This is the most insane form of "you should write exactly what i think" that i have ever seen. Also, pretty sure your agenda is showing. You need attacks, do you? Hollywood and a lot of other things are bad enough, but you need all this to be, let's see... a worldwide conspiracy of ____. (Fill in the blank, why don't you).
Re: Re: You were arguing big sites have TOO MUCH to check, remember?
The other thing is that the scale of this law and it's actual effects is insanely out of proportion to forced sex trafficking and any effect the law could have in decreasing it.
And yeah, Facebook or any big platform are going to have problems, for sure. But just like any other large corporation, they are easily survivable for them, unlike the situation for smaller outfits, incoming platforms, individuals, or those using the big incumbent platforms. No cases or fines, or even endless strings of them, will ever cost teh Goog, Failbook, Twits, or Yoyosoft and their ilk anything remotely approaching a damaging amount of money.
Lawyers turn down bad cases all the time. It's the ones who will make money no matter what who will entertain these idiotic actions on behalf of the wealthy.
I notice you didn't mention the ten million other things that happen every day that techdirt failed to repeat on the site. __What is your agenda for not mentioning them?__
Don't/can't/won't monitor is also completely beside the point. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't, when someone chooses you for application of the law. Given your apparent concern about Weinstein, you might want to keep an eye on the sorts of places that report the things you like, for when someone decides something they said, or a commenter said, which "facilitates sex trafficking", or someone purposely plants items there which do.
The law is completely unnecessary, and very poorly worded even for one of those extraneous "we're doing something" laws.
It may be that we aren't allowed to have opinions regarding the behavior of one side or another (usually seems dependent on who the sides are, or whether someone can just randomly claim something as hypocrisy by ignoring pretty much everything besides some A/B switch in their head). Some people can't manage the concept that we might recognize or defend one's right to speech, but agree or disagree with it, or note that it is a good or bad idea. Arguing against it is some kind of infringement in their eyes.
It's a double standard for anyone to criticize Disney for criticizing the Times. It's pretty clear whose speech is the only speech which should be protected*, for some reason.
*In this case, "protected": Accept their, and only their, actions and speech and shut up.
At least they seemed to apologize and back off, although one never knows if that is simply a post-getting-what-they-wanted manoeuver.
The Brexit seems strong in that village, though. (Or mayyyybe the Mail is selective in their choice of quotes. Or both.) I hope they aren't surprised to find out that the EU is hardly unique in regards to "regulations", and possibly take note that the EU did not threaten them, but an entirely UK company, VUR Village Trading No 1 Limited (who parent / holding companies are also UK), did.
It's frightening that random jokes about the overly suspicious members of the species turn out to be prodding a truth. It's already bad enough that you can become suspect for knowing how to do ... things! With stuff!
Considering that pretty much everything is partisan or controversial to someone, how the hell is this supposed to work? The mere existence of some people or media outlets is seen as partisan and controversial.
Springer is totally a paywall operator, absolutely. With other people's work. I don't see that and government censorship as being in the same domain, even if the effects end up being somewhat equivalent. But China has censorship on top of all the other issues, not in their stead.
Springer chose to comply with a request. Cambridge did also, but rethought their action. Springer is far bigger. If the Chinese government literally censored specific URLs for those papers, it would be another matter. One might also be a bit more generous towards Springer if it wasn't already kind of horrible in other respects, as well.
Allowing every State and locality to chart its own course for regulating broadband is a recipe for disaster. It would impose localized and likely inconsistent burdens on an inherently interstate service,
Easily solved. Stop using subscriber information for anything other than sending a bill. You won't run afoul of anything.
It also seems like a result of laziness yet again. Why not just go to people at the company of interest and interview them? But as with encryption, they would complain that anonymity is "going dark" all the while there is generally more information available than there used to be. "But we need every last single bit of everything!"
Here's a thought: Let the Feds themselves take anonymous info from anyone who wants to volunteer potential evidence of wrongdoing (aka "whistleblowing"), and take it seriously. I am sure they would have plenty of grist for their mill. (And then the whistleblowers can have FBI-style informant anonymity protection.)
On the post: David Boies Accused Of Running Horrifying Spy Operation Against Harvey Weinstein's Accusers
Re: Hat tip to ME! But where did ol' Harve go?
This is the most insane form of "you should write exactly what i think" that i have ever seen. Also, pretty sure your agenda is showing. You need attacks, do you? Hollywood and a lot of other things are bad enough, but you need all this to be, let's see... a worldwide conspiracy of ____. (Fill in the blank, why don't you).
On the post: Will Sheryl Sandberg And Facebook Help Small Websites Threatened By SESTA?
Re: Re: You were arguing big sites have TOO MUCH to check, remember?
