US based interests in tech, oil, animal ag, pharma, porn, media and arms have done a fantastic job in making us think the enemy is our government and legislation. They get us protesting ULEZ and age restrictions on the internet as part of an evil conspiracy of green policy and surveillance by authoritarians.
These interests, that we all buy into and support, get our leaders to do stuff that makes them unpopular so that we blame them and not their puppet masters. These industries continue to extract, exploit and profit without regulation and with impunity.
Very well done - interesting piece. Parents are responsible for children, not websites, a fact which consistently eludes discussion, the faux helplessness assumed is fascinating.
Then on front two, curious where 4Chan goes. It reminds me of a landmark case in the US - Mitchell Brothers Film Group v. Cinema Adult Theater, 604 F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 1979). They made a porn film but we’re denied copyright protection because you “couldn’t copyright material which is a crime”. Turns out that copyright protection applies regardless of whether a work is alleged to be obscene. Who’d have thought!
I have a token from the theatre somewhere.
Next comes registration and child protection from watching more than three TV shows in a row.
Hate to be in charge next couple of years. Spanners 2! The day after.
Putting anyone in jail for anything that appears next to their social media handles is naturally going to tank the popularity of whoever is currently in power. These laws need to be removed ASAP.
Ultimately, if social media is going to take the place of mass media, it will have to be regulated like mass media.
In some ways, this already happens and is relatively uncontroversial. Youtube doesn't show dirty videos because kids have access to it. If there is a bit of nudity in a video, it gets blurred out. That's censorship, just censorship that is broadly accepted.
When it comes to news, the good news is that algorithms already give us an easy solution. We don't have to stop anyone saying anything online. The opinionated will be able to vent, and the vile will be able to spill their bile. But the government could make the social media companies not surface any of it. Anything that is news content that is pushed into the feed of non-subscribers must follow standards of reporting similar to how newspapers were and are held to account.
And children could be restricted to saccharine kids content, which will reduce the addiction. (This still poses a problem of identifying the children, but maybe this job could be fobbed off onto the tech companies? Instead of the government saying, we'll do it, how about imposing a duty to make best efforts to identify children and serve them with age-appropriate content? Then prosecuting and heavily fining any content provider that fails to do so. That would be a nice, market-based solution.)
Yes we do … but we’re being hunted by the one’s who want to make sure that title is believed by more people.
It’s freakin ridiculous.
I’ve written copiously about all solutions for all “techy” problems… and in the end it’s really simple… dumbasses don’t know anything except lying to keep the illusion going. It’s nothing else, and the title of that article only joins that idiocy.
US based interests in tech, oil, animal ag, pharma, porn, media and arms have done a fantastic job in making us think the enemy is our government and legislation. They get us protesting ULEZ and age restrictions on the internet as part of an evil conspiracy of green policy and surveillance by authoritarians.
These interests, that we all buy into and support, get our leaders to do stuff that makes them unpopular so that we blame them and not their puppet masters. These industries continue to extract, exploit and profit without regulation and with impunity.
Very well done - interesting piece. Parents are responsible for children, not websites, a fact which consistently eludes discussion, the faux helplessness assumed is fascinating.
Then on front two, curious where 4Chan goes. It reminds me of a landmark case in the US - Mitchell Brothers Film Group v. Cinema Adult Theater, 604 F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 1979). They made a porn film but we’re denied copyright protection because you “couldn’t copyright material which is a crime”. Turns out that copyright protection applies regardless of whether a work is alleged to be obscene. Who’d have thought!
I have a token from the theatre somewhere.
Next comes registration and child protection from watching more than three TV shows in a row.
Hate to be in charge next couple of years. Spanners 2! The day after.
Putting anyone in jail for anything that appears next to their social media handles is naturally going to tank the popularity of whoever is currently in power. These laws need to be removed ASAP.
Ultimately, if social media is going to take the place of mass media, it will have to be regulated like mass media.
In some ways, this already happens and is relatively uncontroversial. Youtube doesn't show dirty videos because kids have access to it. If there is a bit of nudity in a video, it gets blurred out. That's censorship, just censorship that is broadly accepted.
When it comes to news, the good news is that algorithms already give us an easy solution. We don't have to stop anyone saying anything online. The opinionated will be able to vent, and the vile will be able to spill their bile. But the government could make the social media companies not surface any of it. Anything that is news content that is pushed into the feed of non-subscribers must follow standards of reporting similar to how newspapers were and are held to account.
And children could be restricted to saccharine kids content, which will reduce the addiction. (This still poses a problem of identifying the children, but maybe this job could be fobbed off onto the tech companies? Instead of the government saying, we'll do it, how about imposing a duty to make best efforts to identify children and serve them with age-appropriate content? Then prosecuting and heavily fining any content provider that fails to do so. That would be a nice, market-based solution.)
Yes we do … but we’re being hunted by the one’s who want to make sure that title is believed by more people.
It’s freakin ridiculous.
I’ve written copiously about all solutions for all “techy” problems… and in the end it’s really simple… dumbasses don’t know anything except lying to keep the illusion going. It’s nothing else, and the title of that article only joins that idiocy.