I think this is a great idea. However I don't think making twitter a protocol addresses the problem of doxxing, which is amplified by the Streisand Effect. Sure, users will be able to better curate their experience, but it becomes a problem when the ill effects of doxxing bleed over into the real world, such as Swatting and harassing not only the doxxed person, but their family.
Mike, I think you have a great idea! But like I said, more needs to be done.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say it was entrapment. But the most likely story is that the bots caught a false positive and the major labels shot themselves in the foot, as with the One Direction remix instance.
It is indeed difficult to make a living as a content creator, even with some degrees of success. Take the example of Luke Silas, drummer for Anamanaguchi who also has a side chiptune project called knife city (for whose latest album yours truly contributed a remix). He's from L.A., but currently lives here in NYC.
That's a problematic analogy. We can choose to put our smartphones on silent. When cars had leaded gasoline, we had no choice but to breathe in leaded gas.
While there are definitely valid concerns about privacy (hello Facebook and the NSA!), I have to say that social media has made me stay in contact with the friends I come across rather than forget about them. I can always unfriend, not follow, or in the worst-case-scenario, block them (I realize this is not the case for some other people).
Also, it helps that my phone gets piss-poor reception where I live, so answering phone calls is tough as I have to go outside to do so.
In case anyone's interested in the roll call, i.e. which representatives voted for or against the amendment, here it is.
It turned out to be a party-line vote, with GOP reps voting for the amendment and Dem reps voting against it. The exceptions include Dems Barrow of Georgia and Matheson voting for it and GOPpers Boustany, Brooks of Alabama, and Fleischmann voting against it.
It wasn't. But even Mike Masnick will tell you that Trademark is–at its core–a consumer protection mechanism. Trademark's purpose does indeed get abused often, such as with "dilution", but that doesn't mean it doesn't serve its purpose a lot.
But this confusion raises an important point: Shouldn't trademark, when properly applied, remedy this? This AC was earnestly confused because a tech company had an identical name as another tech company. Shouldn't that be a trademark dispute, and wasn't this exactly the type of thing trademark was designed to remedy?
I donated, and here's why. Considering that you stuck up for your principles instead of selling out to your advertisers, that shows that you guys at Techdirt have integrity and I'm going to put in $5 a month to help you out. I'm sorry I couldn't donate more, but you guys have been there for us so $5 is the least I can do.
Also, the fact that you stuck to your principles disproves anyone who ever says that you take orders from Big Tech.
Excellent point. As a linguist, I can tell you that literal translations don't serve the reader the translated language. As an example, Imagine if you translated the floating island "Laputa" from Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels into Spanish!