[liberationtech] Another loss for the Internet

[Albert López]

Oh c'mon! That argumentation is completely flawed... Who in the earth might believe that because of the user blocking your communication your will be liable for some kind of irresponsible disaster information broadcast?
This is bullshit! Does that mean that all the news should be subtitled because the user might be blocking the audio? WTF, man?! Or maybe we should remove the option of audio muting? lol...
If this kind of weak argumentation trigger the modification of a standard... we are completely screwed.



gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --search-keys EEE5A447http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0xEEE5A447&op=vindex


> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 23:16:11 -0500
> From: jancsika at yahoo.com
> To: liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu
> Subject: Re: [liberationtech] Another loss for the Internet
> 
> On 02/19/2014 06:39 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "Now say that the user has installed a third party add-on that either
> >> accidentally or intentionally (through design or through compromise) blocks
> >> or otherwise prevents my "TV Web Application" from delivering that EAM to
> >> the user, and, consequently their house is destroyed, potentially with loss
> >> of life.
> > Or what if they looked away from the screen?
> >
> > The future of web-browsing?
> > https://d2nh4f9cbhlobh.cloudfront.net/_uploads/galleries/31492/a-clockwork-orange-475864l.jpg
> >
> > Advertisers would love it.
> >
> > I don't discount that there are indeed arguments that fringe
> > liabilities could exist— someone could even, as my silly example says,
> > sue you because they looked away. But fringe effects are not part of a
> > reasonable duty of care.
> 
> Yeah, but I didn't insert the guy's quote as a barrel of fish to shoot 
> at.  I inserted it to show that people who work under the assumption 
> that content trickles down from the top are quite effective at making 
> the net a place where those companies can continue creating content 
> using a model they prefer.  How effective are these people at their 
> work?  So effective that such a fringe argument actually results in the 
> relevant language being removed in its entirety from the standards document.
> 
> Meanwhile, what's the risk to a student who wants to test the boundaries 
> of fair use?  Where's the infrastructure available to a scientist to 
> release important pay-walled journal articles on public health as they 
> come to his/her attention?  What's the likelyhood he/she would even post 
> a magnet link to such material that someone else is seeding?  How can we 
> take the meager resources available and build out infrastructure that 
> lets artists, scientists, activists, etc., create and distribute content 
> using a model they prefer?  And without creating in them a palpable fear 
> that they're endangering their future by experimenting with an 
> alternative model?  An anonymity overlay is the best thing I can think 
> of that gropes toward that end.
> 
> Honestly, I'm just frustrated looking at how light the other end of the 
> scale is.  Somebody should make an app that delays critiques of the 
> current state of affairs until one spends equal time writing/improving 
> documentation for Tor or Gnunet.
> 
> -Jonathan
> -- 
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu.
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20140220/dc0cce04/attachment.html>