• Member Since 12th Nov, 2011
  • offline last seen Yesterday

Dusty the Royal Janitor


Who needs sleep when you've been dead inside for years? :)

More Blog Posts279

  • 13 weeks
    25

    4 comments · 83 views
  • 23 weeks
    I Wrote a Buttload of Side Stories...

    ...For Applejack: Marvelous.

    "What If?"
    :fluttershyouch::rainbowderp::pinkiegasp::raritydespair::twilightoops:

    But I have a problem. One of the sidestories contains SERIOUS lore spoilers for the rest of AJ:M. I'm honestly not sure if I should post it.

    What do you guys think?

    14 comments · 317 views
  • 30 weeks
    So... how about them leaks? [FINALE SPOILERS!! READ AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!]

    Like... wow. Holy motherfucking shit.

    I mean, I haven't actually been invested in the show proper since the end of Season 3, and have only caught a smattering of episodes and the movie since then, but the characters and world are still pretty close to my heart. It's really saddening to see that this is where the show ends up. This is B.A.D.

    Read More

    27 comments · 501 views
  • 48 weeks
    Endgame

    I actually got really emotional. The past 10 years of my life have been kinda defined to a degree by these movies.

    Actual potential spoilers below for both Endgame and Applejack: Marvelous. I mean it. Continue at your own risk.

    Read More

    11 comments · 383 views
Jun
2nd
2018

Hey, everybody... Just Saying... · 2:46am Jun 2nd, 2018

If there's any stories on this website you really like, you might want to take a day or two to download them for posterity before June 20th rolls around. My stories included.

I hope that I (and the guy in the video) are overreacting but I've talked to some pretty well informed people and they assure me that this isn't an overreaction. It's entirely possible that the European Union could drop an atom bomb on the internet in less than a month. Given that FiMFiction is based in the UK (and I'm betting any Brits out there may be wishing they hadn't dragged their feet on that whole Brexit thing now), it seems quite likely that this site may be completely kaput soon under a swarm of copyright claims on an unholy mix of steroids and PCP.

I've tried to talk to Knighty himself about this to see if he might want to use his platform to raise awareness about this bullshit or if he has any plans to avoid the fallout from this imminent disaster, but he's not responded to me.

In the meantime, now would be a good time to mass download your favorite stories, just in case. Go buy yourselves some external drives or something and build yourselves your own little archives. That's what I'm probably going to be doing for the next two and a half weeks.

Honestly it's not a bad habit anyway.

Anyway, I really really hope that I'm wrong about this. I really hope that a year from now I can look back on this blog and laugh about how panicked and gullible I was and how nothing came of it and I hope that in a few months I'll be sincerely apologizing to you all for being a fearmongering asshole... but right now it's not looking like that's the case.

In the meantime, feel free to sign the relevant petitions, located here:
https://saveyourinternet.eu/ (for those in the EU)
https://www.change.org/p/axel-voss-save-the-internet-reject-article-13-and-11 (for those outside the EU)

Unfortunately, for some reason, unlike previous crises such as SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, and the Net Neutrality fiasco, this one isn't being talked about almost at all. There's a grand total of two or three videos on the internet about this and a significantly smaller number of petitions and rallies about it. If that doesn't change REALLY quickly, this one is almost certainly going to pass.

So yeah. I hope to every god out there that I'm wrong about this. I hope I'll come back with a mouth full of crow and an apology in hand to you guys in a month or two, but right now I'm particularly worried and it bothers me that I haven't seen anybody talking about this.

In the meantime, download everything you feel is worth preserving. Like I said, it's a good practice to adopt anyway in case the solar flare hits or something.


EDIT:
So apparently the guy in the video has a history of being "alt-right" and has also had various other labels ascribed to him by "the tumblrs." Personally I think it's damn foolish to take personal politics more seriously than potential imminent danger (as well as the fact that tumblr isn't known for being a font of rationality, reliability, and civility itself but whatever), and frankly I don't care what his or anyone else's personal politics are in this case. If Adolf Hitler himself kicked in my door and shouted "Holy shit there's an asteroid hurtling towards earth!" and I looked up and, lo and behold, there's a fucking asteroid, I'd say "Shit! We'd better nuke that bitch to pieces before it hits us and wipes all of us out regardless of race or creed! Thanks for the warning!" I wouldn't say "well, I can clearly see an asteroid hurtling at my face, but I'm not going to believe you because you're literally Hitler."

