3 ms·
A second option is to get out of the first world. It's not so much that developing countries won't pass these laws, but rather that they'll have a somewhat tou
by gloob 17y ago
A second option is to get out of the first world. It's not so much that developing countries won't pass these laws, but rather that they'll have a somewhat tougher time enforcing them (if they even bother to try).
- Vivtek 17y agoThe only problem being that in the Third World, they won't just abrogate your Internet freedom; if they don't like what you say, they'll come and beat you with large blunt objects, or just kill you. America hasn't gone that far, and won't. It's just going to get really stupid for a while, and the folks in Washington are, as somebody once said, supposed to be smarter than me.
- gloob 17y agoI'm aware. I'm thinking more along the lines of Brazil. Not first world, but it's not like we're talking about Somalia either.
- Vivtek 17y agoPoint. Actually, Brazil would be a pretty good choice.
- forensic 17y agoAmong the wealthy this is a very common line of thinking. Many rich people with foresight who are concerned buy land in South America and develop plans to quickly emigrate. South America is the ideal expat location for those who can afford it.
- redcap 17y agoOr maybe they'll just do what Russia and China do and ignore the fuck out of any and all copyright shit.
- khafra 17y agoI wonder if learning to read simplified Chinese and joining Q-Zone would be even more effective than joining a Darknet, at least for some types of speech--and they probably don't care what you say about Western governments on there, either.
- lsc 17y agoSpeaking as a small provider who gets these kinds of takedown notices, America is actually pretty good when it comes to political speech. Perhaps the best in the world. if you get a takedown for political speech, nearly any small provider would be happy to fight for you, because it's wonderful publicity. (I say small provider, because in order to fight for you, someone with enough authority to do so has got to see the takedown, and decide it is bogus. At large companies, the people reading the takedown often don't have authority to decide to fight or not. the same incentive applies, though, so if someone at a large corporation with authority saw a bogus takedown for political speech, they might make the same decision a small provider would.) I know I'd be happy to defend original political speech against a bogus takedown notice... not because I'm patriotic or altruistic, but because the publicity would be priceless. this is America, and my customers are nerds; being at the center of some scandal where the feds were trying to shut down some opposing political viewpoint would be incredible, from a self-promotion standpoint. America becomes a bad place when you want some kind of commercial speech (or when your 'political' speech is commercial... but even then, so long as it's clear you have a valid claim and are not just copying someone else's copywritten work, it's pretty easy to find a provider willing to fight for you in order to garner the positive publicity.) I might be willing to stand up for political speech, but I'm going to cooperate with taking down customers who want to violate trademarks to sell knock-off goods (knock-off goods are fine, just don't violate trademarks.) I'm also not going to spend a penny defending people who want to share movies or other copywritten data. Right or wrong, that's not a fight I can win here in America. I keep telling my customers this; if you want to say something politically controversial, do so here. if you want to copy the latest movies, etc... host in eastern Europe or china, and don't involve me.
- 17y ago