'We don't protect bad officers' and 'we object to a law that allows the public to see records of serious misconduct' can only really be read that one way, yes.
Ignoring the bad faith and hypocrisy angles to focus entirely on the ends justify the means, always a great(and telling) argument, but hey, if all you care about is the result I look forward to your support for taxing the ever loving hell out of politicians and national news stations to fund your subsidies, since both of those have polluted civic discourse and compete with local news respectively and as such deserve to pay as a result.
I'm sure Murdoch and others will be happy to start financing local news through taxation aimed specifically at them(among others), after all a thriving democracy depends upon it and it's only fair that they fund local journalistic efforts, and if that creates a more competitive and expansive news field all the better.
It's hypocritical and in bad faith because as I noted above if 'making a mess of civic discourse' or however someone cares to phrase it is a fine-worthy crime then a lot of people/groups, including some of the same ones who stand to benefit from such a tax should and would be on the hook as well, and yet that doesn't seem to be the case.
Now if those pushing for such penalties are willing to levy the same fines against politicians, news companies and other companies that might have 'muddied the waters' a bit then I might be more inclined to believe that this is being done in good faith with the public's wellbeing in mind, but as it is the arguments positively reek of a mix of PR stunt('look at us sticking it to the tech companies!') and parasitism as one group of companies sees the success of others and demands that the latter subsidize them because they are owed success.
Assuming the homeowner survived the encounter I imagine they'd be charged with murder/attempted murder as clearly they should have known that the heavily armed people breaking into their house were cops and thus had the right to do so.
Using money collected by the government to fund news and journalism is something that plenty of other democratic countries have decided to do.
And are those taxes taken from specific companies and industries, ones that might perhaps compete with the recipients of the taxes? It would be one thing if the government wanted to subsidize journalism from a general fund(not to mention problematic as that strikes me as something that would be really easy to weaponize politically), quite another to fund that 'subsidy' via taxing the competitors of said journalists and punishing the companies in question via hypocritical and bad faith taxes.
What are your thoughts on FreePress’ idea to tax targeted advertising to pay for journalism? Do you have any opinions on the 21st Century Federal Writers’ Project Act? Would you prefer those methods instead of the Superfund that Macpherson brought up?
No for the reason listed above, depends on how they plan to fund it though given what you surrounded that idea with I don't have high hopes and that's like asking if I'd rather lose an arm or a leg respectively.
First off, calling it a "link tax" is a misnomer when the proposed law in the U.S. and the passed law in Australia are both about enabling negotiations.
Sure, and when the local Don's man tells you he's concerned about property fires he's just passing on a friendly bit of advice. It's not a 'negotiation' when one side is calling the shots and the other side isn't allowed to refuse.
As for the 'lets tax the tech companies' arguments those are definitely worth a chuckle. 'Let's charge the tech companies for letting people lie and mislead on their platforms, something which is absolutely legal, and give that money to the news stations, they never lie and/or mislead people!'
I do wonder, if making a mess of civic discourse is grounds to be fined how many politicians, companies and tv stations will also be on the hook, or is it only a problem when certain companies enable it?
While the mistaken raid of Norris’s home was no doubt traumatic, given the significant factual differences between Capt. Cody’s actions in the raid and our prior precedent, we agree with the district court that Norris failed to meet his burden to show that Capt. Cody violated clearly established law.
Strange, you'd think there would be some sort of law against breaking into a house on illegal grounds that they might have violated, some sort of already in place right that might address unlawful entry into a house based upon at best gross negligence if not indifferent malice, but I guess since there isn't there was no possible way for any of the highly armed and one would hope trained officers on the scene to understand that super-complex idea.
Yet again a court treats police as the dumbest people on the planet, outright encouraging them to know as little as possible not only about the law but the tasks they are given, something I'm sure will be of great help protecting the public and ensuring public trust towards the police and courts.
Both sides benefit from the relationship but all you need to see to know which side benefits more is watch what happened in the past when Google responded to such demands by delisting the 'valuable content' in question. If a transfer of money much occur then if anything the ones being listed should be paying Google, not the other way around.
youtube pays billions to music companys maybe they could get a license for music in games in general .