But alright. People are skeptical of my source and think that he might be perpetuating a hoax. Fine. Whatever. I do have other reasons to believe this is real though. Unfortunately, I can't link to those reasons because I found them in the mystical realm of the "offline world." I know that the internet likes to have a "proof or it's fake" attitude about things and since what I'm posting is basically hearsay I didn't include it in my original blog... but it's the reason that I personally believe in the things I'm saying and why I'm so alarmed, at the very least for the continued existence of this specific website.

The rest of this blog is quoted from a reply to another user who also questioned whether I had any other reason to believe this was true aside from the guy above, and I figured I'd copypasta it here to explain just why I personally am so alarmed and fully believe this is true.

The problem is that I can't link to those other sources because they involved actual conversations with people off the internet, so I didn't include them due to the internet's "pics or it didn't happen" attitude. I suppose you'll just have to take me at my word that the following is true.

Basically, when I first watched the video, I started freaking out and texted my boss (who's an amazing lady and a personal friend of mine), sending her the link. My boss is the most well connected person I've ever met and she basically said "this sounds serious, I'm going to ask around"

She got in contact with a friend of hers from Creative Commons, which is a non-profit organization all about sharing ideas and information and has a vested interest in keeping the internet free and open. Her friend replied back to us with, "Yes I do know about it and it's as bad as they say and of big news in international copyright circles."

The good news of her message (?) was that she also said that "Everyone is going out will get killed at the EU level before it makes it to us." The problem is I'm quoting her response directly and the grammatical garbledness of that last statement makes it a little vague. I don't know whether she's saying they're helping to try and kill it at the EU, or if they think it's going to pass at the EU but they're going to somehow work to stop it from affecting anywhere else (I don't see how that's possible but then I'm not an expert) or what? If it's the second one, that still seems to pretty much fuck over this site at the very least.

Unfortunately, all you have is my word that this is true, and my boss and her Creative Commons friend are private citizens so I don't want to go spreading their information around for other people to get in contact with them (read: I don't want to dox my own friends). So I guess you're going to have to take my words with a grain of salt but now you know why I personally am seriously afraid and am taking everything this guy says seriously, no matter his political affiliation.

Join our Patreon to remove these adverts!
Comments ( 71 )

Although the UK hasn't officially pulled out of the EU yet, they're under no obligation to obey bullshit laws like this. And even then, I don't see why FimFiction can't "move" to an American server.

I saw this on tumblr, and the blog I saw post this claims that the individual who made that specific video is a major supporter of the alt-right, and is transphobic, fascistic, racist, etc. Also, the links in the description of the video, EDRI and Techdirt, are heavily leaning to the alt-right.

4874513

Does it matter?

No, really, does it matter? Let's put aside any personal politics for the moment (and ignore the fact that it's difficult to vouch for the credibility of tumblr when they call somebody any of those things these days) and realize this is something that we should be able to unify on. I don't care if you're an "alt-right Nazi shitlord" or a "Regressive Leftist SJW cuck," because this affects EVERYBODY. Left leaning sites are going to be just as affected by this as right leaning sites, and if you think they aren't you're fooling yourself. Attacking the content of one guy's character, or even any of his previous arguments, doesn't make the danger of this particular change in law any less credible.

In case that someone dont know this Backup exist for at least FimFiction.
I wonder if something like this exist for Fanfiction.net ?

Well... Now we know how world war 3 starts.

4874516
I think their point was that the so called "alt-Right" is willing to lie and exaggerate for their own ends and info should be taken with a grain of salt when they claim something. (just my two cents)

On the one hand, I don't think this is going to be half as bad as everyone's laying it out to be.

On the other, I am opposed to any significant form of government-based internet regulation by default, so I'd still be completely against this.

