There is a couple questions I would like to know...
What do they expect to happen to the reviewers/let's players? These people act as (for lack of a better term) a Colbert Bump for whatever they decide to a video/article on. Without them can you expect their respective industries to do nearly as well?
How do they expect upload filters to work cross-medium? (i.e. trying to catch text content for a copyrighted video... Alternatively you could likely apply this question to something like fanfiction/fanart)
Gamers have helped solved many problems and have also been helpful for research.
The Corrupted Blood incident of W.O.W led to research by people from universities using the incident as a model for the spread of real word spread of diseases. One known example was a paper co-written by Nina Fefferman from Tufts University and Eric Lofgren from The University of North Carolina.
Researchers also once used a game about protein folding named Foldit to solve the structure of an enzyme used by HIV/AIDS for reproduction.
To assume that the audience of an entire of an entire medium is stupid would be not only prejudice, but also 'stupid' because it means willfully overlooking the benefits to society to promote an incorrect ideal for them to attempt to justify.
Even with the 'the thing is still exploitable even in patched systems' angle...
The initial breach of a network has to logicly come from either a already infected computer joining the network, or through an unpatched computer already on the network.
In the very early existence of the malware, there wasn't as many already infected networks, meaning less infected computers to spread it across networks.
This means the very first breaches had to be done via the exploit.
Given this, the NSA is responsible for (excuse my likely poor metaphor here) the technological equivalent of attempting a controlled demolition of a couple building and leveling most of the town as collateral damage.
Except TD already talks about common law on a regular basis...
That's when they bring up past cases, especially when those past cases conflict with the current judgement.
If you feel the idea of common law was 'disparaged', maybe this should point out that there might be good reasons for doing so.
Common law is the idea of using past cases as a standard to the current case at hand. The problem with that idea is often times past case results conflict with each other. This problem worsens when a judge outright ignores past cases.
Given those problems, wouldn't the results undermine the very idea of common law?
Deciding what body parts are private may not help. Who is to say that person will not be forced to give that biometric key when they happen to drive near an international airport or the country border?
Your point is noted and very much valid. There are point where we can be tied down by others or risk losing contact.
But You don't have to stay there all the time. You could still use that facebook on the side, or even use one of those services that integrate all social media in one place.
Apologies, my initial post wasn't factoring in the idea, but was more for getting the idea across on the surface level.
Ironically, I don't really use common social media facebook/twitter/instagram/snapchat.
Yet your idea is also a problem in video game communities. I see it come into play a lot there.
Let's break down at least some of what your saying.
First you bring up a point that you claim is being 'reversed'.
"...Which is that Facebook / Google / Amazon / Twitter are now main gatekeepers which control the MAJOR OUTLETS for speech."
This is a problem, but not part of the topic the article is focused on anyway.
There is an often used argument to counter the 'ISP is the same as a platform like (insert social media outlet/google here)' idea.
"People can choose not to use google or social media. The same is not usually true of an ISP."
Let's really think about that. Say google or facebook started slowing redirection or hiding links to other social media sites (or other sites for that matter) because they didn't choose to pay them or were competing with them.
Would that make you, as a person using the site, happy? Not likely. Well you could start using something other that google or facebook.
Now let's try that same scenario with an ISP. Would you be happy? Again, not likely. Could you try another ISP? For many areas, no. If there even is another company in your area, chances are it is for Dial-up type service. Dial-up is known for both being slow and having a lot of causes for interference.
Now let's get back to your unrelated, but important, point.
"...Which is that Facebook / Google / Amazon / Twitter are now main gatekeepers which control the MAJOR OUTLETS for speech."
One of the best thoughts is the idea that 'Bad speech should be countered with more speech'. It's a great idea, but it has a small problem.
The problem lies in the people that ignore all speech when it doesn't fit their own message.
How do you counter that? Well, if that person is pissing off many people, then there is a certain webcomic to explain why they are being kicked.
"And all it takes to make fair is remove the ridiculous assertion masnicks make that corporations have 'First Amendment Right'."
According to dictionary.com, this is the definition for assertion.
"A positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason."
The problem with this is that to some degree, corporations do have 'First Amendment Rights'. It comes in the form of a concept called corporate personhood. This is part of the reason why lobbying is considered legal.
(untitled comment)
There is a couple questions I would like to know...
What do they expect to happen to the reviewers/let's players? These people act as (for lack of a better term) a Colbert Bump for whatever they decide to a video/article on. Without them can you expect their respective industries to do nearly as well?
