3 ms·

Both are corporate lobbying against people & tech. It's a pattern, > The SMART Copyright Act is a thinly veiled proxy war over mandatory filtering of copyright

by rhaksw 4y ago

Both are corporate lobbying against people & tech. It's a pattern, > The SMART Copyright Act is a thinly veiled proxy war over mandatory filtering of copyrighted works. . . mandatory filters are error-prone in ways that hurt consumers, and they raise entry barriers in ways that reduce competition. > 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.

syshum 4y ago
That is a stretch. You comment has nothing to do with copyright. If you want to talk net neutrality summit something to discuss that. This thread should be about the harms of copyright
- rhaksw 4y ago
  It's not a stretch. Those who would do away with net neutrality are the same who seek special powers to ostensibly protect copyright. The reality is their measures will harm both internet commerce and freedom. They're luddites who own the content and the ISPs, lobbying for control over something they don't understand because they haven't invested in its future and are feeling left out. They're the ones stretching. If we were restricted to talking about only one or the other at a time, that would unnecessarily limit our ability to brainstorm. Fortunately, we have the freedom to discuss what we want and when.
  - Thorrez 4y ago
    > They're luddites who own the content and the ISPs Is there that big of an overlap between content owners and ISPs? For example, is Disney an ISP?
    - rhaksw 4y ago
      Absolutely there is overlap. Comcast owns NBC, and where there is not direct ownership, they will partner to offer zero-rated content that won't count against your metered and speed-capped bandwidth.
hilbert42 4y ago
"Both are corporate lobbying against people & tech. It's a pattern," Right, the trouble is that our democracies really haven't proper ways of handling this type of monopoly. It seems to me that the problem will not be solved until individuals are no longer allowed to hide behind corporate walls and thus not able to be individually held accountable or liable for their actions. Fear of public exposure and ridicule not to mention penalties imposed on them for their actions would stop most of this behaviour. The trouble is that large corporations have such a stranglehold on governments that it's proving very difficult to do anything about the problem. It's one of the biggest problems facing our democracies, I only wish I knew how we could solve it.
- rhaksw 4y ago
  > I only wish I knew how we could solve it. The public sphere changed with the advent of social media. At first, corporations and governments found themselves at the whims of people, and then it flipped. I believe we may be able to bring back some balance with reviewable moderation such as via a site I made, https://www.reveddit.com/about/faq/ https://www.reveddit.com/about/faq/
  - hilbert42 4y ago
    Perhaps so, every bit counts. But I cannot see how these problematic matters are going to be fixed unless the individuals who have the power to affect the lives of others are brought to account by one means or another. We should know who these individuals are whether they're making decisions that are in our interests or otherwise. As it stands now many of the individuals who've the power and who have altered our lives for good or worse by their decisions remain hidden completely anonymously behind both corporate and government bureaucracies. Anonymity, has in many instances enabled them to act without accountability and with complete impunity. This is the crux of the problem, until these individuals know that their decisions will be gone over with a fine-toothed comb by the population at large and that they will be held accountable then nothing will change. Both now and in the past the argument against this approach is that such scrutiny will make decision-makers ineffective in that they'll be too scared to make hard or effective decisions. This is a weasel argument argued by bureaucracies to protect themselves and to make their lives easier. There are numerous ways to protect individuals who make 'sensible' decisions from, say, an over-zealous citizenry or unreasonable shareholders who may not understand all the facts but that's for another discussion. Change has to come because this anonymity has allowed fairness and due process to be so abused that our institutions now have an ethical crisis. It's why so few people have faith in or have respect for them anymore.

by rhaksw 4y ago

syshum 4y ago

That is a stretch. You comment has nothing to do with copyright. If you want to talk net neutrality summit something to discuss that. This thread should be about the harms of copyright

rhaksw 4y ago
It's not a stretch. Those who would do away with net neutrality are the same who seek special powers to ostensibly protect copyright. The reality is their measures will harm both internet commerce and freedom. They're luddites who own the content and the ISPs, lobbying for control over something they don't understand because they haven't invested in its future and are feeling left out. They're the ones stretching. If we were restricted to talking about only one or the other at a time, that would unnecessarily limit our ability to brainstorm. Fortunately, we have the freedom to discuss what we want and when.
- Thorrez 4y ago
  > They're luddites who own the content and the ISPs Is there that big of an overlap between content owners and ISPs? For example, is Disney an ISP?
  - rhaksw 4y ago
    Absolutely there is overlap. Comcast owns NBC, and where there is not direct ownership, they will partner to offer zero-rated content that won't count against your metered and speed-capped bandwidth.

hilbert42 4y ago

"Both are corporate lobbying against people & tech. It's a pattern," Right, the trouble is that our democracies really haven't proper ways of handling this type of monopoly. It seems to me that the problem will not be solved until individuals are no longer allowed to hide behind corporate walls and thus not able to be individually held accountable or liable for their actions. Fear of public exposure and ridicule not to mention penalties imposed on them for their actions would stop most of this behaviour. The trouble is that large corporations have such a stranglehold on governments that it's proving very difficult to do anything about the problem. It's one of the biggest problems facing our democracies, I only wish I knew how we could solve it.

rhaksw 4y ago
> I only wish I knew how we could solve it. The public sphere changed with the advent of social media. At first, corporations and governments found themselves at the whims of people, and then it flipped. I believe we may be able to bring back some balance with reviewable moderation such as via a site I made, https://www.reveddit.com/about/faq/ https://www.reveddit.com/about/faq/
- hilbert42 4y ago
  Perhaps so, every bit counts. But I cannot see how these problematic matters are going to be fixed unless the individuals who have the power to affect the lives of others are brought to account by one means or another. We should know who these individuals are whether they're making decisions that are in our interests or otherwise. As it stands now many of the individuals who've the power and who have altered our lives for good or worse by their decisions remain hidden completely anonymously behind both corporate and government bureaucracies. Anonymity, has in many instances enabled them to act without accountability and with complete impunity. This is the crux of the problem, until these individuals know that their decisions will be gone over with a fine-toothed comb by the population at large and that they will be held accountable then nothing will change. Both now and in the past the argument against this approach is that such scrutiny will make decision-makers ineffective in that they'll be too scared to make hard or effective decisions. This is a weasel argument argued by bureaucracies to protect themselves and to make their lives easier. There are numerous ways to protect individuals who make 'sensible' decisions from, say, an over-zealous citizenry or unreasonable shareholders who may not understand all the facts but that's for another discussion. Change has to come because this anonymity has allowed fairness and due process to be so abused that our institutions now have an ethical crisis. It's why so few people have faith in or have respect for them anymore.