4874512
America has all kinds of BS monetization of its broadband. FIMfic could move to the Land of the Indentured Servants and Home of the Capitalists, but it'd probably have to pay a premium to do so.

From what I’ve read in the sources this guy provides, the main opponents to this legislation appear to be the text and data mining industry. You know, the people who basically scoop up all data on you in order to sell you stuff and/or send propaganda your way.

I have a feeling this breathless video is mainly trying to whip up panic in internet users who will simply take this guy’s word for it that the sky is falling without any question of whether he’s actually telling the truth or bothering to check any of his sources. Because it appears that the opposition to this is coming from one EU MEP who’s specifically a member of the Pirate Party and a bunch of organizations that mainly benefit from data mining and piracy.

Also, please note who the source is. Dave Cullen isn’t exactly a model of balanced, rational thinking. He’s kind of a nutter who spends his time making videos about how feminists and non-whites are trying to destroy the world.

4874516
I’m curious: did you go and look for info on this proposed legislation that wasn’t provided by Cullen? At any point, did you question whether or not his video was at all accurate?

Sounds pretty alarmist to me and not very likely, but weirder things have happened. Apparently, Amazon has just cut Australia off from the rest of the world due to a newly passed law. The Aussies can still buy things from Amazon, but only if they originate in Australia. No foreign goods allowed!

Honestly, this is what happens when you have a governing body who isn't accountable to anybody. It is pretty much the same thing as the GDRP, the recently applied legislation (which was passed back in 2016) which, in order to prevent shady practices from a handful of companies, ends up forcing pretty much the whole world into a position which, in the long term, will force most start-ups to either drop support for the EU (and even that has dubious effectiveness), or spend enough money and dev. effort to put them out of business. Larger, already well established companies can eat up this cost, but those dozens of billions of dollars will not be invested in actual new technologies.

I am happy to see the internet up in arms about this, but I doubt anything can be done. Don't forget, this legislation impacts negatively most large tech companies (Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, etc.), and you can be sure that they have been investing their efforts to prevent this type of legislation from going forward for well over an year. However, the working groups which decide this stuff are staffed with unelected bureaucrats with no connection with either the tech business, or the sectors of society actually affected by this legislation.

4874513
If you don't want to trust random Youtube guy, then check the Electronic Frontier Foundation article about this, posted back in October 2017: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/digital-rights-groups-demand-deletion-unlawful-filtering-mandate-proposed-eu . It is not hyperbolic, this is a nasty piece of legislation.

4874836
I did. And please notice that this is all about doing filtering of copyrighted content. All the stuff about how they'll tax links to news sites and other stuff is mainly "this may happen" alarmism.

The thing about Cullen's video is that he's making it sound like the internet is going to end in three weeks.

4874785
I'm aussie and confirm this.

No foreign Amazon for humans or ponies downunder.

Which is really stupid.

4874765

Yes I did, but the problem is that I can't link to those other sources because they involved actual conversations with people off the internet, so I didn't include them due to the internet's "pics or it didn't happen" attitude. I suppose you'll just have to take me at my word that the following is true.

Basically, when I first watched the video, I started freaking out and texted my boss (who's an amazing lady and a personal friend of mine), sending her the link. My boss is the most well connected person I've ever met and she basically said "this sounds serious, I'm going to ask around"

She got in contact with a friend of hers from Creative Commons, which is a non-profit organization all about sharing ideas and information and has a vested interest in keeping the internet free and open. Her friend replied back to us with, "Yes I do know about it and it's as bad as they say and of big news in international copyright circles."

The good news of her message (?) was that she also said that "Everyone is going out will get killed at the EU level before it makes it to us." The problem is I'm quoting her response directly and the grammatical garbledness of that last statement makes it a little vague. I don't know whether she's saying they're helping to try and kill it at the EU, or if they think it's going to pass at the EU but they're going to somehow work to stop it from affecting anywhere else (I don't see how that's possible but then I'm not an expert) or what? If it's the second one, that still seems to pretty much fuck over this site at the very least.

