Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by FatPhil on Thursday February 21 2019, @06:01PM   Printer-friendly
from the mob-rules dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

On Friday, the EU Commission published a piece on Medium that suggested that Google has taken over the minds of millions of citizens, rendering them incapable of thinking for themselves in their opposition of Article 13. The piece was later deleted with a note implying that people simply aren't capable of understanding the subtle nuances of the English language.

Last week the European Parliament and European Council agreed on the final text of the EU Copyright Directive.

Supporters of Article 13 say this will lead to a better deal for the entertainment industries at the expense of Google's YouTube, since it will have to obtain proper licenses for content uploaded to platform, while taking responsibility for infringing uploads.

Opponents, on the other hand, believe that the Article 13 proposals will be bad news for the Internet as a whole, since they have the potential to stifle free speech and expression, at the very least.

It's important to note that Article 13 opponents come in all shapes and sizes, some more militant than others. However, last Friday the EU Commission took the 'one size fits all approach' by labeling every dissenting voice as being part of a "mob", one groomed, misinformed and misled by Google. [...]>

Source: https://torrentfreak.com/eu-commission-deletes-article-13-post-because-mob-understood-it-incorrectly-190218/

I'm not sure who in the world [h]as the expectation that lawmakers be clear and unambiguous in all their communications. But even putting that aside, it might be fun to have a quick game of logical fallacy spotting on both sides of this spat. Alas one might start with some anti-EU-commission bias, thinking that they don't understand how the internet works, as they appear to think that you can "delete" things that have appeared on the internet. Aww, how cute! -- Ed.(FP)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Friday February 22 2019, @01:31AM (2 children)

    by captain normal (2205) on Friday February 22 2019, @01:31AM (#804815)

    What?? John Cage died in 1992, two years before Justin Bieber was born. Simon and Garfunkel did their last album in 1970. So even if it seemed that some noise may have sounded like a Bieber song it on the face is impossible that either Cage nor Simon and Garfunkel copied his work. Perhaps the holders of John Cage's estate should sue Bieber,

    --
    When life isn't going right, go left.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 22 2019, @02:58AM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday February 22 2019, @02:58AM (#804832) Homepage Journal

    Quit messing up a perfectly good conspiracy theory with your damned vulcan logic.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Friday February 22 2019, @07:21AM

    by zocalo (302) on Friday February 22 2019, @07:21AM (#804928)
    RFTA. This was a later parody/performance of Cage's piece, not an original performance during Cage's time - the argument being that *anything* could be background noise on Cage's work, including the Bieber track in question. Another reply to the OP has a story of takedowns on white noise, so it appears we may have the perfect trifecta already; DMCA takedowns on silence (kinda), white noise, and a continuous tone. I'd love to hear the people that wrote it try and justify their clearly well thought out and totally fair and watertight work... /s
    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!