They tried asking and got told to GTFO... so now they are trying to get the law changed so they can skip innocent until proven guilty, evidence those pesky due process things so they can terrorize account holders.
Power.... say it with me.... causes a form of brain damage.
When the pepper spray initially happened and then she threw the officers under the bus I remember thinking she probably told them to fix it and do whatever it takes, and then she sacrificed them all when they did exactly what she wanted but didn't get the desired result.
She thought she could reform the schools image and in particular hers, she is unfit for the job. She is more concerned with how she is perceived than if she is actually doing a good job. She has spared no expense to save her reputation, its time she leave before she spends again.
But the rules don't matter, because our targets are really bad guys!
The laws aren't maybe kinda sorta guidelines, they are how things are supposed to be done. This sloppy kind of corner cutting hoping that the courts will suspend the rights of the accused because they are bad guys weakens the entire system. The fact an agency charged with upholding the law time and time again gets passes to the point where they feel they can ignore the law, suggests that serious reform is needed.
And the EU ends up in a corner, where they lead themselves. On the one hand they have publishers bitching about blocked ads and scraping on the other hand they have those same publishers violating the law.
Perhaps the easiest solution is for them to consider perhaps it is the shitty ads they serve up that are the real problem. That consumers don't really owe them anything, and serving up hostile ads and hostile ad blocking is the reason they are in trouble. This isn't something consumers should have to fix, the industry needs to fix itself rather than just invent new ways to be shitty.
We are going to outlaw rumor-mongering, even if the rumors are true. We will watch over each of your shoulders to make sure you behave correctly, and if anyone else in your group does not we will hold you responsible for the others.
We will make it much easier to harass you for using this communication we can't tap secretly, so you might as well just do what we want and never say anything bad about those of us in government who are better than the rest of you chattel.
You do understand that the law makers love to tout the alleged free market while enacting laws keeping any competition from entering the market.
In a free market you don't have laws passed to keep the outdated in business, adapt or die off. The problem is these old businesses can afford to pay (what often is small potatoes, and we should be insulted our representatives are so fucking cheaply bought) to protect their market.
We do not have a free market, free market is a buzz word used to rile people up, disengage any critical thinking, and support plans that actually actively harm them. Its a common thing you can see across all sorts of issues, say the hot button and the brains go limp and fall into line.
Note I put "free market" in quotes when I used it, because I know it doesn't exist. The truly wonderful thing that someday might happen is people learning to get past the brain disengaging hot button things and see how fucked we all are, and demand better.
"by simply outlawing most of the competition" Wish sadly has become the tried and true method for maintaining the "free market". Even as the incumbents make promises they never live up to (and no one with power holds them accountable) they get handed control and use it to raise prices while not innovating. With no real competition, they don't have to get better, faster, cheaper... they can claim how much better they are now while keeping people from being able to see what real progress is.
We compared apples to oranges and have decided that moving forward all apples should have peels and segments like oranges so they can be fairly shared.
In the broadest terms Spotify and YouTube are both platforms that deliver content. But in practice they operate much differently, and the income streams each earns is very different.
If a music video goes out on YouTube for a popular song it might get some hits, where users of Spotify might make it the stream of the moment that they have in heavy rotation. Based on the different deals the payments go out, and considering the labels/artists aren't expected to pay for the resources they are using on either platform, its a pretty good deal.
The larger problem seems to be twofold 1 - Google is the internet 2 - Google makes a bunch of money, and there is only 1 pot of money so anything they are getting is taken away from someone else. (Usually the poor poor artists the cartels like to unshackle and parade around before locking them away again to cash their royalty checks of $.15 after costs are deducted.)
Each platform is different, and part of that is an industry and regulation (purchases by the industry) that makes everything a fight and slog to get to selling something to consumers. If they wanted everyone to pay the same, they should regulate the copyright laws and set 1 flat price for all platforms and work from there. That way the 'fight' over wanting 11 cents for every dime the platform makes (h/t Mike) are over.
If every platform knew what the costs where, and didn't have to worry about decade long pointless lawsuits you might get an EU based competitor who can challenge the big players... but serving the cartels interests benefits no one because their demands are so far removed form reality.
Unless the lawyers who sent the DMCA notice put one of those you totes can't talk about the contents of this privileged communication with anyone headers on it.
eBay might have smart lawyers, but they cost money where Becki in accounting can totally read the notices they get and remove posts. Its not like anyone will file an answer, they will just look for another way to list it and pay them another fee. eBay isn't that well known for customer service.
