4 ms·

So? A) Intent never seemed to matter in the SOPA debate. B) A corporation is responsible for every employee, no matter how lowly, that's the way it works. Loo

So? A) Intent never seemed to matter in the SOPA debate. B) A corporation is responsible for every employee, no matter how lowly, that's the way it works. Look at the FedEx employee who threw a monitor he was delivering over a fence on camera - even though he is but one of 20,000 delivery men, they still were completely responsible for that.

jonnathanson 15y ago
I don't disagree with either of your points. I'm just saying that the spin being put on this story is out of synch with the magnitude of the story.
- read_wharf 15y ago
  It is spin, but if you step away from it, I don't think it's unwarranted. This episode is an excellent demonstration that this sort of casual use is part of the essence of the web. It's so fundamental that even a major corporation does it incidentally. And if you hammer this sort of thing down, you essentially kill the web.
  - jonnathanson 15y ago
    Well stated, and I concur. The irony of this situation is indeed noteworthy, and it demonstrates a pretty biting critique of SOPA itself. I guess I just see this as a smile-and-raise-an-eyebrow kind of story, and not a break-out-the-pitchforks-and-torches kind of story.
    - WiseWeasel 15y ago
      Too late; I've already got my mobbing shoes on.
    - khafra 15y ago
      They're not bad people for doing this. Doing this just demonstrates that they're bad people for pushing SOPA.
    - AVTizzle 15y ago
      "I guess I just see this as a smile-and-raise-an-eyebrow kind of story, and not a break-out-the-pitchforks-and-torches kind of story." I loled :) Saving that in the memory bank for later use. Reddit comment karma, here we come!!
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- joedevon 15y ago
  Not at all. Intern's fault or not, the story is about hypocrisy.
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago
    I agree but... Yes, the article does illustrate this point but it's a pretty thin example. There must be better examples of hypocrisy out there. This seems more like manufactured outrage (which is so common it's sickening nowadays). I think the circumstances are relevant here. I mean, look at that site. Does it look like any thought was put into it at all? Had this been a site that looked anything like it was touched by a professional (and by that I mean something that reflects the kind of professional they can hire based on their resources) I could get on board with the criticism. At this point, however, I see this and just kind of shrug and think "damn, that sucks". But then I always tend to look at these issues from a human perspective. I can't help but take all the extenuating circumstances into account. If you look at this from a strictly legal or ethical perspective then its much easier to support the logic behind the criticisms. So I understand the outrage but I just can't bring myself to see it in such black and white terms. Now I have to make the standard disclaimer: I don't and never have supported SOPA. (It's pretty awful we have to make those disclaimers to be taken seriously around here).
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  I disagree. NBC, and others, put exactly this sort of magnitude in their push for SOPA - it seems only fair to push back just as hard.
glenntzke 15y ago
Exactly. I understand that levels of detachment (contracted then subcontracted work, etc) make quality assurance more difficult, but companies like NBC must be held to higher standards especially because of the fights they've chosen to fight. This page is directly linked to from http://www.nbc.com/casting/#home-transformers http://www.nbc.com/casting/#home-transformers. One would assume that they'd at least check the content of a site they've linked directly to - there are only 2 content images!
robterrell 15y ago
The point is, this particular furor over this particular image is simply going to get some low-level designer fired, and not change NBC's stance on SOPA at all.
- jerf 15y ago
  Changing NBC's stance isn't the goal. Debates aren't literally about changing the participant's minds, since that hardly ever happens. It's about changing the audience's minds. This is advocacy.
alexqgb 15y ago
NBC doesn't disagree. They know they're responsible, and they take they responsibility seriously. Specifically, they fire the intern, they settle with Apple (assuming Apple sends them a bill), and they pass the cost onto their insurance company, which provides them with Errors & Omissions coverage for situations exactly like these. Assuming that NBC is complying with the insurance provider's demand for a pricy and well-staffed rights and clearances operation, then the insurer will pick up the tab. Nothing causal about any of it, and responsibility taken fully. Next. Of course, the larger point is that every one of these steps is expensive. Only organizations with a LOT of money can afford to operate like this. And that's exactly how publishers like it. If you have to have a LOT of money before you can put anything into the world without the risk of getting sued into oblivion, then suddenly, there are a lot fewer content sources for you to compete with.

