A few months ago everybody was saying how awesome it was that the EU was regulating the Internet. You don't get to criticize them now. Or, well, I guess you can try, but that's not how things work in reality. Once the principle is established that the state (or suprastate) gets to impose regulations in an area of life, it may turn out that people you don't like work for the state also and they will do it too.
To mix some farm metaphors, the chickens are coming home now and it's too late to shut the barn door.
I disagree. There can be bad and good regulation. Just like there are bad and good comments. GDPR seems like a good idea, still. I'm guessing you think there should be no regulation of the internet. What about posting naked pics of you against your will - this actually happens, it's not a strawman argument. Net neutrality is a good thing, it doesn't happen without a regulation mandating it.
The argument is basically just that the government is so terrible at actually reliably making good laws, and at avoiding terrible unintended long-term consequences from even the best laws, and is so reliable about turning even the most well-intentioned and well-thought-out regulations into jumping-off precedent and justification for really bad ideas, that-
-despite the fact that pure Internet anarchy is obviously not the optimal solution, or even a particularly good idea-
-letting the government make well-intentioned and obviously-good laws about it is still worse.
I think that's somewhat missing the key nuance of the point. There are actually two debates:
1. Whether to regulate the internet.
2. Whether a specific regulation is a good one.
#2 is the debate that happens for every law in a democratic system. If you agree with the democratic system on principle, then you already acknowledge that the democracy may not choose the laws you want.
#1 is what you're talking about. But it's not an all or nothing deal. You can believe that the internet should be regulated and simultaneously believe that any specific regulation is a bad one.
I think that's somewhat missing the key nuance of the point. There are actually two debates:
1. Whether to regulate the internet.
2. Whether a specific regulation is a good one.
How often have lawmakers and regulators proposed things that would significantly break the Internet and online communities/activities? It seems to happen continuously, a few times a year.
I think you're somewhat missing the key nuance of a point. There are actually two debates. 1. Whether to text while driving. 2. Whether a specific texting is too distracting.
Here's the thing, though. Is legislation a remedy for bad internet legislation?
How often have lawmakers and regulators proposed things that would significantly break the Internet and online communities/activities? It seems to happen continuously, a few times a year.
Fair point. You can argue that not regulating the internet at all is overall better than dealing with all of the bad proposals. However, bringing it back to the post I was responding to, everyone wasn't celebrating the EU regulating the internet, everyone was celebrating privacy regulation in an instance where the system had gotten to a bad place on its own.
I think you're somewhat missing the key nuance of a point. There are actually two debates. 1. Whether to text while driving. 2. Whether a specific texting is too distracting.
You and I agree that the potential benefits are tiny compared to the harms of allowing texting while driving. On the other hand, you and I disagree that the balance is in favor of deregulating the internet.
That's a crucial difference. We never get to question 2 with texting while driving. We get to question 2 with internet legislation all the time.
Here's the thing, though. Is legislation a remedy for bad internet legislation?
Legislation doesn't exist in a vacuum, and bad legislation is remedied in multiple ways, one of which is more legislation.
That said, your question sounded to me like a rhetorical way to say that the risk of bad legislation isn't worth the occasional good one. Fair point. I disagree, but fair point. I don't think it's a useful debate to have because it's too fuzzy to be non-ideological, and, practically speaking, the world has already moved on from the question of whether to regulate the internet.
Fair point. You can argue that not regulating the internet at all is overall better than dealing with all of the bad proposals
It's pretty never ending, and legislators and regulators don't seem to clue in over time. The downsides are very often potentially huge, and the upsides are almost always questionable.
We get to question 2 with internet legislation all the time.
Rather like living someplace where you get to kill cockroaches all the time.
Legislation doesn't exist in a vacuum, and bad legislation is remedied in multiple ways, one of which is more legislation.
The solution to violence is more and better violence? The solution to hostility and hate is better backed and more potent hate? Laws and regulations are manipulated by big corporations to their advantage all the time, sometimes in direct contradiction to how the laws are sold to the public. The best move is to refuse them that power.
it's too fuzzy to be non-ideological, and, practically speaking, the world has already moved on from the question of whether to regulate the internet.
