Tag: Politics
holy shit a political comic that frames a tablet as a means to gather information rather than The Millennial Brain Rot Device™
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt
If anybody has a problem with what she’s exposing in this video, you are the problem. And if you continue to facilitate this absolute corruption then you are not only the problem but you outright think and are fine with living in an oligarchy and not a democracy.
Worth the watch
Brexit in a nutshell, from an Irish POV
new blog post: Brexit in a nutshell, from an Irish POV
I posted this cartoon (with sincere apologies to cartoonist Sidney Harris) over on Facebook, and an American friend said they’d been trying to follow some of the Brexit news, but frankly it was all a bit confusing (and as if there’s not enough confusion to sort through in the States), so I wrote a very brief primer and answered some follow-up questions, all of which got a nod of approval from…
That’s pretty succint.
Independent Musician Explains Why Article 13 Will Be An Utter Disaster For Independent Artists
Mike Masnick/Techdirt:
A decade ago, when there were still people laughably insisting that the
internet was the worst thing that ever happened to musicians, I kept
pointing out examples of artists who were creatively embracing the
internet to great success – connecting with fans, building new business
models, and succeeding. And every time I did that, people would
complain that this example was an “exception” or an “anomaly.” And, they
had a habit of qualifying any success story – even if the
qualifications were contradictory. For example, if I highlighted an
independent artist’s success, people would say “well, that’s just a
small independent artist, they have nothing to lose, no big rock star
could ever succeed that way.” And then, when I’d highlight a big rock
star having success embracing the internet, I’d be told “well, it’s easy
for him, he already had a huge following.” It got so silly that back in
2008 one of our commenters coined “Masnick’s Law” to describe this phenomenon:Masnick’s Law states that in any conversation about musicians doing
something different to achieve fame and/or fortune someone will
inevitably attempt to make the argument that “it only worked for them
because they are big/small and it will never work for someone who is the
opposite,” no matter how much evidence to the contrary might be readily
available.In 2009, getting fed up with this, I wrote a long article detailing
examples of a whole bunch of success stories of artists embracing the
internet mixing in ones who were hugely famous with ones who were moderately successful and ones who were small independents… and someone complained in an email that these were all exceptions.Over the past few years, I thought this kind of “exception” thinking had
mostly died out, but it showed up again recently. We posted famed
science fiction author Ken MacLeod’s excellent opinion piece
arguing that, even though he’s a big supporter of copyright and against
anyone pirating his books, he’s absolutely against the EU’s plans for
Article 11 and Article 13 in the EU Copyright Directive. The key line:
“Far greater than my interest in copyright is my interest in a free and
open internet – or, failing that, in keeping the internet as free and
open as it is now.”And, in the comments… Masnick’s Law reared its ugly head again:
Straw-man argument, since he has a big publisher to both pay him and
defend his property rights. He’s not an indie who markets his own work
on the internet and has to fight mass piracy on his own. He doesn’t need
copyright protection when he has distribution sending his fans to pay
for his work (while the same fans might pirate the indies).He is the one who wants big publishers to continue to dominate and
profit, while the indies want direct access to the public and the
elimination of the middleman that is this man’s meal ticket.Of course, that’s nonsense. That comment is based on the idea that you
need to “fight” mass piracy, rather than looking for ways to build a
successful business model that involves connecting with your true fans.And, of course, the impact on independent artists will be even more
serious than those signed to big publishers/labels/studios/etc. Indeed,
Ken’s own Twitter feed pointed me to an independent musician in the UK,
Stephen Blythe, who has written about why Article 13 will make life worse for him
as an independent musician. After detailing his situation as a
musician, he explains that if you want to get your music out there, so
that you can build a fanbase, you need to get your music onto the “most
popular music” sites. And to do that you have to use a special third party:If an independent artist wants to get their music out there into the
world, to the most popular music sharing sites, they need to use some
kind of recognised distributor – as direct submissions are either
impossible, or extremely restricted. A pile of these have sprung up,
including Amuse, RouteNote, DistroKid, etc. Some charge a subscription
fee per year, some take a cut of any revenue generated, and some of them
don’t even have a website – operating just from an app. The concept is
simple: You send your music to them, and they distribute it digitally to
the various partners. One of these partners is YouTube.But it turns out that those services, as part of their “value add” will “enforce copyright” for you:
What isn’t made clear by these distribution networks is that by
submitting your music to YouTube, you essentially give the distributor a
licence to enforce your copyright on the platform using the ContentID
system. This automatically detects any music uploaded along with a
YouTube video (including short clips), and flags it up as unauthorised.
