Back in 2014, you might recall that John Oliver’s HBO show “Last Week tonight” aired an outstanding piece on net neutrality. In it, Oliver compared then FCC boss Tom Wheeler to a dingo, explained why a neutral internet was important, and trashed much of the flimsy logic giant ISPs like Comcast use to consistently justify anti-competitive behavior. The piece was so immensely successful at explaining an incredibly complicated and relatively wonky subject, it drove a record number of annoyed consumers to the FCC commenting website — where they demanded the FCC step up and defend the open internet.
That public outcry was a major reason Wheeler decided to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act — and pass real net neutrality rules in 2015.
In this new video, Oliver notes that he registered the gofccyourself.com domain, making it simpler for annoyed net neutrality supporters to find the relevant FCC proceeding comment section on the agency’s website. And, once again, it appears that the FCC’s website was crippled by the massive influx of viewers. Shortly after the program aired, the FCC website collapsed under heavy load, and continued to suffer from issues throughout Monday (though there’s an alternative way to file your comments to the FCC via this link).
“Every internet group needs to come together like you successfully did three years ago,” Oliver declared. “Every subculture must join as one. Gamers, YouTube celebrities, Instagram models, and even Tom from MySpace, if you’re still alive.” Oliver also implored “Donald Trump’s internet fans on sites like 4Chan and Reddit” to join the fight. “This subject is one of the things that we actually really agree on,” Oliver said.
Since data shows that satirists often do a better job informing the public than many actual news outlets, net neutrality supporters hope that Oliver’s second piece on the subject livens up what has been a fairly tepid and apathetic public reaction to the killing of the rules. ISPs and Pai hope to capitalize on debate fatigue and fractured attention spans when the agency votes to launch a notice of proposed rulemaking on May 18 to begin dismantling the rules. From there, the public commenting period will be extended until a finalizing vote later this year.
The whole thing is worth watching (of course) but the key bit is his skewering of the constant, incoherent twisting of an old adage by police officials and supporters when attempting to portray police misconduct as an outlier, rather than the everyday output of an insular, overly-powerful culture.
“It’s just a few bad apples…”
But the original adage isn’t an excuse. It’s a warning.
“A few bad apples spoil the barrel.”
And that’s exactly what has happened. Officers — sheltered by extra rights, less-than-strenuous internal investigations, policies that allow for the destruction of discipline records, civil immunity, revolving door policies that allow “bad apples” to infect new law enforcement agencies — basically answer to no one.
In rare, rare cases, police officers have been convicted and jailed. But this is usually the end result of outside pressure or behavior so repulsive and toxic the agency housing the officer can’t bring itself to defend them.
As Oliver points out, when officers are caught committing criminal acts, they’re often given the option to resign rather than face an investigation. In other cases, they’re swiftly cleared of serious charges and allowed to desk job their way back into their old positions.
Until recently, the DOJ and FBI expressed zero interest in compiling data on police use of force — to say nothing about regular, non-deadly police misconduct. Years of neglect have resulted in a data gap, with private citizens picking up the government’s slack to produce more credible numbers about civilians killed by law enforcement officers.
Slight movements toward better accountability have been spotted, but in general, most policies meant to add accountability have met stiff resistance from police unions, police departments, and legislators who seem to believe good, non-abusive policing is less effective than cracking skulls, seizing cash, and ensuring every officer makes it home for dinner — no matter how many people they have to kill or injure to achieve that goal.
It’s gotten to the point where it’s absurd to hedge remarks about bad cops by saying “most police officers are good” because there’s simply no data out there to confirm that foregone conclusion. At best, most officers are indifferent: not evil, but unwilling to make any effort to rein in those that are. The culture of law enforcement encourages the ousting of good cops, as any officer that would step up to stop misconduct or deployment of excessive force is viewed as untrustworthy.
True accountability is still a long ways off. Small steps are being made but even these tentative movements are being heavily contested. A full overhaul is what’s needed to fix this in the next several years. Unfortunately, that’s an impossibility, so we’ll have to work with what we’re given. The first step in any major change is admitting there’s a problem. And, as John Oliver points out with his “bad apple” commentary, most law enforcement agencies haven’t even reached that point yet.
