Honest Government Ads Takes On EU Parliament's Plan To Censor The Internet With Article 13
from the if-only-governments-were-so-honest dept
Juice Media has been doing its brilliant Honest Government Ads satires for a while now, and its latest target is all about the awful Article 13 in the EU’s Copyright Directive, which is returning to Parliament for another vote in just a few weeks. It’s a bit silly, but worth watching:
If you’re in the EU and this kind of clueless, dangerous regulating concerns you, speak out now. If you’re not in the EU, it still helps to speak out about this. Contact the EU Parliament or just spread the word so that others know just how much damage the EU may do to the internet if this moves forward.
Filed Under: article 13, censorship machines, copyright, eu copyright directive, eu parliament, honest government ads, mandatory filters
Comments on “Honest Government Ads Takes On EU Parliament's Plan To Censor The Internet With Article 13”
Australia's version of John Oliver
They cut through the bullshit to expose the real problems in a humorous way that people can understand and relate to. Groups like this do more for the people than most governments these days.
Re: Australia's version of John Oliver
Yes, and therefore they will be censored soon.
look on the bright side...
At least you guys have net neutrality over there… perfectly good regulations!
O wait… I always keep telling everyone how their “regulate all the things” mentality is going to result in shit like this, they keep saying I do not know what I am talking about.
So guys… how many times do I have to be proved correct before you knobs catch even a small clue?
Yes yes, I know.. queue the back peddaling saying but but but we are only for “good, benevolent, and utopian” regulations.
Yea, they don’t exists. small, narrow, well defined regulations against monopoly and trust are the best you can do… not any further! Or you just get this shit right the fuck here!
Re: look on the bright side...
So, ummm….Article 13 is a EU regulation. The net Neutrality debate currently generally centers on the US. Two very different regulatory environments.
Laws and regulations are necessary to establish the principles of adjudication of conflict between 2 parties.
But the community generally calls out overstepping regulation. Are you the anarchist or the guy who calls for regulation that isn’t called regulation?
Re: look on the bright side...
The hypocrisy of a group of readers blocking content they don’t like.
Techdirt’s been running their own FilterNET for years.
Re: Re: 'If you don't want your comments sent to time-out...'
Once more from the top then.
Re: Re: Re: 'If you don't want your comments sent to time-out...'
Every person who throws out this comic is a person who cannot see the forest for the trees.
From the top then:
YOU do not have an excuse to block MY content.
It’s that simple.
So the comic’s point is irrelevant.
Re: Re: Re:2 'If you don't want your comments sent to time-out...'
Why yes as a matter of fact, I do have an excuse.
You see that little red flag option to the upper right corner of every comment? If you hover your cursor over it you’ll get a description of what it’s for. I fully understand by now that you’re either incapable of seeing or too dishonest to admit as to why you comment and ones like it get flagged(and in neither case am I going to waste my time explaining it again), but that little bit of text explains quite nicely what the ‘excuse’ is, and it has nothing to do with ‘blocking content they/I don’t like.’
Re: Re: Re:3 'If you don't want your comments sent to time-out...'
Now you’re being a condescending asshole. Wonderful.
Since you clearly miss the point, let me spell it out for you:
YOU can block what you want.
YOU can decide who’s an asshole (including me, I won’t take offense)
YOU can decide what your kids can do
BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE EXCUSE TO BLOCK THE SAME CONTENT FROM ME.
How hard is this to understand?
I’ve never been a fan of TD’s inclusion of this idiotic censorship, where once again the vote of “public opinion” with their thin skins and low tolerance dictate what others can see.
And no, the fact I can “unhide” it doesn’t excuse the censorship option.
Here’s a better idea:
Allow users to be placed on an ignore list, then auto-hide the content FOR THE USER.
Leave everyone else out of the censorship regime.
Re: Re: Re:4 'If you don't want your comments sent to time-out...'
BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE EXCUSE TO BLOCK THE SAME CONTENT FROM ME.
