SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The US government is seeking public comments on blocking sites accused of hosting copyright infringing materials and ISP liability in such cases. The discussion includes possible harmonization with current developments in the EU in regards to copyright and will take place in two parts. The first stage will deal with US case law developments since the last meetings. The second stage will focus on foreign developments, such as the infamous Articles 11, 12a, and 13, and how these relate to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Internet service provider liability.
The U.S. Government's Copyright Office is continuing its review on the future of the DMCA's safe harbor provisions. It's specifically asking the public for input on recent domestic and international developments that relate to ISP liability, including Article 13 and pirate site blocking.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 05 2019, @03:28PM (14 children)
I seem to recall the FCC asking for public comment on something Internet related recently. That didn’t turn out the way they wanted it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 05 2019, @03:40PM (12 children)
Yes it did. It went exactly the way they wanted it. They ignored the results, blamed hackers for problems, refused to provide evidence, and only now are having troubles in court providing actual explanations for their actions.
That has nothing to do with public comments, since the comments didn't influence their decisions at all. If they are hung out to dry, it'll be for what they did, not for what they did not do--which would be following what the citizenry demanded.
This will be pretty much the same way, and further rights will erode. Just imagine what sort of ideas various special interest groups will get--they can introduce bills to further mandate restrictions on freedom because they don't like it when someone does X!
Also, if ISPs start filtering this stuff, it strengthens the FCCs original flaky arguments about ISPs being a service and not a utility. We DO NOT WANT them being FORCED to provide such filtration because then they aren't a utility any longer--they will be information services providers. Which is what they were called when net neutrality was repealed.
Plus, blocking content based on its obscenity or piracy or whatever is a very slippery slope as it is. There are already laws forbidding piracy. They can focus on such enforcement rather than mandating that companies like Comcast lock people into information services that only serve to enrich their profit margins by blocking whatever they seem to a threat to profits.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 05 2019, @04:03PM (10 children)
Your description of the end state for ISPs sounds shockingly similar to what AOL provided in the 90's. It was crap then, it's crap now and will be crap in the future. An open and free internet is the solution; we need people to wake up (again) and demand it.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday February 05 2019, @06:08PM (9 children)
A de-centralized internet does not fix that we still have web sites that are major nexus' of power and control. eg, Google. YouTube. Facebook. Twitter. Etc.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 05 2019, @06:42PM
You can't force people to do what is best for them so you'll keep having a large percentage flock to such providers. A decentralized internet at least gives people the freedom to choose alternatives.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday February 05 2019, @06:42PM (6 children)
They have absolutely no power, other than what is given to them by the users of their services. They cannot cut off your access to the internet ,except through ISP blocking. Our only issue with the internet is service provision. Content providers are putzes.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 05 2019, @10:39PM (1 child)
Considering that Facebook builds shadow profiles about people who don't even use their disservice, just boycotting them is not enough. I take all kinds of measuring to deter information collection about me, but even so, I know that these monstrous surveillance engines have some information about me.
So, the boycott approach does not work by itself. Just as there are clear negative externalities when people pollute, there are clear negative externalities when people use monstrous surveillance engines like Facebook and Google, or use proprietary software. As more people sign away their freedoms, the influence of the monsters grows and it becomes harder and harder for free people to remain free.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by fustakrakich on Tuesday February 05 2019, @11:17PM
As more people sign away their freedoms, the influence of the monsters grows and it becomes harder and harder for free people to remain free.
None of that is Facebook's or Google's fault.
If you want to take the profit out of data collection, you'll have to give it all up openly to the government, socialize it, and then when you demand access to your own, they can't deny they have it.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday February 06 2019, @02:41PM (3 children)
So in other words, they have gigantic amounts of power.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday February 06 2019, @03:42PM (2 children)
Only what is freely given. No force or coercion is involved. You take away the power by turning your back, that easy.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday February 06 2019, @09:03PM (1 child)
I begin to fear that the documentary Idiocracy informs us of how well that would work.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday February 07 2019, @04:08AM
I'm not raising any hopes. I'm merely pointing where the power is.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Tuesday February 05 2019, @11:37PM
These platforms hold a monopoly on much of the the monetization of social media.
.
From my non creator perspective, of these, Google and Youtube would be inconvenient to lose, but there are options for them. Facebook and Twitter wouldn't bother me to lose a single bit.
.
.
.
Google - yeah, annoying, but I'm really trying to like Dogpile. Just not the same though. Still, at least there's a lot of competition.
.
Youtube - A few people I used to watch on Youtube are now on Bitchute [bitchute.com]. Also a few people I still watch on Youtube cross-post to Bitchute.
.
Facebook - I log into facebook once or twice a year. I logged into Google+ more. So this one doesn't apply to me.
.
Twitter - I've never tweeted from my twitter account and other than following links that go there for news stories I tend to avoid it. I use gab [gab.ai] a bit though, mostly for snarky comments. So this one doesn't apply to me.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06 2019, @01:05PM
I think this time is different in they hope that people will not comment based on news about the earlier corruption and coverup. This way they can say Hey look, nobody gives a fuck! and do what they want to do. Do comment, that's our only hope. Maybe there will be a rational government one day that will look into these grave abuses.
tl;dr VOICE YOUR COMMENTS NEVERTHLESS
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 05 2019, @03:44PM
It'll be flooded with fake comments from **AA bots, then the database of real comments will be hacked into by the **AA to extort them for money for pirating.