So apparently in troll-land, running a repressive Islamist theocracy that's attempting to develop nuclear weapons is "doing nothing [wrong]" and "no threat to us."
For him to now whine about an attempt to use the same mechanisms to include the "protective" elements for user-rights and free speech in the form of the safe harbors of the DMCA is particularly bold.
You're right to put "protective" in scare quotes here. Calling the DMCA takedown rule a "safe harbor" is an Orwellian abuse of the language. What it is is a tool for extortion, which is abused in essentially every case in which it is used. (Over 99.9% by some metrics!)
As I've said before, the only copyright policy which actually makes sense is diametrically opposed to the way the DMCA handles it:
Infringement is the copyright owner's problem. It is not my problem, and they have no right to try to make it my problem until after they have proven, in a court of law, that I am part of the problem. If that makes things more difficult for them... not my problem.
We need to push back, to get the DMCA repealed and replaced with something sane, so that people like this stop using it as a foundation upon which to build even bigger abominations. (And before anyone says "but the DMCA is a US law and we're talking about European law," keep in mind that the US law has given them a precedent to point to in order to get bad laws passed elsewhere in the world.)
I don't have the actual date on hand, but it was more than 6 years ago that someone brought up Facebook's nascent privacy issues to Mark Zuckerberg. He sneered at the concept and said that "privacy means whatever I say it means" (paraphrased) and that real users don't actually care about privacy.
That was the day I stopped using Facebook for any purpose where a real alternative exists.
Something bad happens to someone. The usual suspects immediately say it must be lupus. More (and more clear) data becomes available, and it turns out it wasn't lupus afterall. It's essentially never actually lupus.
How much does it really matter what "most people working there" believe? What's truly relevant--as a general principle for any sizable organization, not just this one--is the character of the people at the top. And as you put it, "it would be a mistake to believe" that the people running Facebook aren't willfully malicious.
If the company had just been upfront, honest and transparent about what it was doing, none of this would be an issue. The fact that it chose to be sneaky and misleading about it shows that it knew its actions would upset users.
The second sentence directly contradicts the first. If they're doing things that they know will upset users, then it would be an issue if the users knew about it, which is why Facebook chose to be sneaky and evasive instead.
The real problem is the blatant privacy-violating they engaged in. Compared to that, trying to hide it is a much smaller offense IMO.
Then they need to tell their elected representatives where their priorities lie. As time goes by it's getting harder and harder to straddle the fence on these issues.
As I've said before, the only policy that makes any sense at all in this area is the following:
Infringement is the copyright owner's problem. It is not my problem, and they have no right to try to make it my problem until after they have proven, in a court of law, that I am part of the problem. If that makes things more difficult for them... not my problem.
Any lawyers in the house? I'm curious as to how valid it would be to put something like the following in your site, that users have to read and acknowledge as part of the sign-up process?
Limited Jurisdiction
[Site name here] is a US company that has no international assets. It does not run any servers outside of the United States, nor does it accept payment in any currency other than US Dollars. You acknowledge, in light of this, that only the United States has legal jurisdiction over [site name here], and agree to waive any applicable rights that may be conveyed by foreign laws or regulations which are not recognized by US law.
Once again, this is why we need to expand on the SHIELD Act--the US law that protects US entities from liability in foreign defamation cases that would not meet the USA's standard of defamation--or pass another, similar law, to cover foreign censorship as well.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, ... and that to secure these rights [ie. to defend them from those who would infringe upon them] governments are instituted among men."
In other words, yes, this is literally the whole purpose why governments exist, according to American political philosophy: to protect the rights of the people.
the First Amendment bars the Government from restricting the editorial discretion of Internet service providers.
Common sense bars the Government for recognizing that "the editorial discretion of Internet service providers" is a real thing that exists in the first place.
