backtop


Print 62 comment(s) - last by roostitup.. on Feb 25 at 8:17 PM


Italian Judge Oscar Magi ruled in federal court Wednesday that Google executives were criminally responsible for content that Google Video users uploaded.   (Source: APTN)
3 of 4 Google executives were found guilty of violating privacy laws due to content users uploaded

On Wednesday an Italian judge delivered a stunning verdict in a long standing case against Google.  The ruling sentenced three top Google executives -- David Drummond, senior vice president and chief legal officer; George Reyes, former chief financial officer; and Peter Fleischer, chief privacy counsel -- to a prison sentence of six months for violating privacy laws.  A fourth employee, marketing executive Arvind Desikan, was found not guilty.

In Italy, laws mandate that sentences under three years are commuted for those without a criminal record, so the Google executives won't be expected to serve any prison time.

Despite the fact that the verdicts is largely a symbolic gesture, it represents a serious threat to the current way the internet is structured.  To understand this, you must explore the case first.

Google describes the incident that started the case, writing, "In late 2006, students at a school in Turin, Italy filmed and then uploaded a video to Google Video that showed them bullying an autistic schoolmate."

Vivi Down Association, an advocacy group for people with Downs syndrome, complained about the video a couple months later to Italian authorities.  Google went out of its way to try to cooperate with them.  It took down the video immediately.  It also helped identify the female who uploaded the video. According to Google, "she was subsequently sentenced to 10 months community service by a court in Turin, as were several other classmates who were also involved."

Despite that cooperation, Italian prosecutors decided to take the bizarre step of next charging a handful of Google executives for "allowing" the video to be uploaded.  The selection was truly strange -- none of the international Google employees charged were involved in the incident in any way; and most didn't even work with Google Video.  About the only thing they had in common was that they were all international employees, who had worked overseas, including some time in Italy.

The four employees were charged for "criminal defamation and a failure to comply with the Italian privacy code".  And today, while they were found not guilty of the criminal defamation charges, three of the four were found guilty of violating the privacy code.

The stunning verdict sets an alarming precedent.  The decision, if upheld, threatens the freedom of having blogs, video sharing sites, internet hosting, Wiki pages, news sites with comments sections and virtually any other kind of user generated or user interactive content, for fear of criminal prosecution if users misbehave.

Google perhaps summarizes it best, writing:

It attacks the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built. Common sense dictates that only the person who films and uploads a video to a hosting platform could take the steps necessary to protect the privacy and obtain the consent of the people they are filming. European Union law was drafted specifically to give hosting providers a safe harbor from liability so long as they remove illegal content once they are notified of its existence. The belief, rightly in our opinion, was that a notice and take down regime of this kind would help creativity flourish and support free speech while protecting personal privacy. If that principle is swept aside and sites like Blogger, YouTube and indeed every social network and any community bulletin board, are held responsible for vetting every single piece of content that is uploaded to them — every piece of text, every photo, every file, every video — then the Web as we know it will cease to exist, and many of the economic, social, political and technological benefits it brings could disappear.

The decision is being appealed.  However, Google faces a tough battle.  Anti-Google sentiment in the European Union is quite high right now.  Google is currently under investigation for possible antitrust violations.  It also is being sued by an Italy's Mediaset SpA, a television company controlled by Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.  Mediaset claims Google broke the law by allowing infringing clips from one of its TV shows to be uploaded to YouTube.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Dont shoot the messenger?
By supermitsuba on 2/24/2010 8:46:45 AM , Rating: 2
If someone video tapes a video like this on a handicam, do you go after the company who makes the handicam or the tapes, or do you go after the people who actually did it. Makes no sense at all to have google censor this. Leave it for the authorities to find the dumb asses who shouldnt have posted the video on the internet.




RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By supermitsuba on 2/24/2010 8:47:38 AM , Rating: 2
I suppose it's the inspiring others part of it, or some bull.


RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By bhieb on 2/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By nafhan on 2/24/2010 9:57:48 AM , Rating: 5
That's still a terrible analogy. In the case you described, Fox would have reviewed the video before broadcasting, and I think they may be liable for something with the FCC(IANAL).
To make an example that fits in with old media, you have to contrive a bizzare situation such as a cable channel that plays every video anyone sends in without even looking at them first (which wouldn't happen).
That's why they've come up with stuff such as safe harbor provisions. New ways of communication require new laws and new ways of thinking about enforcement.


RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By Danger D on 2/24/2010 10:10:53 AM , Rating: 5
It’s more akin to some college kid taking an inappropriate photo at a party, then pinning it on the commons bulletin board. If the college is notified of the problem and removes the photo, are they responsible for any damage caused by that photo before they were notified?


RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By bhieb on 2/24/2010 10:27:44 AM , Rating: 1
But here the college never had the opportunity to screen the material, Google could however it would be very expensive.


RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By futrtrubl on 2/24/2010 10:36:54 AM , Rating: 5
So could the College, they just need to hire someone to watch the board all day. It's no different. Why should Google be required to police it when the College isn't? Or do you feel the Collage should be required to as well?


RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By bhieb on 2/24/2010 10:47:38 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm great question. And again I can't really make that call only the courts could decide. My gut feeling is that if it were ever pressed to the court level they would probably dictate that the school take down public posting.

To be honest I don't know for sure. If the content was horrible enough (think rape/killing/kiddy porn) then most likely the college would remove that ability.


RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By HotFoot on 2/24/2010 10:55:25 AM , Rating: 3
Very interesting topic.

I think the college and bulletin board is a good example. The board is there so people can freely and easily exchange information, and the audience is anyone that should happen by, not just a specific targeted group.

If the college were required to provide continuous surveillance of the board to ensure no offensive/embarrassing messages were posted, for sure that board would be too expensive to maintain and it would just be removed. People would lose that public space to share information.

This could extend to a HUGE chunk of the internet, especially since web 2.0. If the companies that are providing free and open public or semi-public spaces for exchanging information, then are they responsible, even in part, for messages that are offensive?

I think a reasonable balance has to be set. I think it's completely reasonable that a user-alert system is available. Say that message board has a contact number to call in case of any offending message. Once called, offensive messages are removed and perhaps authorities are informed, if required. It seems to me that is the best we can expect to have unless we are willing to give up all affordable public spaces of information exchange.

It seems that's the model Google was following.


RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By reader1 on 2/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By JediJeb on 2/24/2010 11:57:05 AM , Rating: 2
The problem comes down to what truly is offensive. It posts/videos are taken down simply because someone reports them as offensive, then if you report the truth about something the government does and someone thinks it is offensive to report the truth, should it be taken down?


RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By Suntan on 2/24/2010 1:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
That is where the idea of a “case by case” basis comes in.

Anyway, Google did take down the video. Your question would have more relevance if Google had refused to take it down.

Personally, I like the model where everything is free game until a person *with a legitimate* reason to request it be taken down comes forward, then the subject be reviewed and the decision be made whether to take it down.

It is a model that has been working well for far longer than the internet has been around and it is about the best you can do to balance open and efficient flow of information without overly burdensome oversight or abuse.

-Suntan


RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By SeeManRun on 2/24/2010 10:17:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
To make an example that fits in with old media, you have to contrive a bizzare situation such as a cable channel that plays every video anyone sends in without even looking at them first (which wouldn't happen).


Maybe a better example would be a live TV broadcast. If something happens live on TV that the broadcaster could not have anticipated (someone flashing the camera in the middle of a normal busy street) then the broadcaster would not be held liable.


RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By bhieb on 2/24/2010 10:25:04 AM , Rating: 2
But this is not live, and although costly Google does have the means to pre-screen. See more below.


RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By TheEinstein on 2/24/2010 9:22:09 PM , Rating: 3
Excuse me... How many hours worth of content goes on YouTube per day? How many people would they need to hire to monitor it all?

I expect it would be much cheaper to just stop YouTube from working in Europe than to hire the entire population of Greece to go through the existing archives... NO BAIL OUT VIA GOOGLE FOR YOU!

The scope of trying to monitor the traffic is also statistically a nightmare. Some days you may get a very low turn out of videos, some days you may get a ton of videos. Planning for the spikes would increase, DRAMATICALLY , the number of workers they would need to keep on hand at any given time.

Then whats to stop a young punk from posting a RealPlayer movie on his own website? Does the webserver then take responsibility?

