Forum Post: Left&Right
Posted 11 years ago on Nov. 28, 2012, 9:38 p.m. EST by richardkentgates
(3269)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Earlier today, on NPR, I learned about #my2k. For those that don't know, it's a hashtag offered by Obama for The People to voice their positions about the tax debate on twitter. I certainly do not support many things he is doing, but I appreciate the use of the media to give voice to the public. It is only one topic, but it's a start. I also read and article today about a republican, Darrell Issa. The proposal seeks a two year moratorium on internet legislation, and this also means something to me. I think these are both victories for the 99%. The MSM is still busy non-reporting, but I think we see the start of a trend in our favor.
I'm confused about the assumption that all Internet legislation is a bad thing? For example, would you be opposed to the passage of the DMCA, if that were being debated right now?
I want grantees that I will not see any fees as a result of whatever they pass.
Well, if the DMCA have never passed, then you would've had to pay all kinds of legal fees in order to be able to start a lot of different kinds of websites. Just one example. Sites like we were talking about earlier, that allow users to contribute image content, would have been unreasonably expensive to launch before the DMCA.
No fees or taxes. I like it. It's not a hard concept, no offense. It's totally based on self interest.
The DMCA, which is a piece of Internet legislation, protects you from expenses related to content that users of your web applications upload. Without it, sites like Wikipedia would not be possible. Not all Internet legislation is bad, and a blanket ban on all Internet legislation is short-sighted. The Internet is so new that laws are still catching up, and we're still burdened by the application of a lot of ore-Internet laws to the Internet, which is the problem that the DMCA (just one example) solved. Making progress as a society involves not just technological and cultural changes, hut also legislative changes. Putting a stop to all Internet-related legislation would not necessarily be beneficial for anybody.
We have had this conversation and the issues being used to support regulation have to do with big industry and institutions. So again, the top dogs want everyone to conform to make their lives easier.
Hey, they have enough money to build a private internet with no problem and regulate that how they see fit. The internet is like the highway system and I will no sooner accept willy-nilly roadblocks on either of them.
Well then how do you explain the top dogs pushing through legislation that makes it possible for a guy in his garage to make a web site like Wikipedia that's full of user-contributed content? The DMCA seems to be a counter-example to disprove your theory on Internet legislation. Without it, you wouldn't be able to accept image uploads from your users without getting a copyright release for each image. Sites like Facebook and Pinterest and Soundcloud would not be possible.
Because that was also in their interest. My concern is when their interests conflict with mine and money wins the argument.
This could even be part of a stimulus project. A toll internet for big biz.
I guess it's supposed to be obvious who "they" means? Are you talking about Facebook? Because it's a big company? Facebook was started six years after the DMCA, and the guy who started it from a dorm room would not have been able to start it if the DMCA had not been passed. They're a "top dog" now, but only because of that Internet legislation. Without the DMCA, Facebook never would have happened.
Careful. It's not smart to agree with a republican on anything.
lol. It's amazing how much importance is placed on labels that have no real value aside from merchandising. Could I interest you in a bumper sticker?
I suggest you confer with the majority around here that places great store in labels.
Beware that it may be used to help satisfy the vocal...similar to the way recycling tends to perpetuate consumerism under the guise of a good thing. Politicians are aware more than ever the fragility of their power and so cleverly might use such tactics. I love you brother Obama (and think tank)
Other politicians will be forced into doing the same just to keep pace. As it grows, the real issues will become a two way conversation. After that, groups of regular people with practice can add to the flow. Like Occupy. It's the opening of a two way dialog that is important. And we all know mobile device users love nothing more than something else to click, share or tweet.
Richard. Would love your opnion on something. I was thinking of a ways to turn persons obsession with click technology back on itself by a creating a click arena that rewards based on how much real contact occurs. I have stumbled across an idea
Interesting so far...
Obama
Bush