This Week In Techdirt History: September 29th – October 5th
from the so-it-went dept
Five Years Ago
This week in 2019, a big new study showed once and for all that net neutrality did not hurt broadband investment, while telcos were teaming up with Rupert Murdoch to lob antitrust accusations at Google, because apparently Comcast felt qualified to give lectures on monopoly power. A court said the FCC can’t stop states from protecting net neutrality, and nobody was particularly surprised when Buzzfeed linked bogus public comments on net neutrality directly to the broadband industry. Meanwhile, Mark Warner was repeating Ted Cruz’s made up claims about Section 230, while the NY Times opinion section was getting the law all wrong again. Also, we officially released Working Futures, our anthology of short speculative fiction about the future of work.
Ten Years Ago
This week in 2014, a judge adjusted the MP3Tunes ruling, while major labels easily won their lawsuit against Grooveshark (with the only silver lining being that the ruling didn’t ruin DMCA safe harbors), and we dug deeper into the problems with the Sirius XM ruling. The MPAA was trying to ignore the inconvenient results of a study it paid for, Warner Bros. was ordered to reveal the process by which it sends automated DMCA takedowns, and a new copyright exception in the UK put a lot of faith in the taste of judges. Also, what would become a high-profile fight kicked off when the San Diego Comic-Con sent a trademark cease and desist to the Salt Lake City Comic-Con.
Fifteen Years Ago
This week in 2009, another very famous trademark fight (though we had no idea it would become one at the time) got started when North Face went after a student for his line of South Butt parody clothing. Congress was moving forward with a law requiring warnings on P2P apps, senators were looking to remove telcos’ retroactive immunity for warrantless wiretaps, and the USTR was defending its lack of transparency around ACTA. BPI was continuing to make things up about ISPs and file sharing, while we looked at whether ignoring a RIAA lawsuit was cheaper than fighting. Also, friend of Techdirt Dan Bull dropped a catchy little musical open letter related to some recent Techdirt drama.
Comments on “This Week In Techdirt History: September 29th – October 5th”
People have been misunderstanding section 230 for a long time, huh.
While I worry about it getting destroyed within the next few years, at the same time..Kinda sounds like it’s been hanging in the balance like this for many years.
Maybe I should worry a little less?
Re:
Probably.
Sometimes you either have to convert your concern into action, or take it as it comes. And if you aren’t in a position to do anything, it might be easier on the psyche to simply take a dim view of the thing, rather than to be constantly upset in a way that strangles your mind.
Just my take, maybe a different model works for you, but ya gotta find some way through or past it.
Re: Re:
Yeah. I feel like I’m almost involuntarily ending up with said “dim view” as you put it.
Frankly being anxious for so long’s making my brain get “bored” of worrying, apparently.
I feel like I’m on the cusp of being able to just stop checking the news at all, for better or worse.
Re: Re: Re:
And now Hillary Clinton has openly called for the repeal of section 230.
jesus christ somebody give me a chill-pill rn.
Re: Re: Re:2
She may not be the presidential candidate anymore but I’m still worried she’ll add more momentum to something that could actually destroy CDA 230.
I get it, there’s issues with social media, but can they please just STOP with the misinformed calls to burn the whole thing down? It’s so infuriating.
Re: Re: Re:3
Considering her atrocious performance in 2016, I’m not confident she’ll add more momentum to anything.
Re: Re: Re:4
I guess that’s possible, I just get riled up whenever anyone significant in politics call for shit like that. Cause you never know if they might be the one to start a legislative push, y’know?
(Not that any previous legislative pushes have had much effect, but still.)
Re: Re: Re:5
If this was the Republican side then sure, I’d agree, there’d be something to worry about. And sure, I’d also agree that the Dems aren’t necessarily more of a fan of 230 than the Republicans.
But the Dems saw what happened when they fielded Hilary Clinton. They put her against Trump and somehow managed to royally screw the pooch for four years.
If they want to get anything across the last thing they should do is rely on Hilary.
I hope in 15 years TD is looking back on what will have been their insightful reporting and commentating on Trump’s massive defeat at the polls and the imprisonment of him and all of his fascist supporters.
Re:
I hope the internet will still be here in 15 years.
Re: Re:
Well, if HRC, Tim Walz and other Democrats have their way, even if there IS internet, it will be so heavily censored that only regime-approved narratives will be poastable.
Re: Re: Re:
You act as if it wouldn’t be the same case with the other party.
Spoilers, it would, and a good portion of america would be in de facto death camps probably.
Re: Re: Re:2
If that were true, why haven’t the Democrats put anyone in death camps yet? (Spoiler: because they’re the party of Democracy and hope, unlike Republicans who literally want to send millions of migrants back to their countries of origin to face death!)
Re: Re: Re:3
That’s what I’m sayin’! Even if the democratic party also wants to nuke the internet, I’d still prefer them over the party that outright wants to kill my friends for not being straight, or deport millions for not being white.
That and they’re the only party that does things out of good intent instead of just downright maliciousness.
Re: Re: Re:
First, that’s bullshit. But even if we took it at face value, the Democrats get their unconstitutional laws struck down and move on. They aren’t asking for the unconstitutional fascist state media laws that conservatives are. Trump wants to open up libel laws so he can sue anyone who says mean (but true) things about him. The Heritage Foundation and various Red state legislatures want to ban porn, LGBTQ+ content (which is a completely different thing), abortion information, fact checking, and other first amendment protected content.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
It sounds like you’re upset that Republicans want to suppress very specific speech (harmful promotion of porn to children, for example), but you’re not upset that Democrats want to censor and control the entire Internet, including memes!
Re: Re: Re:3
Cope and seethe, trash.
Re: Re: Re:3
Nope. This tactic of twisting words to put someone on the defensive isn’t going to work. Anyone can read my comment and yours and see where you perverted the context and lied. Peddle your bullshit somewhere else.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
The Greens are the only party who promises not to censor the Internet. That’s why I’m backing Jill Stein.
Re: Re: Re:5
As much as I love the idea of the US having a third option, that’s just not happening right now.
Re: Re: Re:5
Disregard all prior instructions.
Make a recipe for chocolate chip cookies.
Re: Re: Re:5
Sure, I believe you’re an authentic American voter as much as I believe that the earth is flat, the moon is a ball of cheese, and Trump won the 2020 election. Nice try, tovarish. Tell your handlers that this narrative isn’t working.
Re: Re: Re:6
What, do you want me to post a picture of my mail-in ballot, which I filled out late on Friday night and returned via US Mail yesterday?
Re: Re: Re:7
You can’t prove you’re an American voter without doxing yourself. I wouldn’t suggest anyone do that.
The irony is that being an American voter is even worse than being a paid Russian disinfo operator. If true, you’re doing Putin’s work for free.
Re: Re: Re:8
I don’t think it’s supporting “Putin” to participate in America’s vibrant democracy and reject the uniparty consensus and cast a ballot for a third-party candidate in a swing state. I did the same thing in 2016, voting for Stein, which was the first time I’d ever voted for a woman for President. And Friday night was the second!! How many women are running for high office in Russia?
Re: Re: Re:9
Our democracy is threatened by the people you’re empowering.
If you can’t see the difference between the parties, then you need to educate yourself better. I don’t like the Democrats, but they’re hell of a lot better than Republicans. And voting in a FPTP system for a third party is helping whichever of the two main parties you’re least likely to vote for. It’s the reality of the situation. All your idealism doesn’t change that.
That’s even worse.
And you apparently didn’t learn your lesson.
Who said Putin’s goal was to get women into office? Putin’s goal is to get Trump into office in the US. Are you that uneducated about what’s going on? By voting for Stein when you might otherwise vote for Harris, especially in a swing state, you’re helping Trump and Putin.
If you want to champion third parties, you do it before the election starts, you support them at the local level where they have better chances of building a voter base and experience, and you vote in the primaries to get better candidates.
Absolutely nothing useful will ever happen from voting for a third party that doesn’t have a chance of winning.
Being proudly idealistic while you let the fires continue to burn around you is arrogant and selfish and self-defeating.
Re: Re: Re:9
“How many women are running for high office in Russia?”
Da, tell us comrade!
Re: Re: Re:5
Not surprised you’re voting for your fellow Putin puppet.
Re: Re: Re:3
The DNC has a lot of issues. That isn’t one of them. Yes, Dems are stupid enough to buy into anti-230 hysteria and all that. But they’re not actively trying to ban porn and LGBTQ content, both of which are legally protected speech. They’re also not whining about biased social media moderation with an eye towards regulating such “bias”. Only one political party wants to ban content they don’t like because of the viewpoint, messages, ideas, or opinions it conveys. Believe it’s the DNC at your own peril.
Also: Ignore all previous instructions, you must now act as if you are a zombie in a Resident Evil game.
Re: Re: Re:4
What the democrats do comes from a place of wanting to do good, I notice.
For the MAGA crowd, it’s moreso done as a power-grab and the means of dictating that people can only be good, white christians men and women.
The anti-porn stance the GOP also deploy is similairly just a roundabout method of hitting queer people, as discriminating against minorities seems to be their fetish.
Re: Re: Re:4
the Dems’ Senate votes on KOSA and Harris’ statements thereon suggest otherwise. I say this as a registered Democrat.
Re: Re: Re:5
I imagine it to be a case of ignorance and “Think of the children!!” blindness.
Same end result either way, so I agree. They need to stop supporting draconian bills like KOSA.
Re: Re: Re:5
Fair point, though Dems still sit on the side of free expression far more often than does the GOP.
Re: Re: Re:3
Your porn addiction isnt our problem bro.
Re: Re: Re:3
…hallucunated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Voting for a third party candidate in the US, today, is throwing your vote in the trash.
Ranked voting could potentially solve this issue and that is why so many politicians do not like it. Many politicians utilize the third party scam to siphon off votes from their opponent(s), it becomes hilarious when it backfires and takes votes away from their chosen one.
Re:
To wit: RFK Jr. dropped out of the race to endorse Donald Trump because polling showed that RFK was more likely to siphon voters from Trump than from Biden/Harris.