Re: You would think that, but no
The Corrupted Blood incident of W.O.W led to research by people from universities using the incident as a model for the spread of real word spread of diseases. One known example was a paper co-written by Nina Fefferman from Tufts University and Eric Lofgren from The University of North Carolina.
Researchers also once used a game about protein folding named Foldit to solve the structure of an enzyme used by HIV/AIDS for reproduction.
To assume that the audience of an entire of an entire medium is stupid would be not only prejudice, but also 'stupid' because it means willfully overlooking the benefits to society to promote an incorrect ideal for them to attempt to justify.
Re:
The initial breach of a network has to logicly come from either a already infected computer joining the network, or through an unpatched computer already on the network.
In the very early existence of the malware, there wasn't as many already infected networks, meaning less infected computers to spread it across networks.
This means the very first breaches had to be done via the exploit.
Given this, the NSA is responsible for (excuse my likely poor metaphor here) the technological equivalent of attempting a controlled demolition of a couple building and leveling most of the town as collateral damage.
Re: Oh, Techdirt! It's TOO LATE for you to talk about common law and common sense! You've disparaged those so often, now no one should regard this as anything but your usual attack on police.
That's when they bring up past cases, especially when those past cases conflict with the current judgement.
If you feel the idea of common law was 'disparaged', maybe this should point out that there might be good reasons for doing so.
Common law is the idea of using past cases as a standard to the current case at hand. The problem with that idea is often times past case results conflict with each other. This problem worsens when a judge outright ignores past cases.
Given those problems, wouldn't the results undermine the very idea of common law?
Re: Riiiiiiight
given a past article...
techdirt article here
Deciding what body parts are private may not help. Who is to say that person will not be forced to give that biometric key when they happen to drive near an international airport or the country border?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
But You don't have to stay there all the time. You could still use that facebook on the side, or even use one of those services that integrate all social media in one place.
Apologies, my initial post wasn't factoring in the idea, but was more for getting the idea across on the surface level.
Ironically, I don't really use common social media facebook/twitter/instagram/snapchat.
Yet your idea is also a problem in video game communities. I see it come into play a lot there.
Re: Re: Re: Re: "it sucks when these guys start to take notes from the democratic/leftist play book doesn't it?"
It kinda feels like I'm reading a speech bubble from All Star Batman & Robin. It really doesn't go with your idea of being 'smart'.
Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
Let's break down at least some of what your saying.
First you bring up a point that you claim is being 'reversed'.
"...Which is that Facebook / Google / Amazon / Twitter are now main gatekeepers which control the MAJOR OUTLETS for speech."
This is a problem, but not part of the topic the article is focused on anyway.
There is an often used argument to counter the 'ISP is the same as a platform like (insert social media outlet/google here)' idea.
"People can choose not to use google or social media. The same is not usually true of an ISP."
Let's really think about that. Say google or facebook started slowing redirection or hiding links to other social media sites (or other sites for that matter) because they didn't choose to pay them or were competing with them.
Would that make you, as a person using the site, happy? Not likely. Well you could start using something other that google or facebook.
Now let's try that same scenario with an ISP. Would you be happy? Again, not likely. Could you try another ISP? For many areas, no. If there even is another company in your area, chances are it is for Dial-up type service. Dial-up is known for both being slow and having a lot of causes for interference.
Now let's get back to your unrelated, but important, point.
"...Which is that Facebook / Google / Amazon / Twitter are now main gatekeepers which control the MAJOR OUTLETS for speech."
One of the best thoughts is the idea that 'Bad speech should be countered with more speech'. It's a great idea, but it has a small problem.
The problem lies in the people that ignore all speech when it doesn't fit their own message.
How do you counter that? Well, if that person is pissing off many people, then there is a certain webcomic to explain why they are being kicked.
https://xkcd.com/1357/
Now for your last sentence.
"And all it takes to make fair is remove the ridiculous assertion masnicks make that corporations have 'First Amendment Right'."
According to dictionary.com, this is the definition for assertion.
"A positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason."
The problem with this is that to some degree, corporations do have 'First Amendment Rights'. It comes in the form of a concept called corporate personhood. This is part of the reason why lobbying is considered legal.
Re: Your "free speech" and access to information may well be reduced due to YOUR piracy. Rights are in conflict, and you pirates are on the wrong side.
So what happens to reporters, Let's players, reviewers, anyone that uses parody and satire? They get caught up in the mess too.
Come up with a better excuse for your straw-man argument, because there is an actual concern here.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Rosie-Redstar.
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