Unfortunately, all you have is my word that this is true, and my boss and her Creative Commons friend are private citizens so I don't want to go spreading their information around for other people to get in contact with them (read: I don't want to dox my own friends). So I guess you're going to have to take my words with a grain of salt but now you know why I personally am seriously afraid and am taking everything this guy says seriously, no matter his political affiliation.

4874710

I can understand that perspective but people have tried to tell me that this is a hoax before, with the usual sentiment being that this guy is "alt-right" and I just can't wrap my head around it. Even if he's alt-right, what's the motive of perpetrating this hoax? Is it to sow some kind of revolution against the EU? Because that's a pretty big stretch of a goal and it's doomed to fail once the law passes and it turns out it was benign all along. Is it just to be a big fat meanie and get some lulz from watching people panic? Then he'd be shooting himself in his own foot once it came out it was all a hoax and his own followers turn on him for such a dirty trick. I can't wrap my head around a reasonable motive for why he'd come up with such a big, panic-inducing hoax.

Plus, in my reply to 4874765 I explained my reasons for fully believing this isn't a hoax.

Does it matter if I download stories as a .txt or a .epub?

Okay, can we please all calm down for a sec? From the above EFF article:

European Commission Foreshadows More Of the Same To Come

Article 13 is bad enough as a copyright filtering mandate. But what makes the proposal even more alarming is that it won't stop there. If we lose the battle against the use of upload filters for copyright, we'll soon see a push for a similar mandate on platforms to filter other types of content, beginning with ill-defined "hate speech" and terrorist content, and ending who knows where.

Now, the article 13 they're referring to is a section of the proposed law that requires user-posted content sites (Like YouTube, for example) to use content filters to ensure that users aren't posting pirated copies of movies and TV shows and music. You know, exactly like what YouTube does. That's the dystopian nightmare these people are yelling about: stopping people from using file hosting sites as storehouses for their pirated movies and stuff.

Notice what the article then does: it jumps from what the law actually proposes to this fever dream of "we'll soon see a push for a similar mandate on platforms to filter other types of content," except nobody has proposed that at all. This is alarmism, talking about what's actually proposed and then adding a whole bunch of extra FUD on top. It's exactly like saying "Enhanced background checks on gun purchases will inevitably lead to us all living in prison camps!" Here, it's "requiring a site like YouTube to screen uploads for pirated movies will inevitably lead to the death of all free speech!"

For the record, here's the text of Article 13:

Certain uses of protected content by online services

Article 13
Use of protected content by information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users

1. Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when EN 30 EN relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter.

2. Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1.

3. Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.

Translation:

1. A site like YouTube has to run a content scanning system to make an attempt to screen out copyrighted materials and cooperate to take down material in obvious violation.

2. If the rights holder finds material they deem in violation, the site has to have some sort of dispute system in place to allow the holder to file a copyright strike.

3. Individual national governments have to work with rights holders and content hosts to figure out what practices work the best.

Seriously, this is like screaming that the sky is falling because they want Daily Motion to work more like YouTube.

4875203
4875207
Yes, I went and tracked down the proposal. I've read all of that. And I don't see how you're NOT screaming.

User-posted content sites. Do you really not understand what that means? We're talking any site that allows users to post content. Youtube. Reddit. Imgur. Facebook. Tumblr. Twitter. DeviantArt. Pinterest. FiMFiction. Every site that allows users to post "content" is subject to these new rules where it is mandatory that they install a filtering program. And yes, you are correct it's much the same that youtube has done.

Do you not realize how BAD the automatic youtube filter is? It flags pictures of desert dunes assuming it's nudes. It flags videos of purring cats as somehow violating copyright. It's a disaster that is actively hampering the careers and livelihoods of thousands of content producers. The algorithms involved with this sort of thing are so bad that half the time pirated movies slip through anyway, and a lot of the time it flags things that are clearly fair use, or even completely original content, as being copyright infringing.

And you're okay with that kind of system being MANDATORY on every website based around user-posted content?