I’m not, at most I and/or others who flag a comment are doing the equivalent of putting a sign on a door telling people that it’s not worth opening, while not in any way preventing them from walking in and finding out themselves. No content is ‘blocked'(or even BLOCKED) by being flagged, it is simply collapsed and hidden behind a single click of the mouse.
Allow users to be placed on an ignore list, then auto-hide the content FOR THE USER.
A system which would require anyone who wanted to comment on TD to create an account and only be able to post when signed in. Not only do I suspect that certain individuals would strongly object to that(and of course, given you’re currently commenting as an AC I simply must ask, as the one proposing such a system would you be willing to make an account and only post under that name?), but it would also punish those that don’t feel like making an account just to leave a few comments every now and then.
If you have the energy to type up a response that long, you can deal with a single mouse click per comment.
Re: Re: Re:4
Actually, we do. We call it “being a community”. You are a toxic presence in this community, and your comments getting flagged are a message from the community: “Stop being an asshole.”
We cannot kick you out, nor can we stop you from posting. But we can make sure your presence in and effct on this community is minimalized. We do that by flagging your comments. If you take issue with what we do, take issue with yourself, for you are the one making those comments. You have within you the ability to stop being an asshole at any time and carry on a productive and possibly insightful conversation with Techdirt’s commenter community. The responsibility for your refusal to do so rests squarely—and only—on your shoulders.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
It’s clear to me neither of you can understand the ramifications, and worse, you’re completely shielding your selfish behavior behind “community”.
That’s bullshit.
From now on, do me a favor: end all your replies with “But think of the children.”
Every single instance of every type of censorship always begins with an excuse that they’re doing for everyone else.
No one appointed you two the community saviors.
Block your own access.
Let others decide for themselves.
If you can’t allow for this, by all means, leave the US, and move to Europe.
They’ll be much more appreciative of your candid ability to censor what you deem “objectionable”.
The hypocrisy around here sucks.
Re: Re: Re:6
Other people besides us have decided, and when they flag your comments…well, as the xkcd comic puts it, they’re showing you the door.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Hi. I’m part of the community.
I don’t think Stephen T. Stone is my savior. But I will flag your post for being an asshole.
Also, I’ve decided to tell you to go fuck yourself.
Re: Re: Re:4 'If you don't want your comments sent to time-out...'
If it makes you feel any better the blocking on your favorite site Breitbart is far more aggressive.
Re: Re: Re:4 'If you don't want your comments sent to time-out...'
I love it when you beg for us to read your bullshit.
Re: Re: Re:2 'If you don't want your comments sent to time-out...'
I cannot block your content. I can flag it but that’s the extent of any individual’s involvement. If enough members of the community flag your post then it gets hidden, not blocked. This is a community consensus that your content is not worth reading but it does not equate to censorship or “blocking”.
The moral of the story: If your posts routinely get hidden by the community then perhaps you’re speaking to the wrong audience or in the wrong way. Review your posting practices with all due haste.
Re: Re: Re:3 'If you don't want your comments sent to time-out...'
Curious why others have no problem deciding what a person should or should not see. Seems to me that is a decision to be made by each individual.
BTW, if comments are deemed unworthy of being presented to the “community”, why is it that so many of such comments receive numerous responses by those who have collectively decided to hide them? It is a royal pain to try and follow a thread where important parts of the thread are not initially visible.
Re: Re: Re:4
Because anyone can see the comments by clicking a link. The flagging lets people know that the community thinks of any given flagged comment as an abusive/trolling/spam so others can decide whether they want to read it.
I frankly have little better to do with my time. (Responding to the trolls does help me improve my skills at arguing/debating, though, so I’ve got that goin’ for me.)
Re: look on the bright side...
O wait… I always keep telling everyone how their "regulate all the things" mentality is going to result in shit like this, they keep saying I do not know what I am talking about.
You don’t know what you’re talking about because no one here has a "regulate all the things" mentality, and no matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn’t make it true. It just makes you look like the childish, ignorant troll you are.
Re: Re: look on the bright side...