And yeah, Facebook or any big platform are going to have problems, for sure. But just like any other large corporation, they are easily survivable for them, unlike the situation for smaller outfits, incoming platforms, individuals, or those using the big incumbent platforms. No cases or fines, or even endless strings of them, will ever cost teh Goog, Failbook, Twits, or Yoyosoft and their ilk anything remotely approaching a damaging amount of money.
On the post: Taylor Swift's Legal Rep Tries To Kill Critical Blog Post With Bogus Defamation, Copyright Claims
On the post: Taylor Swift's Legal Rep Tries To Kill Critical Blog Post With Bogus Defamation, Copyright Claims
Re: Re: Lawyers
On the post: Dear Senators Portman & Blumenthal: What Should Blogs Do If SESTA Passes?
Re: All bloggers are DOOMED! DOOMED, I tells ya!
Don't/can't/won't monitor is also completely beside the point. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't, when someone chooses you for application of the law. Given your apparent concern about Weinstein, you might want to keep an eye on the sorts of places that report the things you like, for when someone decides something they said, or a commenter said, which "facilitates sex trafficking", or someone purposely plants items there which do.
The law is completely unnecessary, and very poorly worded even for one of those extraneous "we're doing something" laws.
On the post: Dear Senators Portman & Blumenthal: What Should Blogs Do If SESTA Passes?
Re: Re: Maybe we should start working on reclaiming the word 'law'.
On the post: Disney Bans LA Times Writers From Advance Screenings In Response To Negative Articles
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a double standard for anyone to criticize Disney for criticizing the Times. It's pretty clear whose speech is the only speech which should be protected*, for some reason.
*In this case, "protected": Accept their, and only their, actions and speech and shut up.
On the post: Cop Loses Immunity After Shooting, Headstomping Gravely-Injured Suspect
Re:
On the post: Village Hotels Bullies Small Pub Into Changing Its Name By Brandishing Its 'Village' Trademark
The Brexit seems strong in that village, though. (Or mayyyybe the Mail is selective in their choice of quotes. Or both.) I hope they aren't surprised to find out that the EU is hardly unique in regards to "regulations", and possibly take note that the EU did not threaten them, but an entirely UK company, VUR Village Trading No 1 Limited (who parent / holding companies are also UK), did.
The whole thing is sadly idiotic.
On the post: Village Hotels Bullies Small Pub Into Changing Its Name By Brandishing Its 'Village' Trademark
Re:
On the post: UK Terrorism Law Used To Prosecute Actual Terrorist Fighter For Possessing A Copy Of 'The Anarchist Cookbook'
Re: Re: Re: Ability != Intent
On the post: ESPN Joins List Of Companies Enforcing Stringent Social Media Policies, Which Is Both Bad And Stupid
Re: Re: Re: Re: Way off base
I'm curious what these these sportsball yapping-heads talk about on ESPN that is related to Trump or foreign policy. This happens?
On the post: ESPN Joins List Of Companies Enforcing Stringent Social Media Policies, Which Is Both Bad And Stupid
On the post: Competition Dodges A Bullet As T-Mobile, Sprint Merger Dies
On the post: UK Terrorism Law Used To Prosecute Actual Terrorist Fighter For Possessing A Copy Of 'The Anarchist Cookbook'
Re: Ability != Intent
On the post: UK Terrorism Law Used To Prosecute Actual Terrorist Fighter For Possessing A Copy Of 'The Anarchist Cookbook'
Re: Young people that read are scary
On the post: Top Academic Publisher Kowtows To China: Censors Thousands Of Papers, Denies It Is Censorship
Re: and??
Springer is totally a paywall operator, absolutely. With other people's work. I don't see that and government censorship as being in the same domain, even if the effects end up being somewhat equivalent. But China has censorship on top of all the other issues, not in their stead.
On the post: Top Academic Publisher Kowtows To China: Censors Thousands Of Papers, Denies It Is Censorship
Re:
On the post: Comcast Urges FCC To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Privacy, Net Neutrality
Allowing every State and locality to chart its own course for regulating broadband is a recipe for disaster. It would impose localized and likely inconsistent burdens on an inherently interstate service,
Easily solved. Stop using subscriber information for anything other than sending a bill. You won't run afoul of anything.
would drive up costs,
Bullshit.
On the post: The Case Of Glassdoor And The Grand Jury Subpoena, And How Courts Are Messing With Online Speech In Secret
Here's a thought: Let the Feds themselves take anonymous info from anyone who wants to volunteer potential evidence of wrongdoing (aka "whistleblowing"), and take it seriously. I am sure they would have plenty of grist for their mill. (And then the whistleblowers can have FBI-style informant anonymity protection.)
Yeah. Naaahhhh.
Next >>