Alternatively and I'd argue better have a option to mute the built-in soundtrack and replace it with public domain music or music by artists that are fine with getting the attention a bunch of people hearing their music would bring.
Paper: The surrounding farms employ undocumented workers and Biss' family farm might as well.
Nunes family: That's defamation!
Paper's lawyer: Alright, well it can't be defamation if it's true so there's an easy way to check, let's have the workers present their papers.
Nunes family: Most certainly not, here's a bunch of stonewalling to make that as difficult as possible and how dare you ask questions to one of our workers, that's harassment!
The only response to 'tech companies are getting a free ride' that should be presented is a 'put your money where you mouth is', where the one making the claim is challenged to pay even a week's worth of the tech companies internet bills and shows how much it cost them after it's done. Consistently do that and I imagine the argument would go away in short order because they either refuse and gut their argument as a result or pay out and have the evidence post-challenge kill their claim at that point.
It seems that these days so many 'newspapers' are so eager to print whatever someone hands them that they've turned into nothing more than PR firms, so dedicated to 'neutrality' that they're happy to host blatant lying and/or corporate propaganda with nary a comment because obviously it's not the job of journalists to do any sort of 'fact checking' before publishing.
At this point I'm rather surprised that people aren't pranking serious newspapers on a regular basis, because I'm sure they could be convinced to print a flat-earther screed in all seriousness if someone who presented themselves as an authority on the subject sent it in.
Imagine that, platforms fold in one country and agree to start paying for links and other countries are lining up to demand the same, whoever could have seen that other than anyone and everyone?
The truly messed up thing is that I imagine that this is another 'oh noes, please don't throw us into that briar patch' situation where the politicians involved may think they are sticking it to Google an Facebook but in reality they're playing right into their hands, because while a widespread link tax may be disastrous for the internet in general it's going to be amazing for larger platforms who will be able to shrug off the costs as they watch their competition driven under.
As an aside it's interesting watching the hypocrisy that tech-hatred can bring about, where the same people decrying 'monopolies' by particular companies are perfectly fine creating anti-trust exemptions for other companies.
Even if you believed the number to be accurate the why is still very important, as if 99.9% of non-corrupt cops are 'under attack' it's probably because they refuse to do anything about the .1% that are corrupt, such that to anyone looking in from the outside it looks like the 99.9% are in full support and defense of the .1% and if the public can't trust the 'good' officers to do anything about the 'bad' ones other than support them the safest position to take is that they're all bad.
Oh noes, the public will have the ability to see just how badly the police in new jersey are acting, however shall they cope with the idea that the public will be able to see how the people their tax dollars are used to pay behave on the job?
If they don't want records of them acting like thugs and/or in an unprofessional manner to be made public then there's a really simple solution: Don't act in a manner that 'embarrassing' records like that are created. This is a 'problem' caused entirely by the police and they have no-one but themselves to blame that the public doesn't trust them and wants to 'check their work' as it were.
Should be but wasn't, as both companies were stupid enough to fold and as a result are sure to see a lot more countries/companies demanding their cut in the coming years.
Assuming it wasn't changed since then they saw that coming from when other countries tried this little extortion trick and Google just delisted them by making it so that if the companies include any links to news sources they are required to include and pay for links to australian sources.
'Sure it was proposed by him, and will result in a whole bunch of money being funneled to him with no effort on his part, and it's set up so that if his demands aren't met the government will step in and bring the hammer down and force the other side to pay him, but that doesn't mean it's the government favoring him or anything!'
And this is how you know that the hand-wringing and complaints about abuse of market position is not being made in good faith because strangely it's only aimed at one particular industry, completely ignoring every other company and industry out there.
If the concern was honestly about protecting the public from major companies and the power they wield then there would be a lot more companies facing scrutiny, instead you have only a small handful from a single industry making clear that this has nothing to do with protecting the public and everything to do with punishment and performative stunts to play to the gullible.
'Competition'. The thing you're arguing against is 'competition'
Yes, because they've been so very good at doing that before his entry into the market...
Re: It's all in the definition
'We don't protect bad officers' and 'we object to a law that allows the public to see records of serious misconduct' can only really be read that one way, yes.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ignoring the bad faith and hypocrisy angles to focus entirely on the ends justify the means, always a great(and telling) argument, but hey, if all you care about is the result I look forward to your support for taxing the ever loving hell out of politicians and national news stations to fund your subsidies, since both of those have polluted civic discourse and compete with local news respectively and as such deserve to pay as a result.
