Ah, the delicious irony in attempting to force unpublishability for the sake of (what appears to be, from the list) controlling a little more of the narrative of how people view Julian. For what goal I can't guess, really.
Bonus points: if you go to the defence page on Wikileaks, it says "defend the right to publish." So either their next action has to be to take no action against those publishing (and be unable to control the narrative now the list has been published, but remain true to the stance they claim to hold), contradict themselves (take some measure to pull down the list and prevent republishing) and thus show themselves as hypocritical, or deny this outright as a third actor attempting to cause problems for Wikileaks as a whole.
And that is just if it was a real document and not instead someone attempting to cause a stir; in which case mission accomplished.
You make a very valid point. Taking just the confusion factor into account... how often do people _really_ mistake the intent of an energy drink versus industrial paint?
It's a non-comparison they made which explains why this seems so absurd.
When I saw that the initial post explaining the rule change, the introduction of the bot, and the reasons behind it - which, for the record, had zero pictures in any form and had no obscene language at all - get flagged as needing review due to obscene content, I knew this was going to be a real pile.
There are cheaper ways to alienate your userbase and cause a public scandal.
All of this seemingly done because of the Apple App Store. Shows where they make the real money from.
...but I don't really hear much from anyone any more about the whole 'downloading and storing' deal. It's just so much easier and convenient to find a streaming service for the times when you don't want to go out to find a film, anyway.
Not to mention most of the films I watch on, say, Netflix, are no longer even available in theaters.
Monster is such an arbitrary word to claim, and I bet it's because common lexicon no longer uses 'Monster Energy'.
I can't think of the last time I heard someone say "Can you get me a Monster Energy Drink". Just a 'Monster'. How long until this starts bleeding into other words? Or do we just preface everything with ™ to ensure we are always honoring trademarks?
It's a fairly understandable point; though. Just because you do something for the sake of proving a point or standing up to someone doesn't arbitrarily make it above the law.
As far as my memory goes (and I may be wrong, admittedly) Sweden still has valid Net Neutrality laws, or laws with a similar intent and function. And they were broken by this. Everything else is semantics, in the end. While I agree that Elsevier are very much profiting off this in a way that is morally dubious at best... if we want to enforce Net Neutrality, you can't pick and choose the reasons thereof. Everyone is affected, or no one is; there's no valid middle ground.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Lawny.
(untitled comment)
Bonus points: if you go to the defence page on Wikileaks, it says "defend the right to publish." So either their next action has to be to take no action against those publishing (and be unable to control the narrative now the list has been published, but remain true to the stance they claim to hold), contradict themselves (take some measure to pull down the list and prevent republishing) and thus show themselves as hypocritical, or deny this outright as a third actor attempting to cause problems for Wikileaks as a whole.
And that is just if it was a real document and not instead someone attempting to cause a stir; in which case mission accomplished.
Re: Re:
It's a non-comparison they made which explains why this seems so absurd.
Frankly...
There are cheaper ways to alienate your userbase and cause a public scandal.
All of this seemingly done because of the Apple App Store. Shows where they make the real money from.
I can only speak from personal experience...
...but I don't really hear much from anyone any more about the whole 'downloading and storing' deal. It's just so much easier and convenient to find a streaming service for the times when you don't want to go out to find a film, anyway.
Not to mention most of the films I watch on, say, Netflix, are no longer even available in theaters.
(untitled comment)
Monster is such an arbitrary word to claim, and I bet it's because common lexicon no longer uses 'Monster Energy'.
I can't think of the last time I heard someone say "Can you get me a Monster Energy Drink". Just a 'Monster'. How long until this starts bleeding into other words? Or do we just preface everything with ™ to ensure we are always honoring trademarks?
(untitled comment)
It's a fairly understandable point; though. Just because you do something for the sake of proving a point or standing up to someone doesn't arbitrarily make it above the law.
As far as my memory goes (and I may be wrong, admittedly) Sweden still has valid Net Neutrality laws, or laws with a similar intent and function. And they were broken by this. Everything else is semantics, in the end. While I agree that Elsevier are very much profiting off this in a way that is morally dubious at best... if we want to enforce Net Neutrality, you can't pick and choose the reasons thereof. Everyone is affected, or no one is; there's no valid middle ground.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Lawny.
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