4 ms·

You've described a system which defaults to injustice and is statistically guaranteed to produce an unjust aggregate result. That a handful of individuals can

• switch11 6y ago
  agreed 100%
• Rochus 6y ago
  Right. That's the essence of the essence of copyright law. And the (mostly unjust) claims of the collecting societies and their henchmen are enforced with the methods of protection racketing, because hardly any of the victims will ever defend themselves in court. The same game as with the patent trolls, simply less known.
  • anewdirection 6y ago
    Not so much the law, but how it has been crafted to apply online, and the sheer amount of malicious compliance by Google et al.
• sneak 6y ago
  And that’s in peacetime. Imagine how effective a censorship machine it will become during a larger emergency (a bigger/more dangerous pandemic, or war, or other national security event) when the host (Google in this case) is not given the legal option to allow appeals/reversals. Sure, you can sue. Maybe even get your account back, months later... if you survive the emergency without communications of any kind. Censorship-possible communications systems are an existential threat to a free society even if they are not used to censor 99.99% of the time. The fact that they can be wielded arbitrarily against people, outside of the law, or only with slow and expensive recourse (that fail deadly in the interim) should never be forgotten, especially during the times that they aren’t and everything seems fine and normal. Do not use censorship/surveillance platforms, even if you are not being censored.