jonnathanson 15y ago

I don't disagree with either of your points. I'm just saying that the spin being put on this story is out of synch with the magnitude of the story.

read_wharf 15y ago
It is spin, but if you step away from it, I don't think it's unwarranted. This episode is an excellent demonstration that this sort of casual use is part of the essence of the web. It's so fundamental that even a major corporation does it incidentally. And if you hammer this sort of thing down, you essentially kill the web.
- jonnathanson 15y ago
  Well stated, and I concur. The irony of this situation is indeed noteworthy, and it demonstrates a pretty biting critique of SOPA itself. I guess I just see this as a smile-and-raise-an-eyebrow kind of story, and not a break-out-the-pitchforks-and-torches kind of story.
  - WiseWeasel 15y ago
    Too late; I've already got my mobbing shoes on.
  - khafra 15y ago
    They're not bad people for doing this. Doing this just demonstrates that they're bad people for pushing SOPA.
  - AVTizzle 15y ago
    "I guess I just see this as a smile-and-raise-an-eyebrow kind of story, and not a break-out-the-pitchforks-and-torches kind of story." I loled :) Saving that in the memory bank for later use. Reddit comment karma, here we come!!
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
joedevon 15y ago
Not at all. Intern's fault or not, the story is about hypocrisy.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  I agree but... Yes, the article does illustrate this point but it's a pretty thin example. There must be better examples of hypocrisy out there. This seems more like manufactured outrage (which is so common it's sickening nowadays). I think the circumstances are relevant here. I mean, look at that site. Does it look like any thought was put into it at all? Had this been a site that looked anything like it was touched by a professional (and by that I mean something that reflects the kind of professional they can hire based on their resources) I could get on board with the criticism. At this point, however, I see this and just kind of shrug and think "damn, that sucks". But then I always tend to look at these issues from a human perspective. I can't help but take all the extenuating circumstances into account. If you look at this from a strictly legal or ethical perspective then its much easier to support the logic behind the criticisms. So I understand the outrage but I just can't bring myself to see it in such black and white terms. Now I have to make the standard disclaimer: I don't and never have supported SOPA. (It's pretty awful we have to make those disclaimers to be taken seriously around here).
pavel_lishin 15y ago
I disagree. NBC, and others, put exactly this sort of magnitude in their push for SOPA - it seems only fair to push back just as hard.

glenntzke 15y ago

Exactly. I understand that levels of detachment (contracted then subcontracted work, etc) make quality assurance more difficult, but companies like NBC must be held to higher standards especially because of the fights they've chosen to fight. This page is directly linked to from http://www.nbc.com/casting/#home-transformers http://www.nbc.com/casting/#home-transformers. One would assume that they'd at least check the content of a site they've linked directly to - there are only 2 content images!

robterrell 15y ago

The point is, this particular furor over this particular image is simply going to get some low-level designer fired, and not change NBC's stance on SOPA at all.

jerf 15y ago
Changing NBC's stance isn't the goal. Debates aren't literally about changing the participant's minds, since that hardly ever happens. It's about changing the audience's minds. This is advocacy.

alexqgb 15y ago

NBC doesn't disagree. They know they're responsible, and they take they responsibility seriously. Specifically, they fire the intern, they settle with Apple (assuming Apple sends them a bill), and they pass the cost onto their insurance company, which provides them with Errors & Omissions coverage for situations exactly like these. Assuming that NBC is complying with the insurance provider's demand for a pricy and well-staffed rights and clearances operation, then the insurer will pick up the tab. Nothing causal about any of it, and responsibility taken fully. Next. Of course, the larger point is that every one of these steps is expensive. Only organizations with a LOT of money can afford to operate like this. And that's exactly how publishers like it. If you have to have a LOT of money before you can put anything into the world without the risk of getting sued into oblivion, then suddenly, there are a lot fewer content sources for you to compete with.