And not only are you okay with it being implemented, you're okay with the government, any government, having access to, or even being in CHARGE of such a system that can be used and abused for censorship (as discussed in part 3)? You're okay with that even knowing that governments are more than willing to lie, manipulate, and abuse their own citizens? Or even if you currently trust in the government and don't believe it will do that, surely you know that leaders and heads of state change with the times and just because you have somebody in power you trust today doesn't mean you'll have somebody in power you trust tomorrow?

What's more, it's not just Article 13. As I've continued to research this whole thing I've found that this is vastly exacerbated by Article 11 as well.

I don't know why it took me so long to find Article 11. The few people that are focusing on this are focusing mostly on Article 13, which is only half the problem, and seem to be lumping the two together. Article 11, as I understand it, allows the news to be protected under copyright. This is where the whole "link tax" seems to stem from, as well as the attack on independent news media. The whole thing favors the established mainstream media and anyone else who tries to report on the news can be hit with a copyright claim, giving immense amounts of power to the MSM.

The point is, this whole deal makes things that previously weren't covered by copyright to be protected by copyright (article 11), as well as makes it much MUCH easier to be flagged by copyright filters that don't work or may be manipulated, and gives significantly more power to the alleged copyright holders (article 13)

And if my previous sources aren't to your liking, how about a few people from inside EU parliament itself who object to it?

https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/
https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for-news-sites/

And not only are you okay with it being implemented, you're okay with the government, any government, having access to, or even being in CHARGE of such a system that can be used and abused for censorship (as discussed in part 3)?

I'm sorry, but where does it say anywhere that the government has access to the filtering systems? It simply says that hosting companies are obliged to help copyright holders protect their material from piracy. It doesn't say anywhere that the government does this or has access to it.

Answer: Nowhere. It doesn't say it anywhere.

I don't know why it took me so long to find Article 11. The few people that are focusing on this are focusing mostly on Article 13, which is only half the problem, and seem to be lumping the two together. Article 11, as I understand it, allows the news to be protected under copyright. This is where the whole "link tax" seems to stem from, as well as the attack on independent news media. The whole thing favors the established mainstream media and anyone else who tries to report on the news can be hit with a copyright claim, giving immense amounts of power to the MSM.

Article 11 is basically trying to prevent web sites from simply cut and pasting content from news sites and reposting it as their own. And yeah, it's a bad idea. However, it's trying to provide copyright protections for news sites to keep it from being reused and monetized by other sites. I understand why they included it, but I have to agree with the MEP Reda here that it'll ultimately be unworkable. Which will likely mean that this would be fought in the actual debate phase of the legislation.

That said, I don't really lend much credence to the lone member from the Pirate Party, because her whole party is dedicated to destroying the idea of copyright.

Can you at least agree that this site and its stories aren't all going to vanish on June 20th?

4875268
That's what part 3 says. "Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments."

Now I'm not a lawyer. I'll openly admit that. Legalese confounds me. But this sounds weird and vague and I know that vagueness in legal language opens up a lot of problems and loopholes. What's the nature of this "facilitating" that the states are going to be doing? When is it "appropriate?" Why do the states get any say whatsoever about the nature of the services and technologies implemented rather than leaving it up to the technology experts? Why do the states get a say in "the availability of the technology" (read: who gets slapped with a mandatory filter) at all?

This is really skeevy.

4875272

At least we can agree it's a bad idea. And yes, I understand that it will be fought, I'm just not confident that it'll be beaten.

I'll admit to being an uncultured American so I don't know the full background of Reba. I suppose I'll just take your word for it that she believes in the - admittedly extreme - position that copyright should be done away with. Personally though, I already believe that copyright laws are overly stringent and overreaching, causing far too many independent creators and artists to get screwed by them. So I'm sorry but I'm going to have to side with her in keeping them from getting any more overreaching and stringent than they already are.

4875274

I don't know what's going to happen. That's what frustrates me. That's a large part of why I'm so scared. That's why I constantly brought up in the original blog how much I hoped I was wrong and how I didn't know for sure. That's why I used language like "it's entirely possible" and "it seems" and things like that. Because I don't know what's going to happen.

