So he need money for license some copyrighted stuff. What's so ridiculous here? Those photos belong CBS/Paramount and such due to high-profile nature, license cost is significant. Want make a movie - pay for it.
>> People create content for many reasons, and getting paid is usually way down on the list of reasons. There are all kind of "content". Yes, people will play music just because it's fun. And write books just to express some thoughts. But - people simply can't create Call-Of-Duty/WoW/etc level game just-because. It's simply financially impossible, at least now. Same is true for movies - those of high production values are usually produced to make a profit.
>> The counter-argument is simple: that's a false dichotomy. The choice isn't between Facebook's approach or nothing. Facebook is private enterprise. That's up to _them_ what kind of choice to present to their users.
>> You should check again. Facebook is a LOT more than just a website. You need a reality check. It _IS_ a website. Oh, you probably mean "it collaborate with another _websites_ to collect " - ... and it is still a website. All Facebook can do is to show me this or another ad. Everything else is your fantasies.
Unless I'm missing something, this is Facebook's own money. Maybe this idea is bad/wrong/stupid. But dangerous? - give me a break. IIRC nobody forces people to use it, right? Like it - use it. Don't like - don't use.
To the point - Facebook's argument is "this is better than nothing". I fail to see counter-argument here. Does Mike think that in fact, this is worst than nothing? Why? Because Facebook may profit?
All this "abuse their power" BS is funny. Last time I checked, Facebook is just a website. It's not "Umbrella Corp.", you know. They don't have private army or black helicopters. It's just a website. Get real.
>> Maybe, ... we should STOP DOING STUPID SHIT that simply continues the ongoing cycle?
Oh, you mean stop playing "world policemen" role? Definitely, go ahead. Give up those aircraft carriers, ICBM's, nuclear subs and so on and so forth. You don't need all this to protect yourself (who's going to invade US anyway?).
However, if you still think that tribe X killing tribe Y somewhere in Middle East is your business - don't cry about "radical islam".
Your "power-hungry government" is _ELECTED_. Remember that? All those crazy "anti-terrorist" laws are quite popular.
Isn't it what democracy all about? Rule of the people?
What you're seeing here is western democracy at deadlock: the correct (tried-and-working) way to stop this isis-elkaida-jihad-and-the-rest is brutal war. To US folks: no, Vietnam is not example of such; WWII or crusades is. But, you can't engage in such war, because of human-rights-war-crimes-other-weird-ideas. Result - insane surveillance laws that fix no problem and just waste taxpayer's money.
As inaction continue, expect to see more of it, not less.
>> So killing you political rivals is OK Since when Palestinians became "political" rivals?! "Political" means "participating in politics", which usually apply to citizens. Armed struggle makes it OK to kill opponents.
>> The creation of Israel and the act of dropping a non-native population in its midst, and then allowing that nation to run contrary to the NPT Allowing? Who do you think was "allowing" it? World-police? US? God? Here's a hint for you: nobody "grants" or "awards" you a state. One must build its own. It's match simpler to demolish trains than run them on time. It's match simpler to fire rockets on the neighbor's house then build your own (house).
>> If you look at the definition of "Sovereignty" ...
Definition of "Sovereignty" is "monopoly on lethal violence". It have nothing to do with price of pills (or bread).
>> A life saving drug is invented By whom? Right to private property is real thing. Company that invented this "life saving drug" have every right to charge _any_ price for it. Yes, _any_ price.
>> ... put humanity in front of profits will result in a lawsuit And rightly so. Private property is basis of modern society, not some "humanity" principle.
>> Companies have a responsibility to their share holders, not humanity I guess shareholders do not belong to "humanity". Who the hell is this "humanity" that attempts to dictate to private company how to operate?
The ideas of "humanity first" had already been tried - see USSR, PRC, North Korea and so on. In good case - you have local hunger, in bad - genocide.
>> one of those 'human rights' is to have a government that ... You have no such right. Who do you think should grant you such "right"? God? Church? UN? Aliens? You're welcomed to be politically active and (try to) put in charge any kind of government you see fit. Every country and its laws, every nation and its customs.
Or, I may prefer to live in apartment inside of locked down building, with security on entrance screening every incoming person, where building owner can decide who can come in. See also "military base". I heard that in US this thing is voluntary.