Tomorrow: Internet Freedom Experts Team Up For A Giant Reddit AMA
from the join-us dept
All day tomorrow, Wednesday, October 24, a bunch of people heavily involved in internet freedom causes — from the SOPA fight to the Declaration for Internet Freedom to work around cybersecurity and the fight against ACTA/TPP are all teaming up for a giant Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything — or, basically, a big Q&A session). I’m included as one of the folks taking part, but there are plenty of much more interesting people involved, including Alexis Ohanian (Reddit, HipMunk, Breadpig), Ben Huh (Cheezburger), Michael Geist (Canadian copyright expert), along with people from EFF, Public Knowledge, Public Citizen, Open Media, ACLU and a bunch of others as well. It’s basically going to go all day, starting from 9am ET. So stop by, ask some questions, and talk about internet freedom… Update: The link to the AMA.
Filed Under: alexis ohanian, ama, ask me anything, ben huh, copyright, internet freedom, michael geist, sopa
Companies: reddit
Comments on “Tomorrow: Internet Freedom Experts Team Up For A Giant Reddit AMA”
“Internet freedom experts” including “Alexis Ohanian (Reddit, HipMunk, Breadpig), Ben Huh (Cheezburger), Michael Geist (Canadian copyright expert), along with people from EFF, Public Knowledge, Public Citizen, Open Media, ACLU and a bunch of others as well.”
So is “internet freedom” a euphemism “not getting caught”?
Re: Re:
So is “internet freedom” a euphemism “not getting caught”?
And the really amazing thing is that we’re out there fighting for your internet freedom as well, so that you make batshit crazy ignorant statements like this one.
You can thank us later.
Re: Re:
“So is “internet freedom” a euphemism “not getting caught”?”
Seriously – are you really that naive?
Re: Re:
Did your mother drop you on the head as a child?
Re: Re:
“Tyranny is the death of nuance.”
Re: Re:
get lost
Re: Re:
Fuck off. Seriously, fuck off and never come back. You are one of the most hated people on this site, you contribute nothing worthwhile and are always wrong. Every statement you make is shredded within minutes of being posted. Are you seriously calling every person in that list a criminal? A criminal for what? What charges? What evidence do you have?
No, this is you, Average_Joe, who lies about being a law student, yet doesn’t realise that in law, when you accuse someone, you must have evidence. There is no evidence presented for your accusations because there is none. Those groups have done nothing wrong.
That’s assuming Reddit will remain up for (and during) it. 😉
“I’m included as one of the folks taking part, but there are plenty of much more interesting people involved……”
There’d have to be.
Re: Re:
in light of which, you’re here… why, exactly?
Re: Re: Re:
Mike is a lot of things, but he is not really the top dog. Michael Geist is a professor and expert in these things, Ben Huh is owner of a large consumer of freedom of speech, Ohanian is a real internet entrepreneur and the other organisations are mostly known for “lobbying” for the interest of common people online.
Let's see, who, what... uh, WHERE?
This is typical of “teh Internets”: inability to give the most basic details. You may think the site address is obvious, Mike, but it’s still de rigueur to actually state it — and make a link to it! Geez. You’re supposed to make it easy for someone who — like me — has NEVER even skimmed the site (I know well enough indirectly that it’s a snake-pit, even before learning of “violentacrez” and his jailbait forum); it’s part of growing the base. — -10 for failure to link. -10 for mentioning reddit at all. -10 for self-promotion. -10 for name-dropping.
But don’t bother on my account. If it’s at reddit.com, that’s long been in my hosts file so I can’t get to it by accident, nor can at least 3 of their ad servers hit me. Therefore I suggest a topic of being free from unwanted sites and their damned ad servers, it’s THE most crucial point of freedom as otherwise commercial interests will ruin the fun entirely.
———– 2nd topic
Have to point up your unwitting self-reference in “And the really amazing thing is that we’re out there fighting for your internet freedom as well, so that you [can] make batshit crazy ignorant statements like this one.” — Now, Mike, “average_joe” asked a question: ‘So is “internet freedom” a euphemism “not getting caught”?’ — Then YOU made the statement, that by its internal evidence is “batshit crazy ignorant”, SO can only be referring to yourself! In my view that’s whatcha call a Freudian slip.
AND an Ivy League professional presumably hoping to attract other professionals to his site instead of wannabe pirates, spitting “batshit crazy ignorant” at anyone is just SO laughably typical of teh Internets and what passes for “freedom” on it. Keep it classy, Mike.
——— further on topic ———–
Here’s a site I ran across just today, with essentially my view regarding reddit and their notions of “free speech”:
“Bullshit :: troll boy [violentacrez] should have been outed by Reddit proper years ago ? total leadership fail.
[… (the following ellipses are in original)]
I have granted people license to FREE SPEECH on this site :: but I have FREE SPEECH too ? and it?s my responsibility to exercise it whenever I see the license I?ve granted being abused to harm innocents. The bigger I get ? the truer that gets. There is no freedom in pure freedom. Your words and actions online can have a dramatic effect on people?s in real life lives. FREE SPEECH is not about speech without consequence or responsibility :: it can?t be ? or they?ll have the excuse they need to take it away from us.”
http://saltydroid.info/hulk-hogan-sex-tape-prequel/
Plenty of salty language there for those who like it that way, yet when used correctly, even vulgarity can still add emphasis.
Re: Let's see, who, what... uh, WHERE?
Is it just me or does it really seem like OOTB’s handle got hijacked by Charles Carreon?