I'll leave it to the experts, but only the experts who are willing to sell us a solution for several billion dollars. So what if everyone else says it is impossible, we know the impossible is easy, there is a whole movie franchise based on it being possible.
How dare Google pretend that the system has been weighted in favor of industry at the expense of big business. So what if we took billions and never delivered on promises. So what if we refuse to provide service at a fair price. So what if we look for new ways to earn more while doing less. So what if we control all the markets & use laws to avoid competition.
The "free market" sorting all of this out has merely lead to dinosaurs picking their favored feeding grounds, lying about what they might do, and screwing consumers. Its time we actually have law makers who put citizens above corporate citizens who buy their support for small change.
The small problem with point 1 is that the state often is unwilling to offer resources to the defense. IIRC in New Orleans there are people waiting for their trial dates who have been sitting for years, because they refuse to pay for the defense. The system is unbalanced from the word go, when you have public defenders managing case loads well beyond what they can possibly reasonable handle up against a well funded prosecution team who has all of the bells and whistles at their disposal and carry a tenth of a caseload why is anyone shocked that plea deals are pushed even if they aren't in the best interest of defendants.
The cash made available should be equal on both sides ending the unfair advantages the state gets.
As to #4 I think they need to be tried by the system. They should face the very harsh justice everyone else faces. We need to start holding them to at least the minimum the law demands rather than protecting the image of the system at the expense of citizens.
There is also the desire by the legal system to only pursue cases they can "win". Winning is sometimes just piling up charges until the plea bargain looks acceptable. There are cases where winning wasn't a slam dunk, and they declined to charge. The CSI effect means that the evidence is not questioned and even if the defense can afford to run independent testing it is a battle of the experts, and the inherent belief that experts for the defense were paid enough to give the answer most beneficial to the defendant. No one ever considers that can go both ways, that getting a conviction at any cost sometimes leads to shortcuts & outright cheating. When it is exposed it is always shown as just 1 or 2 bad apples & corrective measures have been put into place... the problem is no one considers how many people they screwed over their career.
The system isn't fair, isn't accountable, and pretending it does makes us worse off as a society. Real criminals get away with crime because they can afford to fight, and sometimes innocents get railroaded because a sticky gold star for winning is more important that truth and justice.
Because to protect the image of the system outweighs the rights of the convicted. So what if they were convicted on contrived evidence. So what if the details were not released. So what if anyone finally managed to get exonerated, we've limited their recourse for compensation. So what if the system is rigged.
So few people will care because it hasn't happened to them. It has happened to a population they've been taught to fear and expect the worst of. This only happens to bad people who deserve it, not good people like me. We got the bad people locked away, so what if the lab results were fake they probably did it anyways.
Allowing the liar to retire, probably with all benefits intact & allowed to move elsewhere, shows how little the system cares about the law. They cheated the law, they violated their oaths, and when confronted with it they drag their feet and leave thousands of people screwed to protect their win rating.
"Regular" people need to wake up to the very simple truth that the system routinely does screw innocent people, and that the system does nothing to punish those who did it or compensate people who had their lives stolen. That they are paying the price for faked worked, incompetent workers, keeping innocent people in prison, and paying a pittance in oh sorry we fucked you money, and keep these cheating cogs working.
Yes Skippy it hasn't happened to you, but perhaps consider what happens when the system targets you incorrectly and magically the evidence says you did it. Imagine the rest of society discounting what you say and not giving a shit because you had to have done something wrong and need to be punished.
Power still causes a form of brain damage. Protecting the image of the school and its chancellor trumps reality. We can keep throwing money at things to make them go away, there is no way anyone will remember the assaults, the flip-flopping, the overblown reactions leading up to that moment when it appears the school and its leadership were offended that their lessers would make demands and think they would get them heard & acted upon.
This event was just a culmination of a series of events when those with power thought they could control reality, and took extreme measures to remove any threat to their control.
At least they didn't make the Boston Strangler comparison this time.
Technology can make them more money, give them more reach, and make everything better... but it is new and different so it must be evil.
We can't stay in the 1980s forever, and its time to stop allowing dinosaurs to have control over the future. They fragmented the industry, created protectionist rules that harm themselves, and demand we all just accept less than the best. Consumers are supposed to be king, why do we allow them to dictate to us? Without us they have nothing, and we need to stop accepting being slapped around.