officials claim it aligns with investigation strategies employed in the past.
So, let me get this straight. First, we should blame social media -- and not police brutality and militarization -- for the cases where violence has broken out at a few protests. And the way to deal with violence organized on social media is to... hold the social media platforms liable rather than those that engaged in or encouraged the violence? Are these people for real?
Also, the full proposal goes way beyond what is described regarding violence at protests. This is what it says:
- Online platforms must establish and implement a reasonable program to identify and take down content which solicits criminal activity; and
- Online platforms must provide to law enforcement information which will assist in the identification and apprehension of persons who use the services of the platform to solicit and to engage in criminal activity; and
- An online platform that willfully or negligently fails in either of these duties is not immune from enforcement of state and local laws which impose criminal or civil liability for such failure.
The second prong has nothing to do with Section 230 and raises significant 4th Amendment concerns about when a website should have to hand over private information on someone without any warrant or judicial review. That should be frightening to everyone.
This entire proposal is horrifically authoritarian, and is questionable on both 1st and 4th Amendment grounds, but a bunch of cities are signing onto it because the proposal is extremely misleading about how the internet works, how Section 230 works, and what this all means. While I'm not sure that Congress really gives a shit what the League of California Cities has to say about Section 230, it's yet another way in which people from all over the place are attacking the law that made the internet, because they're mad that people they don't like are doing stuff they don't like.
Thankfully, at least one California city has rejected the proposal. Last night the city of Hayward rejected the proposal, despite it getting support from the local police chief and the city attorney who, I'm told, used the totally bogus "fire in a crowded theater" line, suggesting that was the law of the land (it's not) and other wrong and misleading cliches, including "freedom of speech isn't free." Thankfully, some on the city council (and the mayor) seemed to recognize that this was a dangerous, half-baked proposal and voted it down. I hope other cities do the same.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: california, cerritos, hayward, protests, section 230, violence
Companies: league of california cities
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A motion to dismiss is an easy way to dismiss a libel suit, so SLAPP isn't necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politics has descended into something driven by what is fashionable for politicians to try and do something about, and like all fashions has more to do with appearance than practicality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's always been like that.
Lately, things have become really weird. Almost as if a significant portion of the human population has gone insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the streak remains unbroken
Yet again those that would see 230 gutted if not outright removed show that even they know they're full of shit, because all they have are lies and dishonesty to make their arguments and try to get people to agree with them, with the only surprising/disappointing bit being that said lies have apparently duped a lot of gullible suckers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to banish friends while supposedly influencing people
Posturizing, the way SJW's try to get attention and attempt to shame everybody else to their way of thinking. Unfortunately, this has become the new norm for politicians who may or may not be SJW's. Even more unfortunately some succumb to the tactic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to banish friends while supposedly influencing people
Is there a quicker way to stop people taking you seriously than using the term 'SJW' to describe people you disagree with? It's certainly up there with 'As a libertarian, I think...', 'The free market will...' and 'the marketplace of ideas'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How to banish friends while supposedly influencing peopl
'Sheeple' might get that result quicker, but only just.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How to banish friends while supposedly influencing peopl
Not when those who follow the SJW path, to blame and shame without evidence, sometimes vehemently. I don't disagree with their ideals, necessarily, just their methods. It isn't war. It is society adjusting to the errors of their ways, more slowly than some wish, but that is their problem, not ours. To use warrior tactics is what makes them SJW's, they want to make their problem, ours, whether we deserve it or not. And as the speed at which society adjusts isn't our problem as we don't control society. They want to change minds faster than minds want to be changed. Some are going to take longer than others, so foisting some sentiments on the rest of us is...well abusive might be a bit strong, but not much.
I used to tell my manager trainees (there were many, and many very successful) that I wanted them to do something, anything, even if it is wrong (we could correct that later), but these days when politicians feel the need to do something, anything, even if it is wrong I have a different perspective. Correcting laws (even unconstitutional ones) is a lot more difficult than repairing the mistakes of a young manager trainee.