It’s a pretty typical John Oliver piece — and definitely on a topic that we’ve discussed many times in the past — media business models. However, we didn’t see much of a need to write about it… until the Newspaper Association of America decided to whine about it, mainly complaining that Oliver (1) didn’t offer any solutions and (2) mocked companies that are trying, no matter how ridiculous their efforts are:
However, other than encouraging people to “pay for” more news, he doesn’t offer any answers. More particularly, he spends most of the piece making fun of publishers who are just trying to figure it out. Whatever you think of the name “tronc” and that company’s announced growth strategy, at least they are trying new things and trying to figure out how to create great news journalism in the digital era. John Oliver doesn’t seem to have any better ideas.
The fact is that we are in a transitional phase within the entire industry. People want, need and consume more hard news than they ever have. The core demand for the product isn’t decreasing at all, and based upon that we will find our way to the far shore where the industry is thriving and growing once again. But in the meantime, there is going to be a lot of experimentation and evaluation of new business models.
Some experiments will work and some won’t, and our VP of Innovation, Michael MaLoon is committed to keeping you up-to-date on what is happening on that front. But making fun of experiments and pining away for days when classified ads and near-monopolistic positions in local ad markets funded journalism is pointless and ultimately harmful.
I would just ask Mr. Oliver to spend more time talking about what the future of news could be, and less time poking fun at publishers who are trying to get there.
This is pretty ridiculous. First of all, much of the mocking was over the Tribune Company’s ridiculous rebranding as “tronc,” and specifically the absolutely ridiculous “tronc employee video” the company put together, that I still am partially convinced is a parody of the kind of idiocy big newspapers put out these days to pretend they get technology. “Artificial intelligence!” “The future of journalism!” “Tech startup culture!” “Evolving, changing — the fun part!” “Optimization group!” “Feed it into a funnel and then optimize it!” “Maximize all the time.” “Monetize video!” “The role of tronc is to transform journalism — from pixels to Pulitzers.”
I mean, the video is inherently mockable. It’s cringeworthy bad. I would have been disappointed if Oliver hadn’t included it in his story. It’s that bad.
And, really, despite the fact that we — among many others — have argued that Oliver and his team do real journalism at times — at its core, his show is about comedy. Of course he’s going to mock stupid stuff. Why shouldn’t he? Expecting him to offer a “solution” is pretty silly. Whining about a comedian making fun of your failures to actually truly evolve seems like it should be fairly low down on the list of things the NAA should be focused on these days. If it’s looking to comedians for solutions, and complaining when they don’t provide any, perhaps the NAA itself should be spending a bit more time exploring how its members can evolve and adapt.
Yes, let’s start with the obvious: John Oliver’s “Last Week Tonight” is a comedy program meant to entertain and is not meant to be journalism. It’s a point that Oliver himself has made repeatedly. But others disagree with him, pointing out that his show regularly does actual journalism. The fact that he’s hired a bunch of journalists on his team kind of says a lot. Also, according to multiple people I know who have been interviewed for stories on his show, while his focus is on making things funny, his team also spends a lot of time making sure they get the details right. It’s why we so frequently end up posting his videos on stories that relate to Techdirt topics — because they’re not only entertaining, but are also generally dead on in accuracy. It’s why we’ve posted his videos on net neutrality, corporate sovereignty, encryption, surveillance, civil asset forfeiture and patent trolls.
But this past weekend, he not only covered last week’s Republican National Convention, but also, separately, the fact that representatives for both Queen and the Rolling Stones complained publicly about the RNC using their music in prominent parts of the convention. Oliver got together a bunch of famous musicians (many of whom have protested politicians using their music) to sing a song telling politicians not to use their songs, claiming that it’s “stealing” and unauthorized because the politicians didn’t reach out to get permission.
This is flat out wrong in most situations. As we’ve pointed out again and again and again and again, in nearly all cases, politicians using music at an event have the proper licenses. They don’t need to get permission from the musicians so long as either the campaign or the venue have ASCAP or BMI blanket licenses, which they almost always do. The whole point of ASCAP/BMI licenses is that you don’t need to get individual permission from the artists or their publishers.
There are instances, occasionally, where politicians ridiculously don’t have such a license, but it’s pretty rare. And there may be a few other narrow exceptions, such as if there’s an implied endorsement by the musicians, but that’s rarely the case.
Unfortunately, the song from John Oliver and friends ignores all of that, even stating directly at one point that for a politician to use music, you first have to call the publisher. That’s wrong. ASCAP and BMI already have taken care of that.
