4 ms·

Google, Twitter and Facebook should join up and make politicians, ahem, an offer they can't refuse: Any politician voting for this bill will have any search-res

Google, Twitter and Facebook should join up and make politicians, ahem, an offer they can't refuse: Any politician voting for this bill will have any search-result, tweet, post, status or link in which they're mentioned prefixed with a strongly worded warning that they're paid cronies helping the content industry destroy the Internet. Now THAT's a nuclear option.

rmc 15y ago
(a) That's potentially libellous (b) That's potentially monopolist behaviour (c) That'll freak the politicans out and make them side with TMCs in thinking that those upstart silicon valley companies are too arrogant and powerful and must be stopped (i.e. it will backfire)
- icebraining 15y ago
  That's potentially monopolist behaviour That's not illegal. Using a monopoly to destroy or harm the competition is. There's nothing anti-competitive in this proposal.
- mseebach 15y ago
  a: Not if it's kept entirely factual. b: There's an argument to be made that if money is speech, then certainly speech itself can enjoy the same protections. Did I mention it's a nuclear option? c: Yeah, it might. But politicians sing along to Big Content's tune because they're powerful. Reminding them, perhaps in a more delicate fashion, that "Big Internet" is also powerful and will not sit idly by while politicians help it's competitors attack them.
- nobody3141592 15y ago
  Presumably Twitter as a private company has every right to reject accounts from certain people, Google has every right to remove them from their index and Facebook is bound to be able to find someway in which the politician violated their terms of service. Nothing sinister in that - it's just like every financial institution in the world deciding simultaneously they won't deal with wikileaks donations
- olefoo 15y ago
  a) Reporting a fact is Libelous? b) I believe the word you are looking for is Cartel rather than Monopoly, but in either case; if the bill passes they have other problems. c) It's not a fair tactic; but there's nothing to stop Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Microsoft from coordinating on having a day where they banner link to a "Stop the power grab!" site. Singling out individual politicians is problematic. Seriously though, as a country this whole thing is a sideshow. Our society has become too top heavy and the rights and resources have become too concentrated to the point where the average person no longer believes the social contract is for their long term benefit. That's a very dangerous place to be, and we're worried about losing access to a few cat videos?
  - icebraining 15y ago
    Cat videos? Really? Eliminating the Safe-harbor provisions is killing all and every site that distributes user created content. Hell, even discussion sites like Hacker News could be affected: what if someone posts someone else's copyright content here, like a user posted the Scientology texts on Slashdot? Would YCombinator be OK with being legally responsible for the infringement? Slashdot had to take it down, but without Safe Harbor, they could've been sued. Wikipedia, Youtube, Vimeo, Blogspot, Wordpress.com, Tumblr, you can say goodbye to all of them. More: even if you build your own site - which is outside of the possibilities of 99% of the people in the first place - are you really safe? After all, the hosting company could be liable! It's ultimately the destruction of the creative freedom we enjoy on the Web, converting it into TV 2.0, where all the content is created by the media companies and your only option is changing the channel. Is that as important as being able to eat or have a place to sleep? No, of course not. But it doesn't mean it's not damn important.
    - dextorious 15y ago
      """Cat videos? Really? Eliminating the Safe-harbor provisions is killing all and every site that distributes user created content.""" Which roughly amounts to cat videos.
      - icebraining 15y ago
- yuhong 15y ago
  Personally, considering they are well-funded, doing normal lobbying is just better IMO.
- tripzilch 15y ago
  (d) Awesome

rmc 15y ago

(a) That's potentially libellous (b) That's potentially monopolist behaviour (c) That'll freak the politicans out and make them side with TMCs in thinking that those upstart silicon valley companies are too arrogant and powerful and must be stopped (i.e. it will backfire)

icebraining 15y ago
That's potentially monopolist behaviour That's not illegal. Using a monopoly to destroy or harm the competition is. There's nothing anti-competitive in this proposal.
mseebach 15y ago
a: Not if it's kept entirely factual. b: There's an argument to be made that if money is speech, then certainly speech itself can enjoy the same protections. Did I mention it's a nuclear option? c: Yeah, it might. But politicians sing along to Big Content's tune because they're powerful. Reminding them, perhaps in a more delicate fashion, that "Big Internet" is also powerful and will not sit idly by while politicians help it's competitors attack them.
nobody3141592 15y ago
Presumably Twitter as a private company has every right to reject accounts from certain people, Google has every right to remove them from their index and Facebook is bound to be able to find someway in which the politician violated their terms of service. Nothing sinister in that - it's just like every financial institution in the world deciding simultaneously they won't deal with wikileaks donations
olefoo 15y ago
a) Reporting a fact is Libelous? b) I believe the word you are looking for is Cartel rather than Monopoly, but in either case; if the bill passes they have other problems. c) It's not a fair tactic; but there's nothing to stop Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Microsoft from coordinating on having a day where they banner link to a "Stop the power grab!" site. Singling out individual politicians is problematic. Seriously though, as a country this whole thing is a sideshow. Our society has become too top heavy and the rights and resources have become too concentrated to the point where the average person no longer believes the social contract is for their long term benefit. That's a very dangerous place to be, and we're worried about losing access to a few cat videos?
- icebraining 15y ago
  Cat videos? Really? Eliminating the Safe-harbor provisions is killing all and every site that distributes user created content. Hell, even discussion sites like Hacker News could be affected: what if someone posts someone else's copyright content here, like a user posted the Scientology texts on Slashdot? Would YCombinator be OK with being legally responsible for the infringement? Slashdot had to take it down, but without Safe Harbor, they could've been sued. Wikipedia, Youtube, Vimeo, Blogspot, Wordpress.com, Tumblr, you can say goodbye to all of them. More: even if you build your own site - which is outside of the possibilities of 99% of the people in the first place - are you really safe? After all, the hosting company could be liable! It's ultimately the destruction of the creative freedom we enjoy on the Web, converting it into TV 2.0, where all the content is created by the media companies and your only option is changing the channel. Is that as important as being able to eat or have a place to sleep? No, of course not. But it doesn't mean it's not damn important.
  - dextorious 15y ago
    """Cat videos? Really? Eliminating the Safe-harbor provisions is killing all and every site that distributes user created content.""" Which roughly amounts to cat videos.
    - icebraining 15y ago
yuhong 15y ago
Personally, considering they are well-funded, doing normal lobbying is just better IMO.
tripzilch 15y ago
(d) Awesome