The state's interpretation is facially absurd here. A wiretap, by the very nature of the word, requires two specific things: a "wire" (a device creating a communications channel between two or more individuals that provides an expectation of privacy) and a "tap" (a device that breaks the privacy afforded by the wire). Even if we say (as we should!) that the wire should not be understood only as a literal length of wire, when there is nothing at all creating a private communications channel, then there's no way to violate that nonexistent privacy.
...except when such protection is directly in conflict with the big internet company's ability to silence them, in which case censorship trumps the protection of individuals' ability to speak. And that's problematic.
This whole thing felt like a bit of an echo chamber. When Jerry Johnson said (paraphrasing) "yeah, I agree with y'all that we don't want any regulation, we don't want antitrust or consumer protection laws coming into effect here and we don't want to break up any monopolies" I cringed a little. Because it really feels like that's exactly what is needed lately, and nobody wanted to present that side of things. We had Eric (I think) saying we need more competition, but unwilling to even mention how you get that in a world of natural monopolies, which the Network Effect will inevitably give rise to.
He said he looks forward to a world ten years from now that doesn't look like the one we have today with the Internet dominated by a handful of companies. Well, in the real world, we have two choices: enforce the laws we have against monopolies, or end up with the Internet dominated by a handful of companies. Maybe not the same ones we have today, but... there's a reason the phrase "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" exists. If we want competition, we need to apply a force more powerful than the Network Effect. It really is that simple.
Re: "Predatory publication" or "pay-for-play publication"?
Given that the nature of pay-for-play publication is in direct opposition to the principle of Yog's Law, it seems quite reasonable to call them predatory.
The more I read from you, I really get the impression that your hate-on for cops doesn't stem from the frequent overreach of law enforcement, but rather you don't just like the idea of having to obey laws and rules at all.
That's kind of implicit in the blatant Libertarian ideology he makes no attempt to conceal. That's the very core of what Libertarianism is: "I don't want to and you can't make me!" It's the "philosophy" of the five-year-old dressed up in sophisticated words to make it appear more palatable to adults capable of moral reasoning.
On the post: Both Things Are True: Press Freakouts Over Facebook's Practices Have Been Misleading & Facebook Has A Privacy Problem
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Slack Banning Random Iranian Ex-Pats Shows Why Making Tech Companies Police The Internet Is Crazy Stupid
Re: Are you for sanctions on Iran?
This has to be the most insane post yet...
On the post: Both Things Are True: Press Freakouts Over Facebook's Practices Have Been Misleading & Facebook Has A Privacy Problem
Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Industry Lobbyists Can't Even Get Their Story Straight On Article 13: Does It Expand Copyright Or Keep It The Same?
You're right to put "protective" in scare quotes here. Calling the DMCA takedown rule a "safe harbor" is an Orwellian abuse of the language. What it is is a tool for extortion, which is abused in essentially every case in which it is used. (Over 99.9% by some metrics!)
As I've said before, the only copyright policy which actually makes sense is diametrically opposed to the way the DMCA handles it:
We need to push back, to get the DMCA repealed and replaced with something sane, so that people like this stop using it as a foundation upon which to build even bigger abominations. (And before anyone says "but the DMCA is a US law and we're talking about European law," keep in mind that the US law has given them a precedent to point to in order to get bad laws passed elsewhere in the world.)
On the post: Both Things Are True: Press Freakouts Over Facebook's Practices Have Been Misleading & Facebook Has A Privacy Problem
That was the day I stopped using Facebook for any purpose where a real alternative exists.
On the post: Slack Banning Random Iranian Ex-Pats Shows Why Making Tech Companies Police The Internet Is Crazy Stupid
Ever watch House?
The usual suspects immediately say it must be lupus.
More (and more clear) data becomes available, and it turns out it wasn't lupus afterall.
It's essentially never actually lupus.
Racism in America is a lot like lupus on House.