Perhaps this isn’t a huge deal, but one would hope that Oliver would actually get the basic facts right on this too, because every election season this issue comes up and spreading more misinformation about it doesn’t help.
Not surprisingly, Oliver’s take is much clearer and much more accurate than many mainstream press reports on the issues in the case, appropriately mocking the many law enforcement officials who seem to think that, just because Apple employs smart engineers, they can somehow do the impossible and “safely” create a backdoor into an encrypted iPhone that won’t have dangerous consequences. He even spends a bit of time reviewing the original Crypto Wars over the Clipper Chip and highlights cryptographer Matt Blaze’s contribution in ending those wars by showing that the Clipper Chip could be hacked.
But the biggest contribution to the debate — which I hope that people pay most attention to — is the point that Oliver made in the end with his faux Apple commercial. Earlier in the piece, Oliver noted that this belief among law enforcement that Apple engineers can somehow magically do what they want is at least partially Apple’s own fault, with its somewhat overstated marketing. So, Oliver’s team made a “more realistic” Apple commercial which noted that Apple is constantly fighting security cracks and vulnerabilities and is consistently just half a step ahead of hackers with malicious intent (and, in many cases, half a step behind them).
This is the key point: Building secure products is very, very difficult and even the most secure products have security vulnerabilities in them that need to be constantly watched and patched. And what the government is doing here is not only asking Apple to not patch a security vulnerability that it has found, but actively forcing Apple to make a new vulnerability and then effectively forcing Apple to keep it open. For all the talk of how Apple can just create the backdoor just this once and throw it away, this more like asking Apple to set off a bomb that blows the back off all houses in a city, and then saying, “okay, just throw away the bomb after you set it off.”
Hopefully, as in cases like net neutrality, Oliver’s piece does it’s job in informing the public what’s really going on.
A few years back, we wrote about that ridiculous thing that clueless Facebook users were posting, in which they thought that by posting some idiotic and usually wrong text that sometimes referenced copyright law or random international criminal laws, it would mean that Facebook’s terms of service no longer applied to them. Here’s the version of this nonsense we wrote about then:
In response to the new Facebook guidelines I hereby declare that my copyright is attached to all of my personal details, illustrations, comics, paintings, photos and videos, etc. (as a result of the Berner Convention).
For commercial use of the above my written consent is needed at all times!
(Anyone reading this can copy this text and paste it on their Facebook Wall. This will place them under protection of copyright laws, By the present communiqu?, I notify Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, disseminate, or take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and/or its contents. The aforementioned prohibited actions also apply to employees, students, agents and/or any staff under Facebook?s direction or control. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of my privacy is punished by law (UCC 1 1-308-308 1-103 and the Rome Statute).
Facebook is now an open capital entity. All members are recommended to publish a notice like this, or if you prefer, you may copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once, you will be tacitly allowing the use of elements such as your photos as well as the information contained in your profile status updates.
We wrote about it after the MPAA’s Chris Dodd used it as an example of the importance of copyright law — because Dodd appears to feel that copyright misinformation is a good thing.
Anyway, as lots of people have been noticing lately, this little bit of insanity is back in a big way — and judging from the number of people talking about it and news stories covering it, it’s bigger this time than in the past (though, amazingly, I’ve yet to see it anywhere on my Facebook feed — which either means people I’m friends with are smarter than that — or Facebook’s algorithm knows enough to keep that crap away from me). Matt Schruers, over at the Disruptive Competition Project, has a good post on how the unenforceability of unilateral proclamations made online is a really good thing for the internet.
But, the best response has to be from Mr. John Oliver himself, who apparently took time out of his daily schedule to create a video debunking the ridiculous hoax… and replacing it with some new viral memery, which includes reposting this very video.
Another week, another John Oliver report that covers topics we talk about on Techdirt. This time, it’s the CIA torture report, put together by the Senate Intelligence Committee. The 6,000+ page document is still classified, but the 500+ page executive summary (still with lots of redactions) was released last December as you may recall. There were plenty of interesting revelations in it — and we’re sure the full report has many more. The “true believers” in torture took the fingers-in-ears-“we’re-not-listening” approach to dealing with it. The DOJ announced that it had not opened the report. Apparently, the former CIA boss Porter Goss claimed he hadn’t read the executive summary either — even though he mocked John McCain for not having read it either.