Re: Re: Let's see, who, what... uh, WHERE?
A lot of words in his post, but not a lot of coherency to it.
Re: Let's see, who, what... uh, WHERE?
Actually free speech *must* be about speech without consequence or responsibility (in so far as it is only speech, if it is a speech to cause actions that may be different) free speech with limitations is not free due to the chilling effect, once there is precedent that *any* speech is not free people will not say things that may be dimly looked upon even if they need to be said.
Also the statement contradicts itself, if free speech is without consequence or responsibility then it *cannot* be the excuse to take it away as the removal that would be a consequence of the free speech.
Re: Let's see, who, what... uh, WHERE?
And you’re the shining, stellar example of giving details yourself, aren’t you…
Re: Let's see, who, what... uh, WHERE?
You could have simply asked politely for a link instead of showing off exactly how much of a two year old you are.
HEY MIKE! I’ve got an idea. When this starts, give us the link but send it via e-mail to all registered members on this site (making sure you exclude Average_Joe). We don’t want clueless trolls mucking up the conversation. We want to discuss with those on the other side of the copyright debate, with those who can have reasoned and sane responses (then again, in my view, that can’t happen, in that if you support copyright, you’re already unreasonable and insane…but that’s just my opinion. And Joe, hasn’t_got_a_clue, bob, that’s MY opinion, not Mike Masnick’s).
The overreach of intellectual property needs to make its way to this election debate on the mainstream media. It seems like the media and candidates have mostly ignored each other except for Romney claiming that we need to expand IP enforcement, which infuriates.
For a candidate to not publicly and aggressively proclaim that the scope of IP needs to be substantially reduced should result in political suicide.
Re: Re:
All of people who thought Obama overreached on IP enforcement are in for a real surprise if there’s a new sheriff in town come January.
Re: Re: Re:
Republicans claim to be free market capitalist but only to the extent that it helps big business. Otherwise, they are tyrant, anti-consumer, plutocrats. They want it both ways, they want to give big businesses free reign to do whatever the heck they want while passing laws that prevent competitors from entering the market.
Not that democrats are any better of course.
which infuriates me *
Pirate apologists!
Blah blah pirate Mike! blah blah paywalls!… unintelligible rant pirate apologists!… yadda yadda (insert strawman here)… durrr hurrrrr (insert ad hominem here)…
Re:
The internet is hardware with various software protocols serving as traffic cops. It is not the hardware that causes heated discussions. They result, in my opinion, from how that harware/software platform is being used.
Reasonable minds can achieve reasonable compromises to address issues associated with certain uses being made by means of the platform. It is a certain kiss-of-death to suggest here that many groups concerned about what is being distributed via the platform do raise very legitimate points in matters such as copyright, breaches of national security, etc. Nevertheless, I happen to believe that their concerns deserve to be taken into account and given fair and thoughtful consideration.
Re:
Apparently to brush up on scorn and derision.
Re:
Maybe they could. Maybe they couldn’t. The copyright claim has the significant counter claim that the ‘Industry’ in its current form doesn’t get the Internets. If they did we would not be having this discussion. (Think no DRM, low and competing prices, purchase not licensed but bought, no regions, no stepped releases, received as I want it (streaming, local copy to view when off-line. other, etc.(might the fight not come down to how many people have a copy of my work?)) (think right of resale), no forced FBI or other warnings, no forced previews, etc.). Isn’t it interesting how the protections for video, music and text (books) differ and yet are similar! Reasonable minds might envision a different IP World today.
The issue of making money is different than the issue of creation. One is done for purely emotional-esoteric reasons. The other is cold crass commerce. Should they be combined? History has differing answers. Patronage, busking, communal support (a form of Patronage) and with the advent of technology the concept of ‘royalties’ (think about that word and it’s roots for more than a few minutes!) came along with printed, recorded, and eventually transferable works.
So, after thousands of years of IP being generally supported in such a way that no one was impaired from inventing anything; we get to the point where anything you invent must pass muster with an incomplete and defective database and analysis system where the losses are relational to the initial price of the prosecution expense (this usually a civil action means that they with the biggest law firm wins.).
The national security question should be down to a very basic metric. How many ‘actual’ (not including ‘suspects’ that are coerced into their ‘act’) terrorist have been caught? There is an argument here about pro-activeness=prevention, but what is the cutoff?
When is it security theater and when is it actually, metrically preventing harm? If competing methods were used in various markets, and one was more effective than others, why would we not go in the direction of the more effective one. (Think how Israel does airport security vs how the US does airport security.).
How are we going to eventually balance fear (rational or irrational) against freedom? What is the cost/fear analysis? How does one create such an analysis? At what point do we dismantle the military/industrial complex? When do we take back our country?
i am all in favour of this type of debate. the problems with these are that
a) no one in power takes any notice of what is being said, because no one is throwing any money into their coffers and they dont understand a damn thing about the internet
b) because whatever is decided here and how bad bills like ACTA are and how they are defeated, the exact same entertainment industries oriented parts are reintroduced through another bill. the defeats mean nothing!
c) until there is a provision that when something is defeated, it cannot be reintroduced under another bill, law or ‘trade agreement’ just because the name has changed
Mike Where on reddit will this be held?
ie
/r/WhatIsThisPart
Re: Mike Where on reddit will this be held?
/r/politics ???
Re: Mike Where on reddit will this be held?
isn’t it usually r/iama ??
Re: Mike Where on reddit will this be held?
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1204gt/we_are_internet_freedom_advocates_experts_and/