This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Blake C. Stacey with a comment highlighting the extreme breadth of the internet services the Canadian government wants to regulate with a heavy hand:
“Through this framework, “Online Communications Services” (the government lists Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter as examples)”
But it sure as hell isn’t limited to those examples. Quoting item 1(A).2:
“The Act should define the term Online Communication Service (OCS) as a service that is accessible to persons in Canada, the primary purpose of which is to enable users of the service to communicate with other users of the service, over the internet.
That’s every forum, bulletin board, fediverse instance and comment section. Once again, lawmakers act as though Facebook is the Internet … and propose a regulatory regime under which it will be.
‘Our murders aren’t the crime, you exposing them is.’
“His plea followed the judge’s declaration that the court would not allow Hale to offer any public interest defense for his actions — something that’s almost always the case in espionage prosecutions.”
At that point you might as well drop the farce entirely and declare that the only outcome that will be considered acceptable or valid will be a guilty one because the outcome had already been decided before the trial even started and they’re just going through the motions to twist the knife even more.
Why is often more important than what, being the difference between self-defense and murder as an example, so completely barring context like that is blatantly rigging the trial and ensuring that only the desired outcome will be reached.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with an anonymous comment also about Daniel Hale, bringing in the full context of his words of “apology” for doing the right thing:
Maybe I should have included the full quote:
“I am here because I stole something that was never mine to take — precious human life,” Hale said. “I couldn’t keep living in a world in which people pretend that things weren’t happening that were. Please, your honor, forgive me for taking papers instead of human lives.”
Here is just one source:
I actually think Biden’s right, the trigger that sets things in motion for the next major war will be some sort of cyber-attack. Not because the US or any other power intends to start a shooting war over it, but just because that event started a chain of misunderstandings and judgemental errors that will result in the shooting starting. Remember that the last time we were on the verge of a nuclear war (1995, Boris Yeltsin had actually retrieved the launch codes and was prepared to issue launch orders) it was because of the launch of a Norwegian research rocket. And Russia had even been told about the launch beforehand, the information simply hadn’t been passed up the chain of command. My guess is it’ll be the same thing: a cyber-attack (or more than one) gets everyone finger-pointing and causes disruptions that could be taken advantage of, then something else happens on one side that gets misinterpreted by the other side, someone in the chain decides that if they wait long enough for solid confirmation it’ll be too late to act, or a couple of opposing pilots get a little too rambunctious and an accidental missile release triggers itchy trigger fingers on both sides, or an innocent vehicle gets misidentified as a threat and shot which triggers retaliation…
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Bobvious with a comment for all the people who try to abuse the law to hide negative reviews:
There are those who think that SEO stands for Search Engine Optimisation, and that they can engage companies to fix their reputations through it.
Well, for far too many it stands for Streisand Effect Outcomes.
In second place, it’s an anonymous comment about Apple’s announcement that it will be compromising its device security… for the children:
Apple, Google, Facebook and their ilk are clearly not the ones at fault here. It is time we face the fact who our true enemies are: The Children. Techdirt, since time immemorial, have hinted at their ungodly powers to sway the will of the most powerful corporations and governments. We need to stop them.
Personally, I have never seen one of these little fuckers so I have no idea how we can defeat them but we have to try.
Because if we don’t, then… The Children have already won.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with a comment from Chris Brand in response to the latest argument against Section 230:
“Section 230 privileges tech communication over print and in-person communication by excusing tech companies from liability in the courts. In contrast, paper and in-person communication is still fully subject to liability. The result has been to accelerate and accentuate tech dominance over other modes of speech”
I always wondered why why online communication was so predominant these days – whether it was the speed, or reach, those “network affects”, or something else. Now I know – it was section 230.
Finally, it’s LACanuck with a response to a commenter insisting, perhaps while forgetting the context of GETTR fighting against jihadist propaganda, that “getting censored proves your opinion is the strongest” (and equal mention also goes to an anonymous commenter who made the exact same point):
I’m confused. You’re suggesting that Islamic Jihadist propaganda is the strongest because GETTR is censoring it?
That’s all for this week, folks!
Go to Source
Author: Leigh Beadon