On the post: Facebook's Latest Privacy Screwup Shows How Facebook's Worst Enemy Is Still Facebook
Re: Re:
On the post: Facebook's Latest Privacy Screwup Shows How Facebook's Worst Enemy Is Still Facebook
The second sentence directly contradicts the first. If they're doing things that they know will upset users, then it would be an issue if the users knew about it, which is why Facebook chose to be sneaky and evasive instead.
The real problem is the blatant privacy-violating they engaged in. Compared to that, trying to hide it is a much smaller offense IMO.
On the post: Game Developer Admits It Filed Bogus Copyright Claims, But Says It Had No Other Way To Silence A Critic
It's important to note that this is not a legal process. It's an extralegal process, which is the root of the majority of the problems with it.
On the post: YouTube's $100 Million Upload Filter Failures Demonstrate What A Disaster Article 13 Will Be For The Internet
Re: Re: Your Missing the point
On the post: YouTube's $100 Million Upload Filter Failures Demonstrate What A Disaster Article 13 Will Be For The Internet
As I've said before, the only policy that makes any sense at all in this area is the following:
Infringement is the copyright owner's problem. It is not my problem, and they have no right to try to make it my problem until after they have proven, in a court of law, that I am part of the problem. If that makes things more difficult for them... not my problem.
On the post: Mystery Lobbying Group Using Huawei Security Hysteria To Target Sprint, T-Mobile Merger
Re:
On the post: If You're Worried About Bad EU Internet Regulation, Just Wait Until You See The New Terrorist Regulation
Re:
Any lawyers in the house? I'm curious as to how valid it would be to put something like the following in your site, that users have to read and acknowledge as part of the sign-up process?
On the post: If You're Worried About Bad EU Internet Regulation, Just Wait Until You See The New Terrorist Regulation
On the post: Big Telecom Claims Oversight & Accountability Violates Its First Amendment Rights
Re: Re:
In other words, yes, this is literally the whole purpose why governments exist, according to American political philosophy: to protect the rights of the people.
On the post: Big Telecom Claims Oversight & Accountability Violates Its First Amendment Rights
Common sense bars the Government for recognizing that "the editorial discretion of Internet service providers" is a real thing that exists in the first place.
On the post: Federal Court Says Massachusetts' Wiretap Law Can't Be Used To Arrest People For Recording Public Officials
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 192: Section 230 And Political Bias
Re: Re:
...except when such protection is directly in conflict with the big internet company's ability to silence them, in which case censorship trumps the protection of individuals' ability to speak. And that's problematic.
This whole thing felt like a bit of an echo chamber. When Jerry Johnson said (paraphrasing) "yeah, I agree with y'all that we don't want any regulation, we don't want antitrust or consumer protection laws coming into effect here and we don't want to break up any monopolies" I cringed a little. Because it really feels like that's exactly what is needed lately, and nobody wanted to present that side of things. We had Eric (I think) saying we need more competition, but unwilling to even mention how you get that in a world of natural monopolies, which the Network Effect will inevitably give rise to.
He said he looks forward to a world ten years from now that doesn't look like the one we have today with the Internet dominated by a handful of companies. Well, in the real world, we have two choices: enforce the laws we have against monopolies, or end up with the Internet dominated by a handful of companies. Maybe not the same ones we have today, but... there's a reason the phrase "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" exists. If we want competition, we need to apply a force more powerful than the Network Effect. It really is that simple.
On the post: School Boots Professor Off Campus After He Exposes Its Complicity In Predatory Publishing Schemes
Re: "Predatory publication" or "pay-for-play publication"?
On the post: When Not Hiding Cameras In Traffic Barrels And Streetlights, The DEA Is Shoving Them Into... Vacuums?
Re: Best Solution
That's kind of implicit in the blatant Libertarian ideology he makes no attempt to conceal. That's the very core of what Libertarianism is: "I don't want to and you can't make me!" It's the "philosophy" of the five-year-old dressed up in sophisticated words to make it appear more palatable to adults capable of moral reasoning.
Next >>