We saw the case where Google was told by France and Canadato censor and not censor search results simultaneously. Likewise, we wouldnt like Russia or Saudi Arabia to tell companies to censor gay parades or political dissenters worldwide.
The internet is worldwide, but laws are territorial. International treaties could be an option, but as already said, authoritarian countries are well represented in the United Nations. On the other hand, multistakeholder organizations usually have an overrepresentation of corporations.
The European Union's GDPR has good points and bad points. It certainly has the power of law. It certainly protects privacy, even of politicians who should be transparent.
I agree with Mike that deleting Trump's tweets would be a tertible idea, and that fighting speech with speech was an excellent decision by Twitter.
Now, I disagree with nearly everything that Trump says. However, I do think that mail voting isn't fail safe. There's no way to guaranteethat a mail vote was sent by the person who is supposed to, just like with internet voting.
These carriage conflicts and fees happen to major local stations and sports channels for a very clear reason: those channels are the most desired and most expensive ones.
Of course companies shouldn't charge fees for channels they don't offer. Of course the advertised cost should include all fees.
Yet, its good that companies show the cost of specific channels (especially the expensive ones), as this case shows.
These conglomerates search quick profit from clickbait headlines. They spread the disinformation that comes from the far right, because it gets larger audiences that moderate, reasonable pieces.
"the service didn't really offer users what they really wanted (just a streaming version of ESPN's core channel) unless you subscribe to traditional cable"
On the post: We Shouldn't Call Michelle Obama's (And Joe Rogan's) Proprietary Exclusive Audio From Spotify A 'Podcast' Any More
Dear Mike, podcasts are called so because of the iPod, whose integration with iTunes popularized the format. So your rant is 15 years late.
On the post: I'd Bet Ted Cruz Will Start Supporting Section 230 Once He Realizes He's On The Hook For Parler's Legal Expenses
Excuse my lack of understanding. Are you sure that Section 230 protects website users? I thought that it protected websites from users, not viceversa.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Brandenburg and Miller cases
Oh America, the land where obscenity is not protected as free speech, but calling to violence is protected as free speech except if it's imminent.
On the post: Senator Loeffler's New Section 230 Reform Bill Would Threaten Encryption And Pressure Websites To Keep Spam & Porn
Requiring "viewpoint-neutral" moderation is restricting the freedom of speech.
On the post: Mixer Shuts Down, Showing Again Why You Don't Need To Freak Out By Copycat Competitors
Re:
YouTube is not the only video website, but it does have a huge market share.
On the post: No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias
I'm sure that if any other president wrote tweets glorifying violence or misinforming, Twitter would fact check them too.
On the post: Local Broadcasters Forget Journalism Ethics, Air Amazon PR Fluff Instead
Re: Corporations, shareholders, and public companies
Shareholders get representation at the company's board. They can certainly decide what the company does or doesn't.
On the post: Local Broadcasters Forget Journalism Ethics, Air Amazon PR Fluff Instead
Re:
No need to buy journalists, they do it at no extra charge.
On the post: When The Problem Isn't Twitter But President Trump
Re: Journalism vs. Reporting
Journalism has become entertainment. The term "newsworthy" has lost any meaning.
On the post: In Search Of A Grand Unified Theory Of Free Expression And Privacy
We saw the case where Google was told by France and Canadato censor and not censor search results simultaneously. Likewise, we wouldnt like Russia or Saudi Arabia to tell companies to censor gay parades or political dissenters worldwide.
The internet is worldwide, but laws are territorial. International treaties could be an option, but as already said, authoritarian countries are well represented in the United Nations. On the other hand, multistakeholder organizations usually have an overrepresentation of corporations.
The European Union's GDPR has good points and bad points. It certainly has the power of law. It certainly protects privacy, even of politicians who should be transparent.
On the post: Trump, Twitter, And Free Speech
I agree with Mike that deleting Trump's tweets would be a tertible idea, and that fighting speech with speech was an excellent decision by Twitter.
Now, I disagree with nearly everything that Trump says. However, I do think that mail voting isn't fail safe. There's no way to guaranteethat a mail vote was sent by the person who is supposed to, just like with internet voting.
On the post: Say It With Me Now, Australia: Beer And Wine Are Not The Same Thing, Not Even For Trademarks
I disagree with the article's opinion. The point isn't confusion between wine and beer, but between the manufacturers of wine and beer.
Companies like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, AB InBev, Heineken, Diageo, Pernod-Ricard, Suntory and Asahi. They produce a wide range of beverages.
Therefore if a customer sees Wine Drop and Beer Drop, or Wildcat Beer and Wildcat Vodka, they may assume that both products are from the same company.
On the post: DirectTV Forgot To Stop Charging Customers For Channels That Were Blacked Out
These carriage conflicts and fees happen to major local stations and sports channels for a very clear reason: those channels are the most desired and most expensive ones.
Of course companies shouldn't charge fees for channels they don't offer. Of course the advertised cost should include all fees.
Yet, its good that companies show the cost of specific channels (especially the expensive ones), as this case shows.
On the post: Sony Using Copyright To Take Down Its Own Anti-Piracy Propaganda
In the good old days, organizations freely distributed propaganda to reach the masses.
Now they only let you see propaganda if you sign up and pay a subscription.
On the post: The Splinters Of Our Discontent: A Review Of Network Propaganda
Re: You played yourself.
These conglomerates search quick profit from clickbait headlines. They spread the disinformation that comes from the far right, because it gets larger audiences that moderate, reasonable pieces.
On the post: The 'Choose Your Own Adventure' People Are Suing Netflix Over 'Bandersnatch'
On the post: Our Bipolar Free-Speech Disorder And How To Fix It (Part 3)
On the post: ESPN Has Lost 14 Million Viewers In 7 Years Thanks To Cord Cutting
Re: time and value
Sling Orange costs US$ 25 per month.
On the post: US Has Some Of The Most Expensive Mobile Data Prices In The Developed World
Re: Is there anything wrong about it?
On the contrary, local companies can deploy local networks in remote areas. That's what roaming was invented for.
On the post: Confused Swedish Ad Board Says 'Distracted Boyfriend Meme' Is Sexist
The guy in the meme is sexist, not the author.
It's like saying that Ryan Reynolds is a murderer. No, the murderer is Deadpool.
Next >>