Either way, John Oliver decided to do something about this, and asked famed actor Helen Mirren to create an audio book version of the work (which, you know, he can do because it’s in the public domain), clips of which were played on the show.
The segment highlights that torture doesn’t work and that people ridiculously think it does because it works in TV shows even if basically every actual study shows it doesn’t. And then it makes the more important point: even if it did work (which it doesn’t), it shouldn’t matter because it’s the wrong thing to do.
I’ve been searching around trying to find a link to the full audiobook, which Oliver insists was recorded, but so far can’t find anything other than the snippets in the show itself. Hopefully it really does exist.
Either way, kudos to Oliver for taking topics that we tend to talk about in our small corner of the world here and exposing them to a much wider audience — and including Helen Mirren in the process.
Yes, it’s become something of a cliche to post John Oliver’s weekly videos, but he keeps doing ones that feel like they’re ripped straight from Techdirt’s headlines that we just can’t help ourselves (also, if the team over there working for Oliver wants some help — let us know!). This time, he took on patent trolling and the need for patent reform in the US:
To be honest, if you regularly read our patent coverage there’s very little in there that you won’t already know — though our coverage doesn’t (generally) involve a dorky dancing guy who will draw you a cat, though if we get enough requests, perhaps we could add that to one of the Tims’ job responsibilities. Still, it’s nice to see more mainstream attention on patent trolls and the need for patent reform. The latest move for patent reform really kicked off in earnest when the issue got attention via a wonderful episode of This American Life. Perhaps John Oliver can help keep the momentum going so we can at least get something through Congress this year. It won’t be enough, but it will help.
Once again, it seems that John Oliver is doing a show on topics that we regularly talk about in these parts. And he’s pretty damn good at it. Last night’s episode was all about government surveillance, focused mainly on Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and the fact that it’s set to sunset on June 1st if Congress doesn’t renew it (and, of course, there’s been no debate at all on it, meaning that late in May you’ll see a frantic, crazed and fact-free “debate” in which fearmongers will insist that we’re all going to die if it’s not extended). Oliver actually flew to Moscow and interviewed Ed Snowden as part of the episode:
Believe it or not, Oliver actually challenged Snowden a lot more than most of Snowden’s interviews, which is pretty interesting (but perhaps not that surprising — given that Oliver also gave former NSA boss Keith Alexander his most challenging interview in Oliver’s very first episode). Oliver challenged Snowden on whether or not journalists could do a good enough job keeping some of the information in the documents secret (pointing to one particular fuck up in which there was a bad redaction). He also questioned how carefully Snowden reviewed all of the info before handing it over.
But, much more of the interview (and the rest of the show) actually focused on getting the public to actually care about what was going on. Oliver used the late night talk show TV trope of asking people on the street what they knew about Ed Snowden and what he revealed (the answer: basically nothing), and then flipped it around to ask them how they would feel if photos they or their loved ones took of their penises should be collected by the NSA. Then, suddenly, they were worried about the government’s surveillance capabilities. That leads to Oliver coaxing Snowden into explaining the power of government surveillance — including Section 215, Executive Order 12333, the PRISM program and even (barely) the upstream collection program under Section 702 of the FISA Act (not named in the show, though the others are) — about how it allows the government to collect “dick picks” (which Snowden will only call “photos of your junk.”)
It’s an amusing segment, but I’m not convinced it’s as powerful as it could have been (or as Oliver has been on other topics), in which he has been able to get people really motivated to be angry and speak out about certain injustices. And that’s too bad, because this is a huge issue. I recognize it’s a lot to ask of a primarily comedy show, but Oliver has been so successful at getting people worked up on issues like net neutrality, that it’s almost a disappointment that he’s not able to create the same level of outrage over government surveillance. In fact, most of the news coverage of Oliver’s interview seems to be about the mundane aspects of his interview with Snowden, such as whether or not he misses “hot pockets.”
