According to what resembles a widespread urban myth was Mahatma Gandhi once asked what he thought of western civilization, and then replied: ”It would be a good idea!” Now, when there are voices that we need to protect the free and open internet, I think in the same lines. A free and open internet? Yes, it would be a good idea. But in practice it is not quite what we have today to protect.
the EU has hammered new rules for copyright on the internet, and they are now just a usually symbolic vote in march or april away from being voted on. Behind us we have nine months in which those who warned of the rules have been few and loud, while the media generally has been largely disinterested. Journalist Emanuel Karlsten has been one of the more persistent the reviewers of the rules, and he writes that he ”has become increasingly more alarmistisk” during the process. Are you worried about a social change is the role of the activist increasingly attractive, even for a journalist.
not good at all. Article 11 means that anyone who wants to repost nyhetsmediers headings have to pay for it, which means a crushing blow to the intelligibility of the current system for länkdelning: it will simply sometimes does not go to show the title of the article you are sharing. Article 13 requires of the sites where user-generated material uploaded to, under threat of fines, keeps clean of all copyrighted materials. It is an impossible sisyphean task for even the best filter, and creates an uncertain arbitrariness in the face whether or not it upload is approved or not.
Probably run the risk of the new EU rules make our online life worse, given that the network continues to look exactly like it does already, but why would it do this?
the Black-and-white, however, it is not. The intention with the framework is to balance up the new, economic ojämnvikten between those who produce and try to live on their music, their pictures, their movies and their journalism and the platforms that make money on this particular content spreads wildly, flanked by advertising. The giant revenue streams such as Youtube and Google render is at risk, and they know: therefore, pick up the influerare to opinionsbilda against the rules and spreading the dystopian images of the future search results would look like. However, they are difficult to sympathize with. It is in many ways the right to continue to defraud the fight.
it is easy to become upset. But someone comes along and wants to further degrade even the poorly built, leaky, and insecure sheds, tapetserat of advertising, then, is indifference closer at hand. The internet’s current guise is not God-created, but of the economic, technical and social processes. Enough at risk of the new EU rules make our online life worse, given that the network continues to look exactly like it does already, but why would it do this? IT companies can try to build a good product even if they are not offered on the gratislunch.
The new rules, or the status quo: pest or cholera. Not surprising that you do not want to stand on the barricades.
Read more texts by Jack Werner, among other things, about why the power of the police must be called into question.