Like the SJW's use of blame and shame without evidence, the label may be inappropriately applied, as they apply their blame and shame without evidence, in some instances. In others it is perfectly justified. When someone says 'your racist' and you reply 'I'm not' and that is used as proof that you are because you didn't say 'I'm anti-racism', that is not a reasonable position, and therefore warrior tactics. It isn't the goal that is improper, it is the method.
Cards should be called by the suit they represent, not by some other name because it may have a different meaning in another context. The word 'master' has become anathema to some, especially in colleges where the title 'house master' was used as a title for the one in charge of a dorm. But because 'master' also had connotations of the owner of slaves it is now considered racist, to those who like to blame and shame without evidence. The certified Master Chef's of the world would like to disagree, along with many others.
But, then, what should we call them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m not going to get into the rest of your bullshit grievance pity party about how personally considerate language makes you angry enough to shit your diapers. But I do want to address the “master” bit that you’re taking wholly out of context.
And the key word is “context”, because it is in certain contexts that the word “master” is seen as racist. The master/slave dichotomy once hugely prevalent in tech and now being phased out in numerous tech circles is a good example of context in which “master“ carries a racist connotation. The solution lies in more personally considerate language that gets the same meaning across but lacks the racial implication (e.g., primary and secondary/replica/standby).
Other terms undergoing a similar reckoning — e.g., blackhat/whitehat, blacklist/whitelist — also carry racial implications, in that “black” is bad and “white” is good. (This goes beyond the tech world, too.) Their replacements also root themselves in personally considerate language (unethical/ethical; deny list/allow list). A nice upshot of such changes: They have a less jargon-y feel.
You can think whatever you want of such efforts, but they’re happening regardless of your opinions. The personal effort needed to make and recognize these changes is minimal, has no truly adverse effect on anybody, and helps move tech jargon into terms that anyone could understand. I fail to see how the move to terms with less cultural/sociopolitical baggage hurts you, so maybe consider why you’re complaining — and worry about what that reasoning says about you in this context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lot's of rhetoric, but you didn't answer the question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m not obligated to answer a bad faith question. You know it’s a bad faith question and demanding I answer it makes you a bad faith agitator. Now go play in the sandbox with the other toddlers while the adults have a conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Lot's of rhetoric, but you didn't answer the question."
You didn't present an honest question to answer. You just need a label to help people instead of addressing their concerns, it seems, and use that handy label to attack anyone who has other opinions you don't like as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What question, "what should we call them"? Get a thesaurus, look up "master", and pick something. If you don't like anything on that list, pick one of the synonyms and look up that words' synonyms. Repeat as necessary. It's not as though this is a difficult problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh hey, about that "context" thing you're so worked up about...
https://www.bbc.com/news/education-35659685
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you can’t see the possible racist connotations of the phrase “house masters” vis-á-vis slavery, I don’t know what to tell you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure I can see it. I just thought that PC was about politeness, not free association linking imaginary harms to hypothetical people. Especially since the term has nothing to do with slavery in this case.
"Harvard academics say that the word 'master' derives from the Latin term 'magister' - a form of address for scholars or teachers."
But my point was that AAC brought one very specific point in terms of the word "master". Then, when you called him out on context, you completely ignored the only context he specifically mentioned. Normally I'd call that dishonest, but I don't think that's accurate here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I just thought that PC was about politeness, not free association linking imaginary harms to hypothetical people."
Erm, slavery was imaginary harm not attacking actual people? I agree that the conditions in question are not present in the a modern university setting, but should terminology not be altered so as not to harken back to it just because you're not full on referring to some students with the n word?
"Harvard academics say that the word 'master' derives from the Latin term 'magister' - a form of address for scholars or teachers."
...and Negro is taken from the Spanish word for black, which can be applied to anything with that colour and is not specifically used to describe people in a derogatory manner in that language. That doesn't excuse it being used to describe members of the student body if the faculty decided to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m sure “whitelist” and “blacklist” have nothing to do with slavery, either, but they’re still being reconsidered (and in some instances, changed) in tech circles. The point isn’t whether the phrase can be justified in terms of its origins in the language — it’s whether the phrase can be justified in terms of its use amid the current reckoning over racial injustice. You can disagree with the move to replace it, but let’s not act like the racist implication of the phrase (however unintentional) can’t be seen.