Okay, I know that it’s become something of a cliche for blogs and news sites to repost John Oliver clips, but dammit, if the guy doesn’t keep on covering the types of stories that we normally cover around here. I mean, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart used to touch on related topics maybe once every six months or so, whereas Oliver seems to hit on a Techdirt-worthy topic basically every other week (so often we don’t get to all of them!). This past week, he did his big segment on the nasty games that Big Tobacco plays around the globe to market its products to just about everyone. Yes, in the US, most cigarette advertising is blocked, but Big Tobacco has just shifted to more vulnerable populations around the globe. That topic, by itself, isn’t directly in Techdirt’s wheelhouse — but in the middle of the segment, there’s a discussion about corporate sovereignty, and specifically the use by Big Tobacco of “investor state dispute settlement” (ISDS) provisions to allow the big tobacco companies to sue countries for daring to try to regulate cigarettes, advertising or packaging.
The segment on corporate sovereignty starts at around 6 minutes, right after showing examples of ridiculous tobacco commercials that are shown around the globe:
Now countries can try to counteract the influence of that kind of marketing, but if tobacco companies feel threatened, they’ll put them through legal hell. Let me take you on a world tour of how they attack laws intended to protect public health, because it’s kind of amazing.
Let’s start in Australia. In 2011, they passed a plain packaging law, and what that means is this. [Shows (fair use!) news clip describing required packaging of cigarettes with no branding, and scary health pictures]. Australia’s plain packaging law bans tobacco company branding from packaging and replaced it with upsetting photos, such as the toe tag on a corpse, the cancerous mouth, the nightmarish eyeball, or the diseased lung. Now, yes, I’m pretty sure I’d find a healthy lung disgusting, but, that thing does look like you’re trying to breathe through baked ziti, so [instructing staff] take it down! Just take it down!
Perhaps unsurprisingly, since this law was implemented, total consumption of tobacco cigarettes in Australia fell to record lows and… nightmares about eyeballs have risen to record highs. [Instructing staff] Take it down! Take down the demon eye!
To get these laws, though, Australia has had to run a gamut of lawsuits. First, two tobacco companies sued Australia in its highest court to stop them. The result, was a little surprising, as Australia’s attorney general let everyone know. [Shows clip of AG announcing not just the victory, but Big Tobacco having to pay the government’s legal fees.] Yes! Score one for the little guy! Even if that little guy is the sixth largest country in the world by landmass.
And the tobacco companies didn’t just lose. The judges called their case “delusive,” “unreal and synthetic” and said their case had “fatal defects.” ….
But Australia’s legal troubles were just beginning. Because then, Philip Morris Asia got involved. [Shows clips of a news report saying Philip Morris considering using ISDS provisions to take the Australian government to a tribunal claiming it lowered the value of the company’s trademarks].
That’s right. A company was able to sue a country over a public health measure, through an international court. How the fuck is that possible? Well, it’s really a simple explanation. They did it by digging up a 1993 trade agreement between Australia and Hong Kong which had a provision that said Australia couldn’t seize Hong Kong-based companies’ property. So, nine months before the lawsuits started, PMI put its Australian business in the hands of its Hong Kong-based Philip Morris Asia division, and then they sued, claiming that the “seized property” in question, were the trademarks on their cigarette packages.
And you’ve got to give it to them: that’s impressive. Someone should really give those lawyers a pat on the back… and a punch in the face. But, a pat on the back first. Pat, then punch. Pat, punch….
He then goes on to point out how Big Tobacco further got three other countries to file complaints with the World Trade Organization (WTO) against Australia, claiming the plain packaging law violates trade agreements: Honduras, Dominican Republic and Ukraine. Oliver then shows a clip noting that Ukraine does not have any tobacco trade at all with Australia, showing how ridiculous the WTO claim is.
Next, he shows how Big Tobacco is sending threatening letters to other countries, like Uruguay, Togo and Namibia for considering health regulations around tobacco products, even going so far as to totally misrepresent the total loss of its lawsuit in Australia, pretending that it was a victory. Oliver’s researchers got letters that Big Tobacco sent these countries, threatening “an incalculable amount of international trade litigation.”
There’s even more in the video — though it would be great if Oliver also took on the fact that these kinds of ISDS/corporate sovereignty agreements are at the heart of key trade agreements currently being negotiated today by the US and much of the rest of the world in both the TPP agreement and the TTIP agreement.
It’s because of stories like this that we’re so concerned about these corporate sovereignty provisions. Defenders insist they’re necessary to stop countries from absconding with assets built by foreign companies and investors, but that risk tends to be fairly limited, compared to how these agreements are actually being used: to allow corporations to effectively step in and block regulations designed to protect the public.