You sir are AN IDIOT if you think others must take responsibility for things beyond their control. This is a reasonable system that Google has set up with YouTube. Their efforts are, in this arena, without fault. They are doing a heroic job of just keeping up with the /b/tards from Anon.

Force YouTube under to have it replaced by another similar, down them, then suffer as no one wants to include Europe anymore. Then as Europe starts entering the internet dark ages your going to cry "It's not fair, they must provide service, and the way we want it, even if it would bankrupt the entire world".

Ask Greece how stupid fiscal policy is helping them, or America in 2 years. Ask Zimbabwe if your willing to take a risk at dying, or time travel to ask a number of stupid countries how spending money recklessly because 'we can' actually is rather stupid.


RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By Suntan on 2/24/2010 1:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
Live TV isn't truely live. It is delayed by a matter of seconds for this very purpose.

There is a person sitting in the studio watching the feed before it gets broadcast out. They ahve the ability to cut the audio or video feed or switch it to a different feed prior to it being sent out.

-Suntan


RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By SeeManRun on 2/24/2010 11:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Live TV isn't truely live. It is delayed by a matter of seconds for this very purpose.


This happens often, but the very fact lude stuff does happen on live TV is a counter-example to your claim, thereby rendering it false.


RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By bhieb on 2/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By nafhan on 2/24/2010 11:15:31 AM , Rating: 5
You're missing the point. Different media, different rules. Google is given a "free pass" (in quotes, because it's not really free) because the value to society of their service's existence is higher than the potential drawbacks of the occasional uncensored video slipping through and temporarily being available.
In this case, Google is providing a service for people to upload and share items of possible cultural significance. If Google were required to censor videos such as the one in question, the service - and many others like it - would not exist. Thus safe harbor provisions have been created.
Also, the kid does have protection from potential ridicule. Google took down the video once they were notified, AND the people who harassed the kid and took the video in the first place were punished.
By your logic, VCR's, community bulletin boards, and any form of communication without government approved censorship should be illegal. That's not a world I want to live in...


RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By reader1 on 2/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By Flahrydog on 2/24/2010 11:27:53 AM , Rating: 2
Google is not a broadcaster, therefore any laws that apply to broadcasters to not apply to Google.
Why do people always feel the need to place blame on as many parties as possible?
We can agree that the "people that shot/uploaded the video" are at fault. But why does someone else also have to be responsible?
What if the video was uploaded to Facebook? Should Facebook to screen all videos and pictures also?
What if they created a website and post the video. Should the host have screened all content?

quote:
Therefore if he should be protected then where in the chain should that burden of protection be placed? And don't say the people that shot/uploaded the video they are the obviously in the wrong, and would NEVER be an acceptable place to enforce protection.


Sorry, but the blame falls squarely on their shoulders and only their shoulders.

quote:
So your saying it is not Google so who then? The ISP? Maybe your router? How about your OS? Ok then maybe the browser?


1. The users who upload content
2. No
3. really?
4. your argument is getting weaker by the second
5. yes, the browser /sarcasm

If an uploaded video contains any illegal content, Google should remove the video once it is brought to their attention. That is all they should be responsible for doing. And yes, I believe that is enough.


RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By bhieb on 2/24/2010 11:49:29 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you 100% where the blame should be, the part open for debate is should there be legislative protection to prevent the damage done?

I am not giving my opinion here as I really don't know if loosing YouTube and such is worth protecting the occasional violation. All I am pointing out is that there is a bit of a double standard just because it is the internet.

quote:
1. The users who upload content 2. No 3. really? 4. your argument is getting weaker by the second 5. yes, the browser /sarcasm


Wow you missed that entirely it was my intent that it get more and more ridiculous and notice I did prefrace it with. IF you believe the kid should have protection prior to it being broadcast not after the damage is done. You clearly do not. But if you do who should enforce it. No one else in the chain has the realistic ability to.

Let's take another shot. Lets say I have your full credit report SSN and all. I post it here, YouTube, FB, everywhere. Clearly I have committed a criminal act (I AM SOLEY TO BLAME), but even though all of those sites will remove it per your request, the damage has been done.

I only pose the question should the sites be responsible for their content even if not directly generate by them.

Personally I think it is too much to ask, and the boom in information would cease to exist as it does today.


RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By SeeManRun on 2/24/2010 11:53:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Personally I think it is too much to ask, and the boom in information would cease to exist as it does today.


You seem to be disagreeing with what you are saying. The true answer to who should be held responsible is like the previous poster said, the people that uploaded the video. I could commit a crime in real life, but I cannot be punished until I commit the crime, not before. If someone uploads something that is illegal, but it never gets to the Internet, was there really a crime committed? What would it be? "Attempt to upload"? Is that like attempted murder, or maybe attempted speeding if someone had a faster car... It gets ridiculous.

Citizen patrol if the only possible answer to police citizen content if you want freedom. And you have to be able to commit a crime or do something wrong to actually be free. Personally, I like that people have the option to commit crime, and we work hard to catch them and we do try to prevent crime from happening (counseling services, social workers...) but without the freedom to commit crime, you aren't free at all.

This is trailing off rather badly, but to say a closed system on the Internet will be better for anybody but government, oppressive regimes, and big business, one would have to be foolish.


RE: Dont shoot the messenger?
By roostitup on 2/25/2010 8:17:19 PM , Rating: 2
Handy cam videos are MUCH different than video posting web sites. Handy cam videos don't SHOW THE WORLD.


I ask...
By Shatbot on 2/24/2010 8:39:12 AM , Rating: 2
Is there anyone who thinks this was a good decision?




RE: I ask...
By bhieb on 2/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: I ask...
By SeeManRun on 2/24/2010 10:20:14 AM , Rating: 2
I am not sure a handicapped person getting beaten would be embarrassed by it, or rather should be embarrassed. If anything, the people doing the beating have been more humiliated than the victim.


RE: I ask...
By HotFoot on 2/24/2010 10:47:19 AM , Rating: 2
That's rational, and the victim shouldn't have to feel embarrassed, but in fact, victims often feel embarrassed or even ashamed of things that were done to them outside of their own control. I don't think it's always a logical shame, but I sure as hell wouldn't want a video of me getting my butt whupped broadcast on the internet for all to see.

Maybe a psychologist could weigh in more effectively than myself, but I think that victims often feel shame even though they didn't do anything wrong themselves.


RE: I ask...
By SeeManRun on 2/24/2010 11:55:10 PM , Rating: 2
I am sure you are correct. I am not sure we should have laws to protect people's feelings at the cost of other people's freedom (though some countries are moving to this, like Ireland and their anti-blasphemy law).

Not that you proposed such a thing, but that seems to be the reason this whole thread got so big.


RE: I ask...
By reader1 on 2/24/10, Rating: -1
Public sentiment?
By oTAL on 2/24/2010 11:11:07 AM , Rating: 5
To start of, this decision is OBVIOUSLY absurd. Any primate except pirks, reader1, some italian judges, and (maybe) some lower apes, could come to that conclusion easily.

But this quote:
quote:
Anti-Google sentiment in the European Union is quite high right now.


I'm an European, and one that actually agrees with some of the decisions taken by the EU, like the browser ballot and the Intel fine (I'm pretty sure I'll be down modded just for having a different opinion than the norm around here - nevermind I might have some reasoning behind that).

BUT... regarding that quote... do you have any support for that or did you pull that out of your ass?

Cause the people in Europe love Google. I don't offer any supporting evidence for my statement... but neither do you! And at least I'm an European, traveling around Europe and meeting plenty of European IT people everyday.

Do you mean that some investigations are being made by authorities regarding Google's powerful stronghold on the online advertising market? Well, there is kind of a point to that... AFAIK Google doesn't abuse it's 'monopoly' like MS and Intel did, but they have a dominating position in a very important sector and that should be monitored for abuse.

When you write about 'Anti-Google sentiment in the European Union' it is easy to assume you mean that such is the public sentiment. And if you don't offer at least an inkling of support for the statement, for us Europeans it just sounds like you've never been around these parts. (Have you?)




RE: Public sentiment?
By martinrichards23 on 2/24/2010 11:53:21 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, dumb decision, but why anyone would think that it somehow means Europeans hate Google/America is beyond me. The opposite is true.

The only thing worth noting from this story is that Italy is a deeply corrupt and strange country.