I don't have the mind to wrap my head around law and legalese and all the layers and facets and thousands upon thousands of pages of wordy bullshit that these things come with. All I know is I found a video in my recommended section alerting me to something alarming. I sent the video to my boss, who sent it to a friend of hers who should be in the know, and it got back to me that it was "as bad as it sounds." When I read the document for myself I found it hard to wrap my head around it but what I could understand of it was vague and seemed open to interpretation, and I know that vague language in legal situations is dangerous and allows for things like loopholes and abuse. Then, much more recently, I started finding videos and evidence from inside the EU itself that this is a threat.

That's all I know, man. And it's enough to make me concerned enough to spread it around. Especially when nobody else seems to be. Don't get me wrong, I really REALLY want to believe you when you say that nothing is going to happen, but what you've provided me with is mostly stuff I've already seen or has only reinforced my fears.

"Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments."

It's really not that difficult to understand. Let me break it down for you:

Premise: The government will say it's the law that a web site has to protect copyright.

However, the government will not define how to do it, because that's going to vary depending on what sort of web site it is, the state of technology, and how well any method of doing so might work.

Therefore, the government's role here is to work with the copyright holder and the web site owners to figure out the best solution on a case by case basis. They'll meet with representatives from both sides, hear their arguments, and then help to work out a compromise that works best. The copyright holder gets to have input in how the screening system works, which the site owner gets to explain why an idea may be a good or bad one.

That's it. All this section says is that the government has to help the two sides work together to come up with the best solution that they can that hurts each side the least. It's really not vague, because it's simply saying that the government has a responsibility to mediate, and nothing more.

4875317
Again, I really hope you're right. What you say sounds logical. I just wish that legal structures would use the kind of language you just did instead of this bullshit legalese that leaves it vague and open to interpretation. I hope that nobody in power decides to twist the worlds of the document to mean whatever they want it to mean.

It's not really bullshit legalese, though. This is pretty clear. Here, this is another way to help understand it:

1.) Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders.
- Which is another way of saying the governments shall help the web site owners and the copyright holders to work together to follow the law where appropriate. As in, when it's needed. Most of the time, both sides will be able to work things out without having to involve the government at all.

2.) [They shall do this] through stakeholder dialogues.
- (i.e. The government has to help both sides discuss how to do this.)

3.) [These dialogues are meant] to define best practices [for protecting copyright], such as:

- Appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies. (i.e. Do you need a hammer or a wrecking ball for the task?)
- Taking into account, among others, the nature of the services (i.e. What kind of web site it is).
- The availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments. (i.e. Does the technology exist to do it, and can it do the job without making the site unusable for users.)

4875330

I hope you're right. Even the way you've described it it seems like there's a lot of ways that it's open to interpretation to screw us all over. I'll be following up with my IRL contact though because what you and she are saying don't add up.

"Everyone is going out will get killed at the EU level before it makes it to us."

Is she a Dutch-speaker, per chance? Because from the sounds of it, she's trying to say that everyone assumes it will get killed at EU level. In Dutch 'ergens van uitgaan' means 'to assume something' and literally translated it'd be 'going out of somewhere.' It might be that.

In any event, I'm hoping it doesn't come to pass, but if it does, we'll get a consumer revolt, pure and simple. You can't trust critics anymore, not for games or movies, and this new bill would restrict normal people from informing others on products, not to mention the ideological hegemony the EU is trying to impose.

Also no, the dude in the original source isn't literally Hitler. He's skeptical of a lot of the currently pushed ideas, like mass migration, abortion, and the like.

4875455
I don't know but I doubt it since she lives in Australia? All our correspondence was through text so my guess is she just made a weird typo. Will ask when I speak to her next if my boss can put me back in contact with her.

I do have a strong feeling that if this passes it will be swiftly (for a given definition of swiftly given how glacial legal proceedings are) redacted. It's like what happened with Prohibition. My worry is how much will be irrevocably lost in the intervening time between it being passed and it being redacted.