I'm sure Murdoch and others will be happy to start financing local news through taxation aimed specifically at them(among others), after all a thriving democracy depends upon it and it's only fair that they fund local journalistic efforts, and if that creates a more competitive and expansive news field all the better.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's hypocritical and in bad faith because as I noted above if 'making a mess of civic discourse' or however someone cares to phrase it is a fine-worthy crime then a lot of people/groups, including some of the same ones who stand to benefit from such a tax should and would be on the hook as well, and yet that doesn't seem to be the case.
Now if those pushing for such penalties are willing to levy the same fines against politicians, news companies and other companies that might have 'muddied the waters' a bit then I might be more inclined to believe that this is being done in good faith with the public's wellbeing in mind, but as it is the arguments positively reek of a mix of PR stunt('look at us sticking it to the tech companies!') and parasitism as one group of companies sees the success of others and demands that the latter subsidize them because they are owed success.
Re:
Assuming the homeowner survived the encounter I imagine they'd be charged with murder/attempted murder as clearly they should have known that the heavily armed people breaking into their house were cops and thus had the right to do so.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Using money collected by the government to fund news and journalism is something that plenty of other democratic countries have decided to do.
And are those taxes taken from specific companies and industries, ones that might perhaps compete with the recipients of the taxes? It would be one thing if the government wanted to subsidize journalism from a general fund(not to mention problematic as that strikes me as something that would be really easy to weaponize politically), quite another to fund that 'subsidy' via taxing the competitors of said journalists and punishing the companies in question via hypocritical and bad faith taxes.
What are your thoughts on FreePress’ idea to tax targeted advertising to pay for journalism? Do you have any opinions on the 21st Century Federal Writers’ Project Act? Would you prefer those methods instead of the Superfund that Macpherson brought up?
No for the reason listed above, depends on how they plan to fund it though given what you surrounded that idea with I don't have high hopes and that's like asking if I'd rather lose an arm or a leg respectively.
Re: Re: Re:
First off, calling it a "link tax" is a misnomer when the proposed law in the U.S. and the passed law in Australia are both about enabling negotiations.
Sure, and when the local Don's man tells you he's concerned about property fires he's just passing on a friendly bit of advice. It's not a 'negotiation' when one side is calling the shots and the other side isn't allowed to refuse.
As for the 'lets tax the tech companies' arguments those are definitely worth a chuckle. 'Let's charge the tech companies for letting people lie and mislead on their platforms, something which is absolutely legal, and give that money to the news stations, they never lie and/or mislead people!'
I do wonder, if making a mess of civic discourse is grounds to be fined how many politicians, companies and tv stations will also be on the hook, or is it only a problem when certain companies enable it?
'No precedent applies and we're not creating any'
While the mistaken raid of Norris’s home was no doubt traumatic, given the significant factual differences between Capt. Cody’s actions in the raid and our prior precedent, we agree with the district court that Norris failed to meet his burden to show that Capt. Cody violated clearly established law.
Strange, you'd think there would be some sort of law against breaking into a house on illegal grounds that they might have violated, some sort of already in place right that might address unlawful entry into a house based upon at best gross negligence if not indifferent malice, but I guess since there isn't there was no possible way for any of the highly armed and one would hope trained officers on the scene to understand that super-complex idea.
Yet again a court treats police as the dumbest people on the planet, outright encouraging them to know as little as possible not only about the law but the tasks they are given, something I'm sure will be of great help protecting the public and ensuring public trust towards the police and courts.
Re: Chicken and egg
Both sides benefit from the relationship but all you need to see to know which side benefits more is watch what happened in the past when Google responded to such demands by delisting the 'valuable content' in question. If a transfer of money much occur then if anything the ones being listed should be paying Google, not the other way around.
Re:
youtube pays billions to music companys maybe they could get a license for music in games in general .
Alternatively and I'd argue better have a option to mute the built-in soundtrack and replace it with public domain music or music by artists that are fine with getting the attention a bunch of people hearing their music would bring.
Someone doth protest too much...
