3 ms·

I'm not sure if you can assert control over use of your own public expression. Whether various forms posting on the internet counts as public expression might

by Lerc 3y ago

I'm not sure if you can assert control over use of your own public expression. Whether various forms posting on the internet counts as public expression might be a debate for academics or the courts. I would guess posting here counts as being public. Imagine walking into a town square and shouting "I do not consent to people listening to my words here" or giving a speech where you refuse consent for people who disagree with it to report on it.

tomrod 3y ago
Discord is public at which component?
- dhalucario 3y ago
  It's public the moment the invite link is scrapeable. Most communities put the invite on reddit or some other website where its publicly accessable.
TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
We can legislate for whatever outcomes we desire. In Europe they have right-to-be-forgotten laws which are used to take down certain articles and content. I think it's fine to hold an $80bn company's feet to the fire a bit.
- Lerc 3y ago
  Absolutely, and I think new legislation is in order. However legislating for what is desired is generally a terrible idea. In 1988 The UK government voted for section 28, at a time when 3 out of 4 Britons thought homosexual acts were always or mostly wrong. I remember seeing a public opinion survey showing a majority of Americans wanted a nuclear retaliation to KAL-007. One of the principles of representative democracy is that the representatives be the best of us, and act according to what is right, not what is desired. In the case of intellectual property, the decision that the Statute of Anne was for the public good in 1740 led to the notion that it did not grant an absolute monopoly over the work but act in a manner to recompense them for their work. This is the ancestor of fair use. (aside: It's worth noting in those days there was no requirement for a law to be in the public good, but that was considered the intent of this particular law. Philip Yorke made a much less agreeable decision on slavery.) So there are two debates that should be happening right now. What does the law say about this? and What should the law say about this?
earthling8118 3y ago
Imagine walking into a town square. There are the highest resolution cameras mounted every few feet that take a constant stream of input. People scoff at the idea that you might want less of them.
- Lerc 3y ago
  You fail to make a point here but I assume you are implying this is bad. The question would then be, why is it bad? Would you accept that it is permissable to film a public scene in general? If so, and this is not a rhetorical question, what is the difference? That difference may cross a line of privacy when considering what a reasonably assumable degree of scrutiny is expected in public. That is not a simple question and the law may have a different answer to public opinion which may be different again to what is best for society.

by Lerc 3y ago

tomrod 3y ago

Discord is public at which component?

dhalucario 3y ago
It's public the moment the invite link is scrapeable. Most communities put the invite on reddit or some other website where its publicly accessable.

TheAceOfHearts 3y ago

We can legislate for whatever outcomes we desire. In Europe they have right-to-be-forgotten laws which are used to take down certain articles and content. I think it's fine to hold an $80bn company's feet to the fire a bit.

Lerc 3y ago
Absolutely, and I think new legislation is in order. However legislating for what is desired is generally a terrible idea. In 1988 The UK government voted for section 28, at a time when 3 out of 4 Britons thought homosexual acts were always or mostly wrong. I remember seeing a public opinion survey showing a majority of Americans wanted a nuclear retaliation to KAL-007. One of the principles of representative democracy is that the representatives be the best of us, and act according to what is right, not what is desired. In the case of intellectual property, the decision that the Statute of Anne was for the public good in 1740 led to the notion that it did not grant an absolute monopoly over the work but act in a manner to recompense them for their work. This is the ancestor of fair use. (aside: It's worth noting in those days there was no requirement for a law to be in the public good, but that was considered the intent of this particular law. Philip Yorke made a much less agreeable decision on slavery.) So there are two debates that should be happening right now. What does the law say about this? and What should the law say about this?

earthling8118 3y ago

Imagine walking into a town square. There are the highest resolution cameras mounted every few feet that take a constant stream of input. People scoff at the idea that you might want less of them.

Lerc 3y ago
You fail to make a point here but I assume you are implying this is bad. The question would then be, why is it bad? Would you accept that it is permissable to film a public scene in general? If so, and this is not a rhetorical question, what is the difference? That difference may cross a line of privacy when considering what a reasonably assumable degree of scrutiny is expected in public. That is not a simple question and the law may have a different answer to public opinion which may be different again to what is best for society.