SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Last week we wrote a critical analysis of Elizabeth Warren's big plan to break up "big tech." As we noted, there was a lot in the plan that was nonsensical, unsupported by the facts or just plain confused. We'll be talking more about some of these ideas a lot over the next few years I imagine (stay tuned), but there was one line in Warren's plan that deserved a separate post: it appears that a part of Warren's big attack on big tech... is to give a massive handout to Hollywood. Here's the line:
We must help America's content creators — from local newspapers and national magazines to comedians and musicians — keep more of the value their content generates, rather than seeing it scooped up by companies like Google and Facebook.
That may sound rather basic and lacking any details, but what's notable about it is that the language reflects -- almost exactly -- the language used in the EU in support of the absolute worst parts of the EU Copyright Directive (specifically, Article 11 and Article 13). For example, this Q & A page by the Legislative Affairs Committee of the EU Parliament uses quite similar language:
The draft directive intends to oblige giant internet platforms and news aggregators (like YouTube or GoogleNews) to pay content creators (artists/musicians/actors and news houses and their journalists) what they truly owe them;
Why, that sounds quite familiar. Indeed, Warren's announcement even uses "keep more of the value their content generates," which appears to be a reference to the completely made up notion of a "value gap" between what internet platforms make and what they should be paying artists.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:31AM (11 children)
A normal candidate has a huge fundraising problem. This is solved by making deals with various entities that do not want to put America first: foreign nations (China, Israel, Ukraine...), individual corporations (Disney, Apple, Amazon...), industry groups (NAR, RIAA, US CoC...), clubs with membership (Sierra Club, Brady United, Greenpeace...), unions (AFL-CIO, NEA, UFT...), and so on.
Candidates that don't pander to these entities are quickly eliminated. For example, in the 2016 election, very briefly Scott Walker was a presidential candidate. He didn't get the cash, so he dropped out.
Nothing ensures that a candidate with $billions will be any good, but one without $billions is certain to be lousy at best. Without those $billions, the candidate is a puppet with strings being pulled by financial supporters.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:38AM (6 children)
Candidates that don't pander to these entities are quickly eliminated.
They're only cut off from the funding trough. You can still vote for them. If enough people do, even without the money, and contrary to popular belief, they still win the seat.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:01AM (5 children)
All it takes is some russian hackers to steal the election from each and every one of these candidates, even when it is their turn to win.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:10AM (1 child)
Your Russian bullshit is getting mighty tiresome. The "hackers" will be domestic in origin. The republican/democrats have much more interest in stealing the election than the Russians. It only means that the opposition needs to win by a huge margin so fraud will be easy to prove.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @01:07PM
Moderation: -1 Whooosh
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:27AM
+1 Sarcastic
(I hope at least)
(Score: 3, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday March 21 2019, @06:04AM (1 child)
Don't worry, our Elections will never be hacked again. I'm moving very strongly against the Election Hackers. My D.A.R. P.A. is building a VERY SPECIAL Voting Machine. They're building it like the F-35. The hackers can be standing right next to our Voting Machine and won't be able to see it. So they won't be able to hack it. It's known as stealth. Something that China or Russia would love to have. They don't have it. And it's a very long time before they can get it. Winning!
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday March 21 2019, @01:15PM
Good idea actually. The boxen being stealthy, you won't even be able to read the made in China plaque on the side, which is a bonus.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Informative) by ilPapa on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:34AM (2 children)
Scott Walker was one of the rare candidates that did pander to those interests, but still couldn't raise any money. It had something to do with the fact that he was unlikeable, not vary bright, and even the people of his own (swing) state couldn't really stand him. Most of the things he did hurt the citizens of his own state but he helped the Koch Brothers out a lot. Remember when someone called him pretending to be a Koch brother and he started slobbering on the guy's knob right over the phone?
They finally sent him packing out of politics, but he is currently an energy industry lobbyist and has made a nice niche for himself in the conservative loser welfare state.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @06:52AM
Scott Walker was also dead obvious when he did it. He said that he wanted to expand the Renewable Fuel Standard in Iowa and that the RFS should be eliminated in Texas; both occurred in public events, within a week of each other, and were widely reported. He then tried to cover for it by basically saying that you have to lie and bend the truth when campaigning for president.
FWIW, Ted Cruz did the same thing at about the same time, but at least he managed to pull himself out of it by not being so obvious.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @11:16AM
you spelled vary correctly, but didn't use it very well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 23 2019, @03:29AM
And yet, that's exactly what Trump is. He's super-serving the elites, and if he wasn't, he wouldn't be in favor of our 7+ interventions overseas, putting Goldman Sachs goons in his administration, conducting mass surveillance on the populace, and continuing business as usual in general. Sure, he occasionally claims to oppose wars and takes populist positions, but he almost immediately backpedals. So, Trump is a fake populist, and the answer to fake right-wing populism is real populism from the left.
I mean, it makes sense. Why the hell would a billionaire - someone who indisputably benefited immensely from the status quo - want to fundamentally change the system? The only candidates who even have a chance of trying to seriously change the system are those who refuse to accept corporate money and who also don't engage in bundling. Sanders has led the way in this regard, with the sheer number of small dollar donations he has received. Thus, until we get money entirely out of politics and have public financing of elections, we need to insist that candidates only accept donations from ordinary people.
And as for corrupt Democrats who do accept corporate money, they should be primaried out of office by better candidates who actually want to help the people, as is the goal of organizations like Justice Democrats.
The situation is not hopeless; you're just not paying attention.