To many this might sound great. Stop people stealing your stuff!The problem of course is that there is very often no way to denote
authorised uses or channels with these common distribution services.He then details two separate scenarios of artists being harmed by this
kind of “enforcement” including one that happened directly to himself:An artist (A) is asked by a fellow musician (B) if they would be
interested in a collaboration. The process is simple: B will supply A
with some vocal samples that A can then chop up and use however they
wish. A gladly accepts, and comes up with a whole electronic composition
that brings the vocals to life. B loves the track, and asks if they can
use it on their upcoming DIY release. A agrees. B’s friend runs a small
label who agrees to put out the album, and they use a distribution
service which sends the album to all the major partners automatically –
including YouTube’s ContentID system. A few years later, A is producing
short video blogs and decides to use one of their old tracks as
background music. It gets flagged up as a copyright violation
automatically, which A disputes – but the appeal is rejected by the
distributor, who has no knowledge of how the track came about in the
first place.He then explains that in a world where everything involves a massive
ContentID-like filter, you create a terrible situation for independent
musicians, who are at the mercy of much larger companies with no
flexibility:
- Independent musicians are at the mercy of a system which locks them
out from negotiating their own contracts without major label backing,
and they therefore have to rely on gatekeepers which provide an
inadequate level of information and control over their own music.- Artists who are starting out lack the information required in order
to make informed decisions about their interaction with such services,
and can inadvertently give away their ability to exploit their creations
commercially due to how the systems are constructed.- The ContentID approach to copyright enforcement gives huge clout to
the first entity to register a piece of work within their system – which
is rarely going to be the artist themselves.- This model has no room for the ad-hoc, informal, and varying ways in
which independent musicians create and share their works online.Or, in short:
The current ContentID system works on a first-come, first-served basis.
It puts huge power in the hands of intermediary distribution services
which do not provide a service that can ever give artists the amount of
control over their licenses they would require to fully exploit their
creations. The nature of the beast means that informal collaborations
between like-minded folks can unexpectedly tie up their creative
expression years down the road. Article 13 will only expand these
systems, which will inevitably be less sophisticated on other platforms
than ContentID. Independent artists lose the ability to share their work
even further.I’d argue it goes much further than that. First, the major record labels see everything stated in the paragraph above as a benefit of Article 13.
Giving huge power to the middlemen gatekeepers puts them back in the
position they were in year’s ago, where they get to decide who gets
distribution and who doesn’t. That system created a world in which
musicians had to hand over their copyright and nearly all of the revenue
generated from their works in exchange for a pittance of an advance
(which was really just a loan). So, putting more gatekeeper power back
in their hands is the goal here.Second, and even more concerning, is that Article 13 is premised on only
the largest platforms being able to comply – meaning that there will
be less competition on the platform side and fewer and fewer places
for independent artists to distribute their work, should they wish to
do so. That gives them fewer options and less ability to build a
fanbase, unless they get plucked out of obscurity by a giant gatekeeper
(again, going back to the way things were a couple decades ago).Now, I’m sure that someone will pop into the comments and point out that
this example doesn’t count because it’s just a “small, independent
artist,” and that his concerns don’t matter to “real” artists (meaning
major label ones), but, haven’t we played that game long enough?
Unpopular opinion but I feel the need to say this as election year draws closer and Democratic candidates are being announced:
in 2020, the ONLY GOAL is getting that orange sludge out of office.
