Who said being nice to people who support you is "cutting edge"? It's not. It's just doing something *extra* for people who support us. Why am I not surprised that you find doing something nice for people who support you something worth of mocking?
What if Google stopped responding to DMCA takedown requests as well?
They'd get sued. And would almost certainly lose and lose big. DMCA notices are a different beast than defamation court orders. CDA 230 grants full immunity to service providers. DMCA 512 does not.
After all, Google doesn't host the content. It merely provides the link to it's location. That location is the proper target of the DMCA takedown.
Not according to the law. See 512(d): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 It does say if you're an "information location tool" (which Google is) and you receive a notice of a link on your site to infringing material, you need to deal with it or risk losing safe harbors.
Maybe Google's reaction is also triggered by the increasing talk about mere linking being somehow illegal. If you don't like what is linked to, then take the linked site down and all of the links are instantly useless. Even the links you don't know about, like other search engines or blog postings, or anywhere else.
Nah. It's just following the rules of the law as currently stated.
It looks like my comment got flagged by the community though. Talk about a bunch of snowflakes that cannot handle criticism.
Looking over the comments that got flagged, that doesn't seem to be the case at all. Many of your comments (and those of people who agree with you) did not get flagged. The ones that did appear to have gratuitous insults.
From what we've seen gratuitous insults and extreme red team/blue teamism seem to get flagged. Maybe avoid those things.
That's not true. Yes, they have lots of junk, but they also have a news division that has some really fantastic reporters.
Most of this story was about reporting by the Verge, not Buzzfeed.
Rather than just say "bah, Buzzfeed" how about presenting some evidence of what its report got wrong? Can't do that? Maybe because lots of other sources jumped in later supporting what Buzzfeed reported.
My problem with you is not that you are criticizing us, but that you are doing so in such a ridiculous manner. You don't like this post, fine, but you don't give any reason other than that 1. that we apparently didn't criticize Obama (we did) and 2. this is "petty".
That's your opinion and we disagree. Things related to telcos and jobs and mergers is very much what we talk about here, so this is very, very relevant. And that's my point.
I apologize if I was flip before in my response before. Perhaps it was because you started this off with such a ridiculous criticism, and you continue to use stupid nicknames for Presidents, which tends to be a sign of someone who is trolling, not serious.
I am not against progress, that is a nice way to try ti dismiss the point. Its much more a question that progress on the ability side - things we can do - has outpaced legality and societal norms. What you see is a fairly rapid correction as the laws and the morals catch up.
I don't think that's true. And history suggests things tend to go the other way -- which is that societal norms and laws are what change to catch up to progress. However, we shall see.
As someone else mentioned, yhe rich getting richer thing is also part of it. A small band of billionaires and their tax avoiding companies keeping everyone else disenfranchised will drive the pendulum even more quickly away from what you consider progress. The cost of that progress is visibly too high.
I'm with you on the tax avoidance part, and think it's a shame that many tech companies play that game as well. Stupid of them, really. But the idea that the public is becoming more and more disenfranchised because of tax avoidance by big companies doesn't really pass the sniff test.
Right now I'm donating via both the Techdirt shop and Patreon. I don't know how much you're getting via the TechDirt shop aggregate but I'd hope it's more than you're getting currently with Patreon. It'd make sense to me if it is given how much later the Patreon donation option came after the TechDirt shop opened up.
Yes, the Techdirt shop definitely brings in more -- but it's still a pretty minimal amount overall (I'll put it this way: the money from such things basically pays for servers/bandwidth, but not anything else). To be honest, we've been shocked at how much direct commerce does. The deals shop and the t-shirts vastly outpace the insider shop/Patreon, and the ads (as of today). But all in, we're still a fraction of where we were a few years ago because of the ad market. Literally, ad rates are pushing less than 10% of what they once were. I'm not saying a 10% decline. I'm saying a 90% decline. Sales of stuff makes up a little bit of it, but we're still way, way down. It's... not great, but (unlike some), I recognize it's my responsibility to figure out ways to fix it. We're trying... and I sincerely appreciate yours and anyone else's support.
The disappointment that you feel is called coming back to earth. There is no magic digital utopia, the laws is starting to catch up with the world wide responsibility shifters, and there are dead unicorns all over the place.
Nah. History shows a very different story. Progress and innovation always win out. It's just a question of how long it will take. But, wow, it must be seriously depressing to be in your head, rooting against progress and innovation. I feel sorry for someone with such a dark soul.
2017 will likely be a tough year for so many reasons. The net and the world as a whole are splitting into factions, clans, and closed societies. It seems unlikely that the web will ever be as open as it was. Reality has taken it's toll on that dream.
Well shit. I tossed in a few extra $, but if I had to guess, is your $2K per month goal on Patreon, when combined with other sources of income for TechDirt, the amount you'd need to get back to your previous income level?
Every bit helps, so thank you for whatever support you give. No, we chose the $2k/month level just because we thought it's something that we might actually reach. Our ad revenue used to be significantly higher than that.
Nothing else in the story is specific to technology or a technology company.
Just jumping in here to point out that it is an interesting story and we have it on our list of things we'd like to cover, and hopefully we'll get to it. The reality, though, as I've said many, many times, is that we tend to cover about 25% of the stuff we'd like to cover, because we just don't have enough time/resources to cover every story.
This one is interesting, and maybe we'll get to it, maybe we won't, but contrary to the suggestion of the (notably) anonymous commenter, it has nothing to do with it being about Google. We cover plenty of negative stories about Google, as has been pointed out many times before. In fact we'll have one tomorrow morning, so stay tuned...