7 ms·

> More generally, the SMART Copyright Act would give the Copyright Office a truly extraordinary power–the ability to force thousands of businesses to adopt, at

> More generally, the SMART Copyright Act would give the Copyright Office a truly extraordinary power–the ability to force thousands of businesses to adopt, at their expense, technology they don’t want and may not need, and the mandated technologies could reshape how the Internet works. Don't be surprised if a later law piggybacks onto this and requires similar filters for preventing the spread of "terrorist" content, then "foreign disinformation". Like with the Snowden leaks, it would probably be decades before we found out that such a law created a system of blackboxes and secret warrants that were used in unconstitutional ways against law-abiding citizens.

userbinator 4y ago
Don't be surprised if a later law piggybacks onto this and requires similar filters for preventing the spread of "terrorist" content, then "foreign disinformation". I bet CSAM will also be mentioned, because then they could start calling opponents pedophiles.
- krapp 4y ago
  One party has already been calling their opponents pedophiles for years, that wouldn't change anything.
- mgdlbp 4y ago
  Good old https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp... Makes a good keyword for finding related previous discussions: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=infocalypse&prefix=true&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=infocalypse&prefix=true&sort=b... Though looking back now, seems like piracy and misinformation could take the place of gangsters and drug dealers.
ARandomerDude 4y ago
The Ministry of Truth already exists, and was revealed to the public this week. That this is under the purview of a law enforcement agency is frightening. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Board https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Bo...
- djmips 4y ago
  Thanks for pointing that out. It's interesting. Calling it the ministry of truth is hyperbolic to start as it's mandate seems to be fighting on the information fronts and it seems have been formed to be an anti foreign propaganda organization. Of course we'll have to see how it evolves...
  - ARandomerDude 4y ago
    What happens when a citizen states an opinion that the government deems misinformation or disinformation? When a law enforcement agency has the power to "fight" your opinion, the democratic process will inevitably be destroyed. The whole purpose of free speech is the freedom to think out loud, point out errors, and let others do the same to you. If the government can decide your free speech is illicit because it doesn't conform to the government's stated position there is no free speech. The proof that this power will expand is found in the history of the DHS itself. It was formed after 9/11 to make sure knives and explosives didn't get on planes. Now, it governs public discourse. This is unbelievable scope creep. So to say its governance of public discourse is limited to only a few topics of conversation is unencouraging.
    - edflsafoiewq 4y ago
      > What happens when a citizen states an opinion that the government deems misinformation or disinformation? Well, what does happen?
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        Ever since H. Clinton called Gabbard a "Russian asset," Gabbard sued, and the suit was dismissed because it was determined that a "Russian asset" didn't have to have any connection to Russians, they could just be a person who said things that Russians liked to have said; since then we're back in the age of "pinkos." Having an opinion that patriotic Americans think that Russians would like you to have is the same as being a traitor. It's like an accidental terrorist. That's what a pinko was; a person who believed in civil rights, worker's rights, etc.. They weren't red, they were pink. edit: this was greatly foreshadowed after 9/11 when the courts managed to jail some people for "material support" of terrorism for simply expressing approval of terrorism. You see, expressing approval of terrorism in public could lead to people being convinced that terrorism is good, and those people could join terrorist groups, and those terrorist groups could harm America with their help. Like gods, rendering the immaterial material. That's always been the punchline of the Al-Awlaki case. We've been guided into focusing on the murders of his young children or his American citizenship because children are sympathetic and individualist nationalists are more concerned when things happen to Americans without a legal process than when things happen to others without a legal process. The punchline is that Al-Awlaki was drone killed for being a propagandist, not any terrorist act. This was also back when the ACLU was a coherent organization, so they objected.

userbinator 4y ago

Don't be surprised if a later law piggybacks onto this and requires similar filters for preventing the spread of "terrorist" content, then "foreign disinformation". I bet CSAM will also be mentioned, because then they could start calling opponents pedophiles.

krapp 4y ago
One party has already been calling their opponents pedophiles for years, that wouldn't change anything.
mgdlbp 4y ago
Good old https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp... Makes a good keyword for finding related previous discussions: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=infocalypse&prefix=true&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=infocalypse&prefix=true&sort=b... Though looking back now, seems like piracy and misinformation could take the place of gangsters and drug dealers.

ARandomerDude 4y ago

The Ministry of Truth already exists, and was revealed to the public this week. That this is under the purview of a law enforcement agency is frightening. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Board https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Bo...

djmips 4y ago
Thanks for pointing that out. It's interesting. Calling it the ministry of truth is hyperbolic to start as it's mandate seems to be fighting on the information fronts and it seems have been formed to be an anti foreign propaganda organization. Of course we'll have to see how it evolves...
- ARandomerDude 4y ago
  What happens when a citizen states an opinion that the government deems misinformation or disinformation? When a law enforcement agency has the power to "fight" your opinion, the democratic process will inevitably be destroyed. The whole purpose of free speech is the freedom to think out loud, point out errors, and let others do the same to you. If the government can decide your free speech is illicit because it doesn't conform to the government's stated position there is no free speech. The proof that this power will expand is found in the history of the DHS itself. It was formed after 9/11 to make sure knives and explosives didn't get on planes. Now, it governs public discourse. This is unbelievable scope creep. So to say its governance of public discourse is limited to only a few topics of conversation is unencouraging.
  - edflsafoiewq 4y ago
    > What happens when a citizen states an opinion that the government deems misinformation or disinformation? Well, what does happen?
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      Ever since H. Clinton called Gabbard a "Russian asset," Gabbard sued, and the suit was dismissed because it was determined that a "Russian asset" didn't have to have any connection to Russians, they could just be a person who said things that Russians liked to have said; since then we're back in the age of "pinkos." Having an opinion that patriotic Americans think that Russians would like you to have is the same as being a traitor. It's like an accidental terrorist. That's what a pinko was; a person who believed in civil rights, worker's rights, etc.. They weren't red, they were pink. edit: this was greatly foreshadowed after 9/11 when the courts managed to jail some people for "material support" of terrorism for simply expressing approval of terrorism. You see, expressing approval of terrorism in public could lead to people being convinced that terrorism is good, and those people could join terrorist groups, and those terrorist groups could harm America with their help. Like gods, rendering the immaterial material. That's always been the punchline of the Al-Awlaki case. We've been guided into focusing on the murders of his young children or his American citizenship because children are sympathetic and individualist nationalists are more concerned when things happen to Americans without a legal process than when things happen to others without a legal process. The punchline is that Al-Awlaki was drone killed for being a propagandist, not any terrorist act. This was also back when the ACLU was a coherent organization, so they objected.