Paper: The surrounding farms employ undocumented workers and Biss' family farm might as well.
Nunes family: That's defamation!
Paper's lawyer: Alright, well it can't be defamation if it's true so there's an easy way to check, let's have the workers present their papers.
Nunes family: Most certainly not, here's a bunch of stonewalling to make that as difficult as possible and how dare you ask questions to one of our workers, that's harassment!
Well, they might not have been before this..
To be clear, universities aren’t patent trolls.
A statement that is no longer true for at least fifteen of them.
Next week on Bloomberg: Is the earth really round? You decide
The only response to 'tech companies are getting a free ride' that should be presented is a 'put your money where you mouth is', where the one making the claim is challenged to pay even a week's worth of the tech companies internet bills and shows how much it cost them after it's done. Consistently do that and I imagine the argument would go away in short order because they either refuse and gut their argument as a result or pay out and have the evidence post-challenge kill their claim at that point.
It seems that these days so many 'newspapers' are so eager to print whatever someone hands them that they've turned into nothing more than PR firms, so dedicated to 'neutrality' that they're happy to host blatant lying and/or corporate propaganda with nary a comment because obviously it's not the job of journalists to do any sort of 'fact checking' before publishing.
At this point I'm rather surprised that people aren't pranking serious newspapers on a regular basis, because I'm sure they could be convinced to print a flat-earther screed in all seriousness if someone who presented themselves as an authority on the subject sent it in.
Oh look, exactly what everyone expected
Imagine that, platforms fold in one country and agree to start paying for links and other countries are lining up to demand the same, whoever could have seen that other than anyone and everyone?
The truly messed up thing is that I imagine that this is another 'oh noes, please don't throw us into that briar patch' situation where the politicians involved may think they are sticking it to Google an Facebook but in reality they're playing right into their hands, because while a widespread link tax may be disastrous for the internet in general it's going to be amazing for larger platforms who will be able to shrug off the costs as they watch their competition driven under.
As an aside it's interesting watching the hypocrisy that tech-hatred can bring about, where the same people decrying 'monopolies' by particular companies are perfectly fine creating anti-trust exemptions for other companies.
'A good cop who covers for a bad cop is not a good cop'
Even if you believed the number to be accurate the why is still very important, as if 99.9% of non-corrupt cops are 'under attack' it's probably because they refuse to do anything about the .1% that are corrupt, such that to anyone looking in from the outside it looks like the 99.9% are in full support and defense of the .1% and if the public can't trust the 'good' officers to do anything about the 'bad' ones other than support them the safest position to take is that they're all bad.
I'm just gonna keep the nano-violin out for quick access...
Oh noes, the public will have the ability to see just how badly the police in new jersey are acting, however shall they cope with the idea that the public will be able to see how the people their tax dollars are used to pay behave on the job?
If they don't want records of them acting like thugs and/or in an unprofessional manner to be made public then there's a really simple solution: Don't act in a manner that 'embarrassing' records like that are created. This is a 'problem' caused entirely by the police and they have no-one but themselves to blame that the public doesn't trust them and wants to 'check their work' as it were.
Re: The answer has already been found.
Should be but wasn't, as both companies were stupid enough to fold and as a result are sure to see a lot more countries/companies demanding their cut in the coming years.
Re: Link tax
Assuming it wasn't changed since then they saw that coming from when other countries tried this little extortion trick and Google just delisted them by making it so that if the companies include any links to news sources they are required to include and pay for links to australian sources.
'... I don't see it'
'Sure it was proposed by him, and will result in a whole bunch of money being funneled to him with no effort on his part, and it's set up so that if his demands aren't met the government will step in and bring the hammer down and force the other side to pay him, but that doesn't mean it's the government favoring him or anything!'
'X is a problem! ... if they're not paying us.'
And this is how you know that the hand-wringing and complaints about abuse of market position is not being made in good faith because strangely it's only aimed at one particular industry, completely ignoring every other company and industry out there.
If the concern was honestly about protecting the public from major companies and the power they wield then there would be a lot more companies facing scrutiny, instead you have only a small handful from a single industry making clear that this has nothing to do with protecting the public and everything to do with punishment and performative stunts to play to the gullible.
More comments from That One Guy >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by That One Guy.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt