"such a defeat of copyright maximalist proposals is practically unprecedented, perhaps with the exception of SOPA/PIPA."
Actually, no. There are other examples of victories. In Canada, we've had three successive wins against some brutal copyright laws. The first was the copyright laws proposed by the Liberal Paul Martin majority government. The second was the copyright proposal during the Paul Martin minority government. The third was the proposal by the Stephen Harper Conservative minority government. During Stephen Harper's majority government, there was a "compromise" that was passed that only permitted a few of the nasty proposals (anti-circumvention laws). I know, I helped fight all these and it's what brought me into tech journalism in the first place more than a decade ago.
Definitely some interesting times back then, though!
As I point out in my own coverage (https://www.freezenet.ca/top-eu-court-rules-isds-laws-trade-agreements-illegal/ ) This is an EU court ruling. It only impacts trade agreements with European members. To my knowledge, the TPP doesn't have a member. However, there are other trade agreements like CETA that this will definitely have a direct impact on.
In short, as long as a trade agreement has European members, then the ISDS provisions are seemingly neutered (barring further rulings in other countries of course)
Personally, I was always a supporter of the concept of using Facebook... but as part of a broader approach to promoting what your site has to offer. To simply focus on any one site like Facebook is simply putting all of your eggs in one basket (re: bad idea). If Facebook is your biggest driver of traffic, then the worst case scenario you should have is that it's going to hurt your traffic a fair bit. You should already be on other sites anyway, so it should be a case of shifting your focus if your intention is to "make it big" on social media (good luck with all the paid power users already dominating a vast majority of them).
I'm thinking a lot of the complaining is just coming from sites that can easily afford to take a hit and it's more just about watching a source of traffic get squeezed and freaking out over it.
I think a lot of the direction for where comments go has to do with on-site moderation at times. Enforce things like no flaming rules and ban some of the nuisance individuals and you'll have the better commenters float to the surface. Leave it as an almost "anything goes" and you have a pretty solid chance that you'll pick up a growing pool of trolls.
The content can also play a role in it as well. If there are constantly posts needlessly attacking decent people, then that can attract like-minded trolls and a site runs the risk of being a cesspool.
Not saying these are hard and fast rules, but there are small things that can influence the kind of comments you see in a given website.
All it costs if 500 rupees to gain access to the database and an additional 300 rupees to print the cards, so really, the only thing stopping you is a couple of clay pots and getting in contact with whoever was selling that access on WhatsApp, really.
I have my own thoughts on the matter. One point I've made is the fact that, even if you support the idea of stamping out fake news, the judicial oversight being floated will always be playing catchup because there is going to be a lag between when a story is published and when a complaint is processed. That window of time between allows the "fake news" to be spread.
That's just one of the many thoughts I have on this.
There are a lot of technical hurdles this proposal doesn't address that I can see. It's interesting that Mike was able to at least touch on a few of them towards the end of his piece.
Well, McSweeney laid out her case, feel free to lay out your counterpoint. Please, explain how federal court cases, with the appeals process taken into account, are so instantaneous.
The FTC will not protect the open Internet. They lack the skills and capabilities. This is not a theoretical argument. FTC commissioner Terrel McSweeney herself made those remarks (along with some pretty detailed examples and explanations I might add). This is coming straight from the horses mouth IMO. If that doesn't say the FTC is hardly capable of supporting the open Internet, not much will.
One of the arguments for repealing network neutrality I've heard is that because Twitter took down hate comments, they cannot speak about network neutrality because they are hypocrites on the subject. It's as if to say that taking down comments that violate website policy is somehow the same as wiping out entire websites off the face of the Internet because an ISP thought they could increase their profits is somehow the same things. Not exactly the same issue as far as I'm concerned.
Awfully big of you to admit to something like this. I can only imagine the thought process going through your mind the moment you realized that maybe you need to have some second thoughts on this whole network neutrality business. Can't imagine this being the worlds easiest thing to do.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Drew_Wilson.
Not Unprecedented
Actually, no. There are other examples of victories. In Canada, we've had three successive wins against some brutal copyright laws. The first was the copyright laws proposed by the Liberal Paul Martin majority government. The second was the copyright proposal during the Paul Martin minority government. The third was the proposal by the Stephen Harper Conservative minority government. During Stephen Harper's majority government, there was a "compromise" that was passed that only permitted a few of the nasty proposals (anti-circumvention laws). I know, I helped fight all these and it's what brought me into tech journalism in the first place more than a decade ago.
Definitely some interesting times back then, though!
Re:
In short, as long as a trade agreement has European members, then the ISDS provisions are seemingly neutered (barring further rulings in other countries of course)
Re:
(untitled comment)
I'm thinking a lot of the complaining is just coming from sites that can easily afford to take a hit and it's more just about watching a source of traffic get squeezed and freaking out over it.
Re: Re:
Re:
The content can also play a role in it as well. If there are constantly posts needlessly attacking decent people, then that can attract like-minded trolls and a site runs the risk of being a cesspool.
Not saying these are hard and fast rules, but there are small things that can influence the kind of comments you see in a given website.
Re: Re: They Want to Jail The Reporter
They Want to Jail The Reporter
Methinks someone at the UIDAI is embarrassed right now.
My Thoughts On This
That's just one of the many thoughts I have on this.
There are a lot of technical hurdles this proposal doesn't address that I can see. It's interesting that Mike was able to at least touch on a few of them towards the end of his piece.
The Book Is Getting Published Early
Looks like the publisher laughed at the lawsuit and moved up the publication date by four days in response to the threat. source
Rage tweeting in 3... 2... 1...
Re: Re: Another Nail in the "FTC Will Save Us" Coffin
Another Nail in the "FTC Will Save Us" Coffin
The FTC will not protect the open Internet. They lack the skills and capabilities. This is not a theoretical argument. FTC commissioner Terrel McSweeney herself made those remarks (along with some pretty detailed examples and explanations I might add). This is coming straight from the horses mouth IMO. If that doesn't say the FTC is hardly capable of supporting the open Internet, not much will.
Fun Argument
Awfully Big Of You (as Drew Wilson)
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Drew_Wilson.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt