An apalling obvious hit piece (not journalism of any kind).
The bile and hatred is laid on so thick as to be laughable (not written by professional WSJ editors, I'll bet).
Google "wants to make money". As if that were unusual and evil (OMG a company that wants to make money while providing a useful service!) Horrors! What next - will they want to have fun while doing it?
They use the phrases "making money off other people’s content" and "profiting from the property of others", implying they'e doing something improper.
This from the Wall Street Journal, which like all newspapers, makes money from reporting on the activity of others!
Gah. The resentment and entitlement hurts to look at.
It's about making it difficult - more in terms of paperwork, bother, and legal risk, than money - for individuals running websites and blogs.
Because independent voices are harder to control and make trouble for the powers-that-be. They'd shut them down entirely (or license a few for show) if the First Amendment didn't prevent that (thank your 250 year old white male slave-owning founding fathers for that).
They've been doing the same thing with independent non-employee workers for 100 years - piling on the taxes, paperwork, and legal risk until the vast majority give up and become easily-controlled employees.
Re: Re: not to exclude competing transportation services.
Your argument isn't totally unreasonable. But it's wrong.
Yes, medallions had considerable market value - before. But they were never real property in the first place. They were only tokens of political corruption.
Medallion values were based on continuing to bamboozle the public. For a while, it worked, but nobody should have counted on the status quo lasting forever. The risk was *always* there that eventually the public would wise up. It's finally happened.
No property rights have been violated. Medallion owners took a gamble on a corrupt system and lost - that's all.
If you want the law to protect your property rights, invest in something honest.
When slavery was abolished, some said slaveowners should be compensated for their loss. The slaveowners had a stronger argument than taxi medallion owners do now - slaves were, legally, legitimate property.
Who is to say what pictures my grown-up son might eventually come to feel is embarrassing?
If the rule is that we can't post any photo the subject thinks is embarrassing, then we can't safely post any photos of people at all.
That's an unreasonable standard.
If we must have a legal standard, it ought to be whether a reasonable person would think it's embarrassing.
Few people think photos of naked babies are embarrassing (some think they're obscene, but that's not the same thing).
Babies don't look much like the adults they'll become. And babies have no choice about what happens to them.
Probably that's why baby photos can't be embarrassing. Nobody (except maybe the parents) can tell which adult the photos show, and even if one could, whatever is shown in the photo doesn't reflect on the adult.
Teenagers, of course, can be embarrassed about anything. There's no fixing that.