Also, I don't assume he's literally Hitler. Honestly I kinda doubt most of the people accused of being Nazis or "alt-right" or whatever the buzzword of the day actually are the things they're accused of being. I'm trying to reach as many people as possible regardless of creed, though, since this is something that potentially affects everybody. So if I have to throw in a few caveats beforehand then whatever to make people who would otherwise recoil at that guy listen, then I will. I'm not concerned with politics here. I'm concerned with the potential imminent danger we all face.

4875458
Oh, no, I wasn't referring to your reference of him there. I was formulating that as a response because you sounded like you weren't sure which side of things he was on, so I meant to say 'it's this side, actually, not the one people say it is.' It wasn't aimed at you like that, I agree wholeheartedly on the meteor logic there :twilightsmile:

4875317 Yeah, I'm not panicking, but I am a little leery of:

Premise: The government will say it's the law that a web site has to protect copyright.

However, the government will not define how to do it, because that's going to vary depending on what sort of web site it is, the state of technology, and how well any method of doing so might work.

Paraphrased: The governments of the various states across the EU will each independently determine if various sites accessible in their states are abiding by this rule, and if any of the sites put up a fight or post something that the government of that state does not like, they're going to use this fuzzy undefined law to slap as many fines and penalties on the offending site as possible. Oh, and they'll try to keep copyrighted material off the interwebz too. But mostly keep an eye out for those troublemakers who disagree with the power of the state.

It seems that they looked at the laws regarding the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and said "Something like that, but more vicious."

4875458
I wouldn't be too concerned about the guy being labeled Alt-right. I mean, they labeled Jordan Peterson alt-right and he's not. Alt-right is the smear-style buzz-word atm.

4874513
I'd double-check what their ideas of alt-right are, because I've seen people labeled "alt-right" a lot lately. I've seen Ben Shapiro labeled alt-right pro-Nazi, and he's jewish. I've seen Jordan Peterson labeled alt-right and he's pro-freedom of speech, willing to argue his point with his psychology degree. I've seen Rubin called alt-right and he's a liberal democrat
4875923
new laws are always a fun time(sarcasm). Canada's gender-words law is the most recent fiasco I've read about

Friggin SOPA all over again. Goddamn dinosaurs in congress and corporations that still don't understand in how the internet works. We beat SOPA here in the States, anyone in the States who still has a brain is fighting the FCC decision, you guys in the EU can fight this, too. Just don't ever let up, even if the final decision doesn't go in your favor. Good things about decisions, they can be overturned.

4875966
Jordan Peterson is a right-wing nutcase who thinks how lobsters behave somehow justifies male supremacy. He basically became a hero to incels on Reddit because he caters to their unending self-pity.

Dave Cullen, meanwhile, is more one of the run of the mill anti-immigrant/I hate SJW trolls that inhabit YouTube. Both are definitely on the alt-right spectrum, since "alt-right" is just a friendlier term for "pro-white white male supremacy," with a whole lot of Christian identity stuff mixed in. If someone is constantly talking about how men are oppressed or that scary foreigners are going to overwhelm white people, you can be pretty sure that "alt-right" describes them pretty well.

4876146
Jordan Peterson: the biggest argument about him being alt-right I've seen was him being against bill C-16, and his hatred of the bill was more along the lines of "it infringes on free speech" than "I hate fags" like some people were shouting. His 'Lobsters justify male supremecy' study as you put it was in fact some research that showed a certain hierarchies present in other species, not just humans. Things we call a "social construct" may be more than that(and even then, technically the law about not killing your neighbors is a social construct, so not all of those are bad).

He doesn't say lobsters explain male supremacy, as you so blandly put it. He says we can learn why people want to rank themselves against others. That the higher we are on the ladder, the more feel-good juice our brains produce. The best way to climb the ladder? Being aggressive, which is a male-associated trait. He also is not a male supremacist. He teaches men and women both how to be better and more competitive individuals. How? By being more assertive, more aggressive, (masculine)traits that are respected among businesses. Because like it or not, business is competition, and feelings don't make companies money(as Disney and Starbucks are learning).

since "alt-right" is just a friendlier term for "pro-white white male supremacy,"

No, Alt-right originally meant those who were along the lines of Nazis and the KKK. Nowadays alt-right is anyone right of socialism.

If someone is constantly talking about how men are oppressed or that scary foreigners are going to overwhelm white people, you can be pretty sure that "alt-right" describes them pretty well.

Your statement is either made in ignorance or self-hatred, and I don't know what is scarier. There's currently a motion to blur the line between legal immigrants and illegal ones, and its not the legal immigrants many of these people have issues with. Some of these illegals have been kicked out of the country multiple times, including after murdering someone. There is a reason to fear them. they don't hold our laws sacred. They don't respect our customs or even our right to exist(sometimes going out of their way to destroy us). They don't respect anyone, which is odd because many people move to escape that kind of situation only to bring it with them.

Finally, I don't recall ever saying Dave Cullen, I said Dave Rubin. Why are you using him to argue against me? Or is this because OP got some of the information from Cullen? You know that just because something is from an alt-right source doesn't mean it's false, right? I still look at my internet home-page(ATT) for basic information, even though all of their articles are left-leaning.

4874835

Don't forget, this legislation impacts negatively most large tech companies (Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, etc.), and you can be sure that they have been investing their efforts to prevent this type of legislation from going forward for well over an year.

In biotech, it's the big pharmaceutical and biotech companies who are the fans of heavy government regulation of drugs and biotech. That's because it keeps start-ups out.

Smart decision to start downloading stories in case this happens. Currently downloading all my favorite stories as Epub files.

Well shit, if this is a thing, I'd say we're totally screwed.

*Looks at some of the other videos on that YouTuber's account*

"Feminists are creating a modesty culture"
"MUH PRONOUNS"
"The Demasculinization of France"
"Denial of Gender Reality: The Path to Communism"

Dang, Dusty the Royal Janitor. Reputable source you got here... Tell ya what, the alt-right/libertarian fringe can put on a suit and paint themselves as reasonable and level-headed for as many YouTube videos as they want. I ain't buying what they're selling.

Also, the European Union is probably the greatest political accomplishment in the history of Europe. It's presided over an era of peace and prosperity unknown in the history of that continent. They're the only ones holding up the flame of freedom right now, so I say, good on them.

4879983

I've danced this dance already in this very comment section.

And it clearly isn't if even an inkling of this is true.

4874570
The shroud of Ajit Pai has fallen... Begun the Net War has...

4874516
BTW, I'd like to share this bit of info with my lads so they know too, if you don't mind.

4878101
Like I said, that is my main issue with GDRP. However, the legislation itself is tailor made to put a lot of burden on Large tech companies – particularly by targeting raw global revenue in the punishments, which could be devastating, given how most large tech companies operate by investing most of their revenue on further expansion.

And take this as a bit of insider info, but I'm aware of people way up the food chain that are very much worried about the effect of these new regulations.

4880037
That's the whole reason I posted this in the first place. Please don't feel you need my permission or anything. Go for it.

Article 13: Monitoring and filtering of internet content is unacceptable.
OVER 50 HUMAN RIGHTS & MEDIA FREEDOM NGOS ASK EU TO DELETE CENSORSHIP FILTER & TO STOP © MADNESS.
The EU's terrible copyright proposal will "carpet bomb" the whole world's internet with censorship and surveillance.
Protecting the Free and Open Internet: European Edition.
Article 13 could "destroy the internet as we know it": What is it, why is it controversial and what will it mean for memes?
Welcome to new era of global digital censorship.

For everyone bitching about the sources. I say the top one is most important because it's an open letter from human rights groups:

Index on Censorship joined with 56 other NGOs to call for the deletion of Article 13 from the proposal on the Digital Single Market, which includes obligations on internet companies that would be impossible to respect without the imposition of excessive restrictions on citizens’ fundamental rights

The one right after is a news article discussing the letter.

Comment posted by Russian Bank Teller deleted Jul 3rd, 2018

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but according to CNBC, the vote has been delayed for a few months until September 10th.

Here's the link I found if anyone wants to take a look: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/05/article-13-eu-lawmakers-vote-on-controversial-copyright-law.html

Login or register to comment
Join our Patreon to remove these adverts!