Even if I didn’t address the exact example, I addressed the logic underpinning that part of his argument — specifically, the idea that a word or phrase can have racist implications in some contexts and lack those implications in another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"If you can’t see the possible racist connotations of the phrase “house masters” vis-á-vis slavery, I don’t know what to tell you."
I'd have to say that is taking it a bit far. Yeah, the old "master-slave" jargon of tech needs to go, and in most modern manuals today I already find references of "parent-child processes" instead.
But the term is dual use;
"Master's Degree".
"A master of their craft".
"Mastering a language or skill".
The word is - barely - in the same category as "boy" which, in the US specifically, should not be used to address a black man or child.
That said I don't see a problem renaming an obscure classical definition to something far more understandable in modern language, and there is a good litmus test for when a word should be removed from certain contexts, namely; Will this word, when used, consistently make a significant proportion of the people it is used on/by uncomfortable?.
If so it needs to be changed. Context is indeed important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I never once argued otherwise. My argument is that context determines the racial implications (if any) of a word or phrase. In the example cited, “house master” has a clear racial implication if you think about slavery for even a fraction of a second, but “Master’s degree” or “mastering [a given skill]” lack those implications because they’re not associated contextually with racism/slavery.
That is…actually a good litmus test, yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"That is…actually a good litmus test, yes."
It doesn't even have to be a significant number. Half the reason for "PC" culture is people re-examining the norms of a traditionally white, male, straight culture and realising that a lot of it is abusive and exclusive to people outside of those groups. I don't think it matters if only 10% of the population are directly offended by one terminology, if there's an alternate terminology to use that doesn't cause offence to anyone, then why not use that one instead?
Sometimes it does go a little far and some people will go out of their way to be offended for attention, but if there's genuine exclusion that can be fixed with minimal effort, then what's the problem in doing so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hence my preference for “personally considerate” where people mean “politically correct”. 😁
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"In the example cited, “house master” has a clear racial implication if you think about slavery for even a fraction of a second..."
In that example I'm in full agreement. But the example highlights, in my opinion, something else - namely how bad were things when in a given nation almost every higher seat of learning has statues, halls, or seals explicitly referencing people who got their jollies off by burning their fellow man alive for Being Uppity While Brown?
In Oxford and Cambridge it'd be a different story, mainly because the british had a thing about importing foreigners mainly to subject them to the aforementioned institutes and jolly well teach them how to be Good Little (Slightly Less Worthy) British, rather than whip, burn, mutilate and/or rape them. Still racist as fuck but at least the White Man's Burden didn't include abject servitude as a principle.
"That is…actually a good litmus test, yes."
And one which needs to be redesigned by geography and era. "Gay" to a 17th-century person would just be suspiciously happy. "Negro" was used by MLK as the then-contemporary politically correct term for an african-american.
It all boils down to how many times has the average member of minority X heard a racist or bigot use term Y as a slur?.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How to banish friends while supposedly influencing p
I'm partial to Neil Gaiman's suggestion that we replace "political correctness" with "treating other people with respect."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I prefer “personally considerate”. Forgot where I first saw that suggestion (it was probably Twitter), but it’s been in my personal lexicon ever since.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How to banish friends while supposedly influenci
When their go-to phrase is attacking people for wanting justice and equality in society, they probably need to step back a little bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How to banish friends while supposedly influ
Although, there are a lot people who have gone overboard in their quest for justice and equality. As with all fights to improve humanity, when you become a fanatic it's not about bettering humanity anymore - it's about winning the "fight", regardless of the "unfortunate" collateral damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Labeling them all with the same poorly-defined-on-purpose term doesn’t actually criticize their specific actions, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How to banish friends while supposedly i
"Although, there are a lot people who have gone overboard in their quest for justice and equality."