That’s it. That is endgame for 2020. If you stick your head up your ass so far as to think anything is more important than that at this point, get an emergency head-ass-ectomy REAL fucking quick because we CANNOT pull another 2016.
I don’t care if the Dem nominee is someone you hate, if you’ve voted Green Party for 34 years, if your goddamn mother is on the ticket. If mama isn’t the official presidential candidate from the Democratic Party, then you DO NOT VOTE FOR HER.
2020 is about blocking another four years of nightmare hell. 2020 is about caring about other people’s realities over your “conscience” (read: online woke points). It’s about standing up for every person hurt, every person harassed, every person KILLED by the hate this piece of radioactive bile spews from every disgusting orifice.
ESPECIALLY my fellow white people better take this message to fucking heart, because WE are the ones who fucked this up, ESPECIALLY my fellow white women. You are not allowed to “vote your conscience.” You are not allowed to “weigh the options.” You are suddenly a single-issue voter, and that issue is Trump Is Evil. You are voting to evict, voting to BLOCK. If the Democratic candidate is less than ideal, you suck it the fuck up for 2020. This election is not, CANNOT be about idealism, about perfection. It’s about starting to undo four years of damage.
So from the announcement of the nominee until November 3rd, 2020, you better be all fucking in. If you don’t like their stances on certain issues, if they’re not progressive enough, if they’ve reached across the aisle too many times, worry about it November 4th. Spend the next four years pushing them left, protesting everything you don’t like, picket the fucking White House if you need to. I will be right there with you. But that starts on November 4th. Until then, we are on a straight anti-Trump train and y’all better not fucking get off it.
I hate Trump too, but why do y’all keep phrasing it like “vote against Trump instead of caring about who the other person is!!” when people could instead focus on making sure the Democrats elect the best candidate possible to go against Trump… getting Trump out of the office is not the “only goal”. The “only goal” is voting the best candidate into office. Hopefully, that will be someone who isn’t Trump since I believe America has much better to offer than him.
So, yeah, I’m not waiting until November 4th to call out a politician’s shit. Us lefties need to make sure better politicians make it to the presidential election, not blindly vote whichever way points away from Trump.
^^^
Y’all sound exactly like the republicans who voted Trump over Hillary for nothing but out of spite.
No, really you do. You see Trump as a great evil (which he isn’t, but he is a pretty shitty guy and isn’t doing a good enough job in office to justify his overall sliminess). Just like how Republicans saw Hillary in 2016. It no longer became about putting forth the most qualified figure they could and voting their conscience; it became about keeping her from office. It was no longer voting for a third party candidate even though they have a snowball’s chance in hell just because you believed they were best for the job, but because any vote that isn’t for Trump is a vote for Hillary. Which, you know, is objectively not true. A vote for a third party candidate is a vote against both of them, not for one or the other.
But I’m super duper bored, so let’s just debunk this shitty thought process thoroughly because I’m tired of illogical voters. I don’t care if we aren’t voting for the same people or the same shit—vote your conscience, not out of spite.
That’s the best way to make change guys.
- The main goal for the 2020 elections isn’t to vote out Trump. I don’t want him to stay past 2020 either, but that being your sole obligation throughout the election cycle? That’s just really stupid, and a fragmented logical process. The goal for the 2020 elections, as they are for every election, is try to push for someone you think will be the best. Not just by virtue of “not being Trump,” but because you like what they stand for and what they have to offer. I’m not even ask to keep up with the news and try to stay informed and fact check everything you hear—though, you probably should, just in general—just to look for candidates you genuinely think would do a good job. That’s your role as a voter. Don’t be like the dumbasses who voted in Trump just by virtue of him not being Hillary.
- People who can vote for whomever they choose. They can even choose to vote like this. I just wouldn’t suggest it if you want actual changes to be made.
