We’ve got a double winner on the insightful side this week, with That One Guy taking the top spot. In first place, it’s a long comment arguing that we weren’t hard enough on MEP Axel Voss:
‘Why Does MEP Axel Voss Keep Lying About Article 13?’
Is that a rhetorical question? Because the answer is blindly obvious from where I’m sitting, and applies to him and all the others like him to keep making blatantly false arguments and claims: Because it’s impossible to defend it honestly, and he(and others like him) is so contemptuous of the public that he has no problem lying straight to people’s faces if it means getting what he wants.
This is an astounding level of ignorance on so many levels
The time for ‘maybe he doesn’t understand what he’s talking about’ benefit of the doubt is well past. At best he’s grossly incompetent in not doing the slightest bit of research into a bill he’s heavily supported, but far more likely is that he’s not being ‘ignorant’ when he makes blatantly incorrect statements, he’s being dishonest, and deserves to be called out as the liar he is every single time he does it.
Instead, he has to play this charade, where he makes these ridiculous and easily debunked statements to support an unconscionable law that will lead to massive internet censorship and change the very fundamental nature of the internet itself.
And again, no.
He does not ‘have to’ lie to people’s faces and make dishonest arguments, he chooses to. No one is forcing him to lie and engage in dishonest tactics, so I see no reason to soften the language describing such acts in any way. He does not ‘have to’ lie, he deliberately chooses to lie.
In second place, it’s some extended thoughts on our post about Elizabeth Warren’s big tech breakup plan:
Need to work on those priorities
Meanwhile, if Warren were truly concerned about “monopolies” and a lack of competition, why isn’t her plan looking at the lack of competition in the broadband and mobile markets — cases where we have legitimate competition problems due to bad regulatory policies going back decades?
I was thinking this very thing the entire article. She wants to bust up monopolies that are harmful to the public? Then maybe put Google, Amazon and Facebook on the backburner and start with companies where in large numbers of cases people aren’t signed up with them because they’re popular, but because it’s either them or nothing.
If someone really doesn’t want to use Facebook the fact that it’s popular doesn’t mean they have to, as there are plenty of alternatives, but if the only choice of actual broadband in your area comes from one company whether you like them or not doesn’t matter, it’s either them or no internet, which is dramatically more severe than simply ‘no using this platform for social media’.
She wants to crack down on monopolies that are harmful to the public? Great, there are much better targets to start with, and I’d love for someone to point that out to her, if only to see her reaction and whether or not she’d be willing to go on the record as supporting the idea of going after Comcast and company for their respective monopoly positions.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from Qwertygiy, pushing back against the assertion that if copyright expired on the death of the creator, it would incentivize the murder of creators:
If an estate is passed down to heirs at the death of the owner, there would be an incentive for heirs to kill the owner of a valuable estate.
If a political office is put up for election upon the death of the holder, there would be an incentive to kill the holders of a valuable political office.
If funeral homes are paid upon the death of a person, there would be an incentive for funeral homes to kill random people.
Oh… wait… all of that is already true, and we have laws that are very effective deterrents against any of that from happening.
Next, it’s That Anonymous Coward arguing that, given the assault on fair use and public domain by copyright maximalists, a good first step in response would be to roll back copyright terms:
If fair use is such a burden, let us roll back the expansive handouts of extensions we’ve given them.
It is supposed to benefit us but I am really hard pressed to see how the public is getting any benefits.
Laws killing memes
Laws killing content they don’t control
Laws killing technological advancement
Fair use is so very mean to them… if we just did away with it then that damn dancing babies family would have coughed up the $150K the law says we deserve! That video cost us trillions of dollars in losses!!
Lets take back the extensions they wanted, because they have tormented those of us who agreed to grant them exclusive rights for a limited time in exchange for fair use & the public domain, they’ve been trying to kill fair use and they had killed the public domain for a very long time. Let us go back to a simpler time where ‘limited time’ didn’t mean 4 human life spans.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Boba Fat, who responded to Steven Spielberg’s opposition to Oscars for Netflix movies, and specifically to another commenter noting that “we’ve always done it this way” is a bad justification for anything:
Nonsense! We’ve always used that as our justification! We shouldn’t change it now.
In second place, we’ve got Toom1275 with another response to Spielberg:
Someone should call Jurassic Park and let them know they’re missing their dinosaur.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with a comment from Mike Read, who was struck by one of our headlines about Europe:
Clash Of EU’s Poorly Thought Out Laws
Is this a new mobile game?
And last but not least, we’ve got a comment from David about the shame of the NSA:
Things the NSA should not be proud of
The Clipper chip and the Clapper chap.
That’s all for this week, folks!
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Go to Source
Author: Leigh Beadon