The formulation isn't fuzzy or ambiguous. The proper amount to regulate the internet is as little as possible.
I gotta say, the only difference I've noticed with the GPDR is I've got one more annoying popup to click.
I think it's supposed to allow me to deny cookies or customise them, but enough sites have just looked through to some huge unusable page when I click "more info" that I don't bother anymore.
Newspapers are dying off. Readers land on an article linked from Google then leave. Maybe in the interest of free speech, we do actually need the link tax. Users need to start using the homepages of these news sites and discovering their full reading experience.
That doesn't mean we need a link tax. That means we need a new model for journalism that can pay the bills in the modern internet world. We shouldn't be trying to save the old formats beyond the point they're unprofitable, in the same way we shouldn't be trying to save most businesses and organisations when they can't make ends meet. The solution to issues caused by disruptive technologies and a change in culture is to find something new that works, not keep the old guard alive at the expense of everyone else.
Nonsense. Newspapers are dying off because they aren't doing their job. They all copy news from the same few sources, and do almost no decent investiation. Why doesn't anybody care for more than a title and a short snippet? Because what's left is filler.
I would really like a newspaper if it provided decent content. I would even prefer a weekly in depth edition instead of a daily dose of mcNews, we'll-give-two-sides-even-if-one-is-insane, and political opera. Now who can I give my money?
A tax means google pays, not me, and they can continue creating garbage. The market has spoken, newspapers. Please do your job or drop dead.
When it was economic, there was lots of local news. That kind of news by definition cannot be copied; nobody else is writing it. The papers that are surviving the digital age are the ones with massive scale. Yes, the New York Times does good reporting, but that's not the only reason it's alive. It reports on things that a huge number of people care about. Those issues will keep getting at least substantial attention, if not the level they used to.
On the other hand, lots of small rural places deciding, say, whether to frack near their river, don't get the kind of insights into the problem that they used to.
> I would really like a newspaper if it provided decent content.
It's the catch-22 though, isn't it? If you want good content, you need newspapers to pay good writers. If you want them to be able to pay for good writers, they need a revenue stream. If you don't want to help provide a revenue stream until they provide good content, where does that leave you?
> Maybe in the interest of free speech, we do actually need the link tax.
The link tax isn't a free speech issue. It's an issue of news companies not adapting to the changing climate. Perhaps monolithic news companies will go extinct and be replaced by distributed individual citizen/contract journalism? Forcing a fee for clicking on news links is ridiculous because a) many companies already paywall their content so it's clearly already possible, b) it's attempting to force people to adapt to the news companies' business model rather than having them adopt to the internet and c) perhaps it's about time the news was democratised anyway.
YouTube (i.e., Google) already does article 13 (i.e., the extinction event is home-grown). Just today I saw a note from someone who got a takedown notice from YouTube after posting his own performance, done in his own home, of a Beethoven piece: the algorithm found infringement.
'Under Article 13 — the "censorship machines" — anyone who allows users to communicate in public by posting audio, video, stills, code, or anything that might be copyrighted — must send those posts to a copyright enforcement algorithm. The algorithm will compare it to all the known copyrighted works (anyone can add anything to the algorithm's database) and censor it if it seems to be a match.'
19 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 58.1 ms ] threadTo mix some farm metaphors, the chickens are coming home now and it's too late to shut the barn door.
-despite the fact that pure Internet anarchy is obviously not the optimal solution, or even a particularly good idea-
-letting the government make well-intentioned and obviously-good laws about it is still worse.
1. Whether to regulate the internet.
2. Whether a specific regulation is a good one.
#2 is the debate that happens for every law in a democratic system. If you agree with the democratic system on principle, then you already acknowledge that the democracy may not choose the laws you want.
#1 is what you're talking about. But it's not an all or nothing deal. You can believe that the internet should be regulated and simultaneously believe that any specific regulation is a bad one.
1. Whether to regulate the internet.
2. Whether a specific regulation is a good one.
How often have lawmakers and regulators proposed things that would significantly break the Internet and online communities/activities? It seems to happen continuously, a few times a year.
I think you're somewhat missing the key nuance of a point. There are actually two debates. 1. Whether to text while driving. 2. Whether a specific texting is too distracting.
Here's the thing, though. Is legislation a remedy for bad internet legislation?
Fair point. You can argue that not regulating the internet at all is overall better than dealing with all of the bad proposals. However, bringing it back to the post I was responding to, everyone wasn't celebrating the EU regulating the internet, everyone was celebrating privacy regulation in an instance where the system had gotten to a bad place on its own.
I think you're somewhat missing the key nuance of a point. There are actually two debates. 1. Whether to text while driving. 2. Whether a specific texting is too distracting.
You and I agree that the potential benefits are tiny compared to the harms of allowing texting while driving. On the other hand, you and I disagree that the balance is in favor of deregulating the internet.
That's a crucial difference. We never get to question 2 with texting while driving. We get to question 2 with internet legislation all the time.
Here's the thing, though. Is legislation a remedy for bad internet legislation?
Legislation doesn't exist in a vacuum, and bad legislation is remedied in multiple ways, one of which is more legislation.
That said, your question sounded to me like a rhetorical way to say that the risk of bad legislation isn't worth the occasional good one. Fair point. I disagree, but fair point. I don't think it's a useful debate to have because it's too fuzzy to be non-ideological, and, practically speaking, the world has already moved on from the question of whether to regulate the internet.
It's pretty never ending, and legislators and regulators don't seem to clue in over time. The downsides are very often potentially huge, and the upsides are almost always questionable.
We get to question 2 with internet legislation all the time.
Rather like living someplace where you get to kill cockroaches all the time.
Legislation doesn't exist in a vacuum, and bad legislation is remedied in multiple ways, one of which is more legislation.
The solution to violence is more and better violence? The solution to hostility and hate is better backed and more potent hate? Laws and regulations are manipulated by big corporations to their advantage all the time, sometimes in direct contradiction to how the laws are sold to the public. The best move is to refuse them that power.
it's too fuzzy to be non-ideological, and, practically speaking, the world has already moved on from the question of whether to regulate the internet.
The formulation isn't fuzzy or ambiguous. The proper amount to regulate the internet is as little as possible.
I think it's supposed to allow me to deny cookies or customise them, but enough sites have just looked through to some huge unusable page when I click "more info" that I don't bother anymore.
I would really like a newspaper if it provided decent content. I would even prefer a weekly in depth edition instead of a daily dose of mcNews, we'll-give-two-sides-even-if-one-is-insane, and political opera. Now who can I give my money?
A tax means google pays, not me, and they can continue creating garbage. The market has spoken, newspapers. Please do your job or drop dead.
On the other hand, lots of small rural places deciding, say, whether to frack near their river, don't get the kind of insights into the problem that they used to.
It's the catch-22 though, isn't it? If you want good content, you need newspapers to pay good writers. If you want them to be able to pay for good writers, they need a revenue stream. If you don't want to help provide a revenue stream until they provide good content, where does that leave you?
Note: By "you" I mean "everyone"
The link tax isn't a free speech issue. It's an issue of news companies not adapting to the changing climate. Perhaps monolithic news companies will go extinct and be replaced by distributed individual citizen/contract journalism? Forcing a fee for clicking on news links is ridiculous because a) many companies already paywall their content so it's clearly already possible, b) it's attempting to force people to adapt to the news companies' business model rather than having them adopt to the internet and c) perhaps it's about time the news was democratised anyway.
'Under Article 13 — the "censorship machines" — anyone who allows users to communicate in public by posting audio, video, stills, code, or anything that might be copyrighted — must send those posts to a copyright enforcement algorithm. The algorithm will compare it to all the known copyrighted works (anyone can add anything to the algorithm's database) and censor it if it seems to be a match.'