- Again, I’m not getting into the Trump Did This Trump Did That debate because it’s really fucking tiresome and no one’s listening because everyone’s already got their minds made on him. Which is fine. I hated him when he first announced he was running and I still hate him now; I just don’t like people spreading misinformation. Ever. Just…try to be objective, and don’t rely solely on pathos all the time. Sure, emotions and subjectivity have their place, even in a presidential race, but don’t make wild claims about a person’s heinousness just to further your agenda. It’s a generally shitty thing to do, you’re alienating people by doing so, and it doesn’t take a genius to look through hundreds of sources who prove your claims false. You can dislike a candidate, but try to at least spread true information, even if it doesn’t always fit neatly within your narrative. Again: lies don’t make change. And neither does dehumanising people, no matter how awful they may seem (and very well may be, and in some cases, are)… especially when using purposefully emotional language to encite a purposefully emotional response. That’s propoganda, and let’s really try to avoid that shit this election cycle.
- Again. Don’t tell people who they can and cannot vote for. It makes you look like the asshole and alienates people who may have originally heard your message. And, again, this line of thinking will not change anything. Vote your conscience, find someone you really believe in. You’re better than this.
- You can protest right now if you want to. That’s your constitutional right as American. It’s honestly basically a civic duty. As long as you aren’t violent, inciting violence, or damaging others’ property—you can protest. Whatever you want, whomever you want, whenever you want, however you want (as long as it’s legal.) But you can also elect a candidate you don’t think you’ll have to protest. Because, you know, you actually want to change things. And you have actual beliefs and convictions and aren’t a bunch of fucking robots. Goddamn.
HEY THERE, Y’ALL!
As we move into 2019 and presidential hopefuls start their campaigns, remember:
– DO NOT FORM POLITICAL OPINIONS BASED ON INFOGRAPHICS. Read source material. If a journalist is legitimate, they will not pass off their statements as fact without proof.
– DO NOT TAKE SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS AS TRUTH. Not even when they are made by someone you trust.
– DO NOT TRUST ANY SOURCE UNLESS IT IS CORRABORATED BY MULTIPLE OTHER CREDIBLE SOURCES.
There are already bots posting propaganda, actively targeting leftists, encouraging us not to vote in various ways.
Do not let them win.
This political system is heinously broken, but consider what evil still has to gain from silencing you before you allow yourself to be silenced.
This quote
We live in a simulation.
Those right-wing maniacs are really trying hard don’t they? Unable to win any argument – so all brain power focusing into making up fake content.
How low the Republicans go when they are scared of powerful women.
“Republican attempt to shame female politician with nude photoshop pictures debunked by foot fetishist using Wikifeet”
That’s a real thing that happened
That’s an actual news story that occured
What even is this planet
This timeline is fucked.
The ACLU made the Border Patrol reveal its terrifying legal theories
After four years of Freedom of Information Act litigation, the ACLU has
prevailed and forced the Customs and Border Patrol to release 1,000
pages’ worth of training documents in which new agents learn when they
can stop people and what they can do after they stop them.The documents are a window into the CBP’s legal gamesmanship, in which
the flimsiest of pretenses are spun into legal excuses to stop, search,
question and detain people within 100 miles of the US border and in any
city with an international airport.Counsel for CBP has cherry-picked legal precedents to produce a
kafka-esque litany of excuses for stops, including being close to the
border, being on a “known smuggling route,” driving “inconsistent with
local traffic patterns,” being “from out of the area,” having a covered
cargo area; paying “undue attention to the agent’s presence,” avoiding
“looking at the agent,” slowing down on seeing the agent, being dirty,
etc.The documents also shed light on CBP surveillance activities, though much of this section is redacted.
Of particular interest are the revelations of the CPB’s shadowy “city
patrol,” which does not target people who’ve made illegal border
crossings.Also interesting is the CBP’s belief that it can force any civilian to
operate on its behalf on penalty of a $1,000 fine (previously the CBP
has used this authority to force doctors to perform medically
unnecessary rectal examinations, a practice now banned by the courts).https://boingboing.net/2019/01/07/cherry-picked-pretenses.html