There certainly have. However, using an epithet to describe everybody interested in such things doesn't help, and indeed diminishes the original complaint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How to banish friends while supposed
Certainly, but that's why people use terms like that - to dismiss whole groups of people who have similar goals but go about it differently. I was just highlighting that some people actually deserve the epithet with its negative connotations.
Looking at the term SJW objectively, why would anyone not be a social justice warrior? I can only think of one type of people who would think that social justice is bad - and that's those who benefits from social injustice.
It's unfortunate that an epithet that should stand for something positive have acquired negative connotations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How to banish friends while supp
"Looking at the term SJW objectively, why would anyone not be a social justice warrior?"
Because it serves to marginalize rather than usefully empower. It's way, way easier for a politician with vested interests to disparage his opposition with a demeaning smirk and a "Well, as you know my adversary is a zealous 'Social Justice Warrior' eager to tilt at any windmill with spinning blades..." than it is to counter a question posed as "Isn't it true that civil liberties and human rights are very much suppressed for these minorities?".
The SJW term often serves to undermine everyone who actually pushes for reforms because it can mean; an aggrieved #MeToo member trying to abolish workplace sex abuse, a black councilman noting that black people are disproportionately murdered by law enforcement...or vice versa a nutjob who tries to finagle the system for some extra money and care or a misandrist "All men are Monsters" fanatic. When you fit the good and the bad under the same term, that term becomes a disparaging one.
It's possible to move that the other way, such as when early gay rights advocates took back the words "gay" and "queer". But that's only possible to do if you can't fit actual negative connotations under the word in question.
You will always be seen in the actions cast by the worst members of the community you are grouped with. That's just how it is. And that's why almost every time someone starts out by using the word "SJW" you just know it's someone putting social justice advocates under the same hat as misandrists and bigoted fanatics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How to banish friends while
There is a reason I used the term objectively, your post deals with the subjective meaning of SJW and all its connotations.
There's a distinct difference between objectively calling someone a social justice warrior which accurately describe what they do or what their goal is, or to use it subjectively for various personal reasons or prejudices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How to banish friends wh
"There is a reason I used the term objectively, your post deals with the subjective meaning of SJW and all its connotations."
...the phrase actually doesn't contain a single word which has a strict objective definition. It's not math or a physical formula, it's words which explicitly deal in completely subjective matters.
Social Justice Warrior thus means different things to different people. And unfortunately it's used far more disparaging than otherwise.
Compare it to the word "Negro" which in itself is similarly harmless...if it could be used objectively, which it can't, because that's not how language works.
That's why whenever someone uses the acronym "SJW" today the odds are very good it's been used as part of an attempt to disparage, in part or in full, the actual process of social egalitarianism. And does this effectively by mixing #MeToo and the basketcase misandrist puritan in the same concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How to banish friends while supposedly influencing p
Claims things are without evidence ... without evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How to banish friends while supposedly influencing p
What is an SJW? Some nebulous term used to disparage with no credence.
Is this like BLM or antifa? Or maybe liberal or socalist ... No one knows what it is but they absolutely know they hate everything about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How to banish friends while supposedly influenci
It's 'marxist' for people who never matured any further after hitting the age of 13 and have built their worldview around 4Chan posts and Sargon of Akkad videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How to banish friends while supposedly influenci
SJW - a disparaging condensation of "social Justice Warrior".
Usually implies that findings of bigotry against women, LGBTQ people and ethnicities are imaginary or inflated, and thus anyone saying that it probably isn't OK to call random women "ho's and bitches" is just some sort of messed-up snowflake who doesn't know how the real world works.
The people most eager to use the "SJW" epithet as a short answer to why someone shouldn't be listened to are all too often the sort of people outraged that copping a feel can't be answered with "Sheesh, get over it!" any more, or who are outraged over being...what was that word, ah, yes, "involuntary celibate"...because as everyone knows everyone is entitled to someone to have sex with.
/s as if that wasn't clear.
There are plenty of ways to describe struggles for equality. Usually anyone who deploys some three-letter acronym to disparage the whole phenomenon has personal reason to do so.
Even if it's just the lame old self-exculpation of;
"It's not my problem, I've done nothing wrong...except benefiting from and physically and fiscally supporting the people who DID do wrong. It's not up to ME to stop my employees from being assholes, it has to be up to the victims to do that. And if those victims dare complain about me enjoying the benefits of that skewed society and looking the other way surely THEY must be the bad guys. It's not my fault the cops my taxes pay for took a knee on some black guys throat or that the people I vote for extort women for sex!.
This is the problem. When unequal treatment is so rooted in society it's become part of society, EVERYONE has the obligation to somehow address that situation when they find it. That's part of the social contract. If enough people refuse to do their part then that's it for that society, because if none of your neighbors care about the state of the neighborhood then why should you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How to banish friends while supposedly influencing p
"It is society adjusting to the errors of their ways, more slowly than some wish, but that is their problem, not ours. To use warrior tactics is what makes them SJW's, they want to make their problem, ours, whether we deserve it or not."
You know how we can tell it's a bad faith argument you're carrying there, sport?
The primary reason the US is currently on fire has a whole lot to do with all too many people saying "Not my problem".
You are an american. You benefit from the system and society in its current form. That system and society practices widespread bigotry.
Now, drink this in slowly; When your employees (law enforcement, other civil servants, and politicians) misbehave, guess who shares the blame? You fucking do, because in the end they're your employees and are running rampant because you couldn't be arsed to help tell them no. THAT is the flip side of Taxation with Representation. If you are born in any nation which counts your vote and has a charter saying something like "We The People..." then you have one job. Sitting still and whining that it's not your problem isn't it.
Because once shit goes far enough and people hit the streets in anger because your employees weren't supervised and told to be better by their employers - and that includes you - you will certainly be paying for that failure along with everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's like, you know: "I really don't like ugly shirts... so let's go have pancakes!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm
If this would get Trump's facebook and Twitter accounts shut down for ... checks notes:
Who am I kidding, even if this resulted in changes to 230, the current administration would continue to break the law while punishing any civilians who tried to talk back (which is what this is really about... SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO WHAT I HAVE TO SAY, AND I DON'T CARE TO HEAR ANYTHING FROM YOU...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What would happen, IF'
Lets say we create it so that Any/All content that is put up, has to be edited by those groups responsible for Editing and restricting it.
JOBS, LOTS of jobs. Not really, as they would automate it to death/derth.
What would not be edited? What could anyone say in a forum or chat, that would not offend Anyone?
Porn sites DOWN.
Any movie sites DOWN.
Any site that critic's any thing, DOWN.
Music sites DOWN.
HULU down.
Science sites Down.
How do you decide Which groups WILL decide what to leave up?
truth, facts, opinions, Falsehoods? we have no rules to keep any of this up.
Example:
For all the words use for 4. quad, tetrad, four, 4, IV, tetrad, quatern, quaternion, quaternary, quaternity, quartet, quadruplet, foursome, on and on.
1 group will complain that a word isnt English, and they dont like it. try to explain that its still 4.
There is no Laws for Facts, truths, Proof, or anything similar. There are no Laws against Complete and utter falsehoods, as most can be considered OPINION. And part of the reasoning that most laws are based on AFTER the fact creation.
Until you create laws/regs for Facts or fictions, there is only opinion. And you cant Stop someone from having one of those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In a few years time we will have filters, anything big companys own like tv ,music ,video will be listed and have a digital code on it.
at least in europe anything that is not on the list will probably be blocked,
since theres easy no way to filter millions of audio,video file uploaded in real time
sites like spotify ,hulu, music websites will be fine as most of their content
is sourced by big corporations .
to upload music to spotify you need to have a content and agree any music you upload is your own creation or is legally licensed from the ip holder.
even youtube could not afford to check all content before it s uploaded.
its bots check video,s to make sure they are not owned by music ,tv or film companys .
And it has a dmca system in place to remove content or give the revenue to the creator .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Its very unlikely there will be any filters atleast any that work and a digital code will not work and its very unlikely anything that is not on the list will probably be blocked.
Most laws like the EU copyright law is likely to be taken down in court way before anything you said will happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]