Very good comment saulgoode. Very insightful. My answer is thus: Essential facilities can't exclude etc. by their own rules. This would be an abuse of power and position. But, because they are essential facilities, society - the state -can and should demand certain obligations and impose rules.
The land grab is data mining, consumer modeling, advertising and more, and Google and Facebook and others are unfolding a business plan and no critic or pundit gets it. They believe the Internet is free and beautiful and yahoo, and, oh, by the way, forget to keep an eye on the the monopolies and oligopolies arising. Just sayin'.
When i use the term "essential facility," I use it in an antitrust sense. Certain essential facilities, because they are facilities and essential, take on certain obligations, e.g., they can't be biased, they can't be political, they can't exclude. Well, Google has risen to the status of essential facility in the search world, yet we allow it to foist its views on its users through its portal. Where is good old antitrust law when you need it.
You think Google's interest in fighting SOPA and PIPA is in the public interest, and not exclusively supportive of its business model? Dude, please. You are being coopted into supporting the biggest land grab there is by corporate interests who pretend to support the public interest. Take more soma.
And besides, what is the purpose of the black patch? Google aint' gonna be a target of PIPA or SOPA. Answer? Google can't tolerate any perturbation in its business algorithm. Alrorithms need constancy and predictability, hence Google worries about the democratic process when it comes to its governance.
Is anyone but me offended that an essential facility like Google is able to tout its political stance on laws relating to its central business model, and look like it is interested in the public? Please. If any of the networks shut off the first 5 minutes of any popular show, to tout a political stance, can you imagine the uproar? But no, we let the new groupthinkers like Google and Facebook get their way. Pathetic. Rise up people. Be creative.
Good point AC. It's the diff between chasing a dealer after each meth transaction or chasing a dealer knowing their only business is meth transactions.
DMCA is instance-of-title by instance-of-title skirmish, is after the fact - after infringers get their stolen revenue, is usually ignored by foreign rogue sites, and is way too costly if not way beyond the means of small content owners. Carefully constructed, SOPA and PIPA will stop US support of foreign rogue sites themselves that are in the business of trafficking in stolen content to the US as determined by an impartial court.
DMCA is instance-of-title by instance-of-title skirmish, is after the fact - after infringers get their stolen revenue, is usually ignored by foreign rogue sites, and is way too costly if not way beyond the means of small content owners. Carefully constructed, SOPA and PIPA will stop US support of foreign rogue sites themselves that are in the business of trafficking in stolen content to the US as determined by an impartial court.
Not really, Mike. We find people in our community are very busy. So if they don't agree, they don't have to send the letter. Simple. But frankly, we are not hearing people care about the edit function. They are grateful there's a place finally where they can send their message to Washington and express their voice. Check it out. You'll see.
The point you are missing is that we are talking constituent letters. That is what we are generating. Letters from voters. Voters agitated. And so you must take into account an individual's letters to each of his or her 3 representatives. So factor that in when coming to your count. And be transparent.
But the Senate and House offices I seek to influence would report that as 3 separate contacts. And, after all, each office either has to record a contact or there is zero contact. You're missing the point. The point is influence, the end destination, not the origination point.
You'd like to report a Grand Slam in baseball as a home run, ignoring the 3 other runs brought in. OK. You're technically right, but you fail to see total impact on the game in doing so.
Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
Very good comment saulgoode. Very insightful. My answer is thus: Essential facilities can't exclude etc. by their own rules. This would be an abuse of power and position. But, because they are essential facilities, society - the state -can and should demand certain obligations and impose rules.
Re: Re: Re: Re: hey
The land grab is data mining, consumer modeling, advertising and more, and Google and Facebook and others are unfolding a business plan and no critic or pundit gets it. They believe the Internet is free and beautiful and yahoo, and, oh, by the way, forget to keep an eye on the the monopolies and oligopolies arising. Just sayin'.
Re: Re: hey
When i use the term "essential facility," I use it in an antitrust sense. Certain essential facilities, because they are facilities and essential, take on certain obligations, e.g., they can't be biased, they can't be political, they can't exclude. Well, Google has risen to the status of essential facility in the search world, yet we allow it to foist its views on its users through its portal. Where is good old antitrust law when you need it.
Re: Re: Re: hey
I like your humor. Um, you'll be surprised how disposable I am.
Re: Re: hey
Mike, Happy New Year!
You think Google's interest in fighting SOPA and PIPA is in the public interest, and not exclusively supportive of its business model? Dude, please. You are being coopted into supporting the biggest land grab there is by corporate interests who pretend to support the public interest. Take more soma.
Re:
Dude's funny. I enjoy a little levity as we all get down. Thanks Freddy.
And besides, what is the purpose of the black patch? Google aint' gonna be a target of PIPA or SOPA. Answer? Google can't tolerate any perturbation in its business algorithm. Alrorithms need constancy and predictability, hence Google worries about the democratic process when it comes to its governance.
hey
Is anyone but me offended that an essential facility like Google is able to tout its political stance on laws relating to its central business model, and look like it is interested in the public? Please. If any of the networks shut off the first 5 minutes of any popular show, to tout a political stance, can you imagine the uproar? But no, we let the new groupthinkers like Google and Facebook get their way. Pathetic. Rise up people. Be creative.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good point AC. It's the diff between chasing a dealer after each meth transaction or chasing a dealer knowing their only business is meth transactions.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike, sorry, I owe you a response on Korea. I've been busy but intend to get back to you. Good discussion ahead ....
Re: Re: Re: Re:
DMCA is instance-of-title by instance-of-title skirmish, is after the fact - after infringers get their stolen revenue, is usually ignored by foreign rogue sites, and is way too costly if not way beyond the means of small content owners. Carefully constructed, SOPA and PIPA will stop US support of foreign rogue sites themselves that are in the business of trafficking in stolen content to the US as determined by an impartial court.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
DMCA is instance-of-title by instance-of-title skirmish, is after the fact - after infringers get their stolen revenue, is usually ignored by foreign rogue sites, and is way too costly if not way beyond the means of small content owners. Carefully constructed, SOPA and PIPA will stop US support of foreign rogue sites themselves that are in the business of trafficking in stolen content to the US as determined by an impartial court.
Re: Re:
Mike, you're intentionally miscounting again. We have multiple sources of petition signers. You count one. We've been through this before. Be honest.
Re: Re:
Mike, you're intentionally miscounting again. We have multiple sources of petition signers. You count one. We've been through this before. Be honest.
Re: Re: Re:
Hope the managers' amendment provides a way forward.
Re: Re: Re:
Hope the managers' amendment provides a way forward.
Re:
First time I heard that argument!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count
Not really, Mike. We find people in our community are very busy. So if they don't agree, they don't have to send the letter. Simple. But frankly, we are not hearing people care about the edit function. They are grateful there's a place finally where they can send their message to Washington and express their voice. Check it out. You'll see.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count
The point you are missing is that we are talking constituent letters. That is what we are generating. Letters from voters. Voters agitated. And so you must take into account an individual's letters to each of his or her 3 representatives. So factor that in when coming to your count. And be transparent.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count
But the Senate and House offices I seek to influence would report that as 3 separate contacts. And, after all, each office either has to record a contact or there is zero contact. You're missing the point. The point is influence, the end destination, not the origination point.
You'd like to report a Grand Slam in baseball as a home run, ignoring the 3 other runs brought in. OK. You're technically right, but you fail to see total impact on the game in doing so.