It never will be. Tennis tournaments take place on private property and you agree to certain terms that ban you from "transmitting match data" by purchasing a ticket and attending. The tournament can throw anyone out that they please at their discretion.
I like to think about the "Sharing Economy" kind of like the shift from physical servers to virtual servers. A similar set of principals come into play when you try to make better use of excess memory and CPU cycles VS when you try to make use of nights when your spare room is empty.
I think that is an interesting point. I have always found "site.com/view?postid=1234" feels lazy vs. the alternative "site.com/posts/article-title". While there is a relatively small group of people who might poke around with the URL parameters regularly, the vast majority of internet users IMHO would prefer to see a URL with some indication about what is on the other side. That's not to say we can't have both either, just that you tend to only need one or the other.
That's kind of one of the three legs of the article, that it shouldn't be rape for two 17 year olds to have sex and similarly it should not be a sexual crime for them to send each other pictures of themselves. Both of these "crimes" are clearly not the targets of their respective laws, so why are we creating "sex offenders" out of these people?
I understand what you are trying to say.
I am curious though what you recommend as a monetization strategy if you take that route?
I suppose ad revenue is always the old fall back, but I would imagine that for a lot of the content out there, that is not free to produce, there needs to be some way to pay the bills.
There's always the old standby: custom-made, one-off products.
A concert, for instance; lots of musicians make money through performance.
Depending on how crowd-pleasin' your creation is, or how well you've done at finding a crowd, there's a bit of tension possible; a husband who commissioned a Dali portrait of his wife ended up hanging it in his kennels to underscore what he thought of it.
Using the digital content as basically a loss leader for things that can't be distributed digitally, namely live performances and merch that you'd sell at those live performances.
It's artists also have a little success with digital 'busking' - where you intentionally deliver high quality content for free, along with a message that asks people to toss a few bucks your way if they think you're worth it.
The best written one I've ever seen was Benn Jordan's "Hello Downloader", which is included in all of his self-released torrents: http://www.alphabasic.com/Please_read.html
I would be interested if statistical data gleaned from DNS makes it's way into any other service areas. DNS would seem like a useful way to rank the popularity of web sites, I am sure there are some interesting enhancements that could be made using that data.
> We don't correlate or combine your information from the temporary or permanent logs with any other data that Google might have about your use of other services, such as data from Web Search and data from advertising on the Google content network.
And they say that the logs are only used for debugging, DoS protection and abuse.
I did not mean "my queries" being "shared" but the query collection/archive as a whole. It would be another source to know what domains the people visit.
> And they say that the logs are only used for debugging, DoS protection and abuse.
From Facebook's standpoint I would imagine that these are viewed as completely independent policies. On one hand Facebook does not want to censor discussion, on the other Facebook does not want to host explicit images. The distinction that you draw above simply has to do with their definition of what is an explicit image.
Would you make the same argument if we were talking about Holocaust deniers and personal pornography? Because I am pretty sure that is the distinction that Facebook is making. You just disagree on what constitutes pornography. (I am not agreeing or disagreeing with either of you around that definition either way, just saying that I think you are arguing a different argument).
Yes I absolutely would make the same argument. The moment you begin to moderate your medium, you accept responsibility for it. I’m not saying anything in this discussion about whether FB is right or wrong to allow hate material, just that they cannot hide behind “We abhor it but believe we should not censor discussion.”
UPDATE: I have no idea, but I am curious: Can you write porn on FB? Soft-core? Hard-core? As suggested by another respondent, I’m pretty sure you can post a picture of yourself with skinhead tattoos. Can you post a hateful picture? Is this just words vs. pictures? Or is it ideas vs. so-called porn?
I think you are still missing what I meant.
I think it's a Content vs Pornography distinction. If we wanted to test it, I think the question to ask would be are they blocking explicit text as well, say erotic stories, or even just swear words? I know that some portions of their platform do automatically censor certain words (for example website comments), so it would be interesting to see to what level that policy is policed.
Oh---I did miss your point then, but I think the text/photo distinction would actually be somewhat easier for them to defend than a content/porn distinction; as I understand it, porn is content, as a matter of very well-settled caselaw.
The article doesn't talk about a personal judgement of artistic merit, but rather a previous court ruling (“Early Circuit law in California held that obscene works did not promote the progress of science and the useful arts, and thus cannot be protected by copyright.”). Now perhaps that court ruling isn't that much different, but your comment implies a personal judgement of value enabling copyright infringement.
I don't disagree with the general sentiment of the article, but judging from this quote it would appear to be a two way street:
"A lot of [commenters] seem to be socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed young men sitting in their mother's basements and ranting."
Okay, like I said, I still agree with the sentiment of the article (Which is pretty much entirely quoting other people). I just think that it is a little hypocritical to pen an article calling out abusive comments in the blogger community and then present other abusive comments in a positive light. I am certainly not saying this equates, vindicates, or in anyway excuses rape threats, or really any other abusive comment. Just pointing out that perhaps that quote is inappropriate considering the point the article is trying to make.