Yes you do have that fucking mentality. You just can’t admit it. I don’t know why, I wish I did so I could address it but you guys are like drug addicts that do not know or can admit that they have a problem.
The entire damn “regulation” debate constantly comes down to two words. Regulation or Deregulation and no one is talking any kind of limits on government, just the limits on businesses.
Your model begs, on its hands and knees, for government tyranny to be purchased by the businesses so that such tyranny can be visited upon you. I gives the “politicians” instead of the “consumers” the power to decide which businesses operate. It is this singular problem you constantly ignore while it stares you in your face.
Each day, week, month, & year more and more regulations get on the books. Because of this the power of businesses grow more and more. Because of this the wealth gaps grows more and more. Because of this politicians themselves become trapped in the grinding machine you ASKED them to build to protect you. Now, the guards to the hen house have been replaced by the wolves you asked for… and you are too stupid to even figure it out!
Re: Re: Re: look on the bright side...
“I know you are, but what am I?”
Basing your entire spiel on that playground taunt is why you’re never taken seriously.
Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Re: look on the bright side...
Let me summarize your reply: “LALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU FROM THE TOP OF MY AWESOME WISDOM!”
It’s kind of comedic.
Re: Re: Re: look on the bright side...
Yes you do have that fucking mentality. You just can’t admit it. I don’t know why, I wish I did so I could address it but you guys are like drug addicts that do not know or can admit that they have a problem.
I have asked you before to show us where we promote a "regulate all the things" and you refuse to do so. Because you can’t.
The entire damn "regulation" debate constantly comes down to two words. Regulation or Deregulation and no one is talking any kind of limits on government, just the limits on businesses.
Uh, no. In fact, in the rare cases when we do support regulation it tends to be limits on government (e.g. regulation to stop surveillance, or to block backdooring encryption). We almost never favor regulating companies. The only instances I can remember where we do that is with net neutrality, which we support reluctantly as the next best thing to actual competition. And we only supported it because it was very limited solely to the point of protecting the public against monopolist bad behavior.
Your model begs, on its hands and knees, for government tyranny to be purchased by the businesses so that such tyranny can be visited upon you.
What, pray tell, is "my model"? And where have I asked for governments to support businesses?
I’ll wait.
Each day, week, month, & year more and more regulations get on the books. Because of this the power of businesses grow more and more. Because of this the wealth gaps grows more and more. Because of this politicians themselves become trapped in the grinding machine you ASKED them to build to protect you. Now, the guards to the hen house have been replaced by the wolves you asked for… and you are too stupid to even figure it out!
I agree with most of this, except the part that I asked for it.
Again, I ask, why must you constantly lie about this point? What is wrong with you, mentally, that you continue to insist on something that is blatantly not true?
In the meantime, you too support regulations, as you yourself have admitted many times. In your case, you support anti-trust regulations. But I don’t think you support "regulate all the things." I am not 12 years old, and I can recognize that supporting a single piece of regulation does not mean "regulate all the things."
So, are you going to grow up and admit that you continue to spread false things about us… or will you do your usual and slink away and repeat this same lie again next week?
Re: Re: Re:2 look on the bright side...
If I’m reading this correctly, what (he?)’s referring to as "your model" is the idea that "in some contexts, regulatory frameworks can produce more positive outcomes than negative ones".
Based on past comment history, I suspect that this commenter has a model of (his?) own which I think could be summarized briefly as follows:
The fact that you apparently support the institution of network-neutrality regulations in that one limited context means that you support the imposition of some regulatory framework in some context.
When you put that fact together with the (strikingly absolutist) ideas given in those bullet points, the conclusion seems to follow naturally.
Refuting the conclusion would require refuting one or more of the given ideas. Unfortunately, this particular commenter seems to take those ideas as articles of the faith, and to be unwilling to waver on them no matter what evidence or logic is provided to the contrary.
How about that massive Article 13 protest, eh Mike? I think there were at least, oh, 19-20 people there. Very impressive.
Re: Re:
I’m 100% sure that’s more people then came to your last birthday party.
Re: Re:
SOPA’s death really ground your grits, didn’t it?