Italy, France, Austrailia...
By Motoman on 2/24/2010 9:24:03 AM , Rating: 2
...joining China, Iran, North Korea, etc. in the ranks of the most corrupt governments in the world - displaying no problem being utterly irrational in their governance and expecting their populations to just be OK with it.

We should all be deeply, deeply ashamed of these governments...and we should all work actively to rectify these catastrophes (if you live in those countries) and to prevent them from happening elsewhere (if you don't).

Stupid people are in charge of our lives. When they misbehave, it is up to us to remove them from power.




RE: Italy, France, Austrailia...
By croc on 2/24/2010 5:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
Aussies are against this Conroy Filter by about 80% to 20%... There have been several (largish) demonstrations in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra. Conroy's web site has been taken down due to all of the negative posts on it... And Conroy just doesn't want to know. His mind is set, this is the way it will be, ISP's be damned, full speed ahead. I wish his seat encompassed my voting area, he'd not get re-elected if I could help it.


RE: Italy, France, Austrailia...
By Motoman on 2/24/2010 6:20:31 PM , Rating: 2
Good for you guys. Keep it up. If you don't, the retards win.


oh for sure
By Gul Westfale on 2/24/2010 8:30:10 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The shocking decision could kill the internet in Italy.


i should make a comment now about how mick likes to exaggerate and get more page views that way, but it's early in the morning and i just got up. i'm just gonna say that if i wanted to read the national enquirer i wouldn't come to DT. i am going to stop making comments on mick articles from now on. let's get his page views down, until his articles improve.




RE: oh for sure
By snakeInTheGrass on 2/24/2010 8:58:59 AM , Rating: 2
You should make a comment, but better not do that in Italy since they'll have to disable comments in case someone's privacy is violated. :)

Clearly if DT (and all other sites) are held responsible for any criminal posts rather than the posters themselves, you can pretty much assume comments & user content will be disabled for Italian users. Or if that kind of ruling holds, maybe it's safer to disable user up-loadable content & comments everywhere rather than risk jail time. Actually, whoever hosts a site in general might be liable for the content following this logic, so maybe you just get rid of all 3rd party hosting in Italy, so unless you can afford your own rack-mount and backbone connection, you're out of the game. Given they can go after international hosting at that point, better just shut things down. Why would the server site not be liable since we're into the commutative law of guilt at this point?

This would clearly kill the internet in Italy and the children - think of the children! Definitely would be a damper on a large part of what makes the internet interesting - seems like an odd ruling.


By Spacecomber on 2/24/2010 8:57:32 AM , Rating: 2
Although this article seems to be drawn solely from a Google blog posting, I can't help but feel that there is a general trend to hold ISPs and other people who own the servers that information passes through responsible for the nature of that content. We've seen it with copy-righted material and child poronography, and now we're seeing it extended to privacy infringement.

What is interesting to me is that, as an internet user, these strike me as marginal issues (at least from a practical day-to-day point of view). I'm much more concerned about the extent to which criminals are exploiting the internet to steal whatever they can. Should ISPs, for example, be held responsible for all the malware that passes through their system, as well? If so, now we're talking some serious damages that could be tallied up.




By nafhan on 2/24/2010 9:51:02 AM , Rating: 2
Someone needs to find the video and upload it to Dailymotion or some other European video sharing site, wait a few months, and then report it to Italian authorities. It'd be interesting to see how they react...




By danobrega on 2/24/2010 10:39:32 AM , Rating: 2
Well, is it?

Silly decision from this judge.




Italy = Alabama?
By UncleRufus on 2/24/2010 12:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
I just realized something....is Italy the Alabama of Europe?

Been some strange results in court cases there this year.




Crazy
By Darkmatterx76 on 2/24/2010 12:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
The under 3 years commuted sentence thing I like in general but this case is crazy. Google should respond by just blocking all Italy access.

'You want us to stop bad shit from being posted? Noooo problem!'




Only in Berlusconia
By lemonadesoda on 2/24/2010 4:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yet another crooked Italian judge.

Remember this is Burlesque Berlusconia. A strange land run by a media mogul Berlusconi.

The judgement is not about common sense or ethics, it is nothing more than setting a precedent to criminalise any form of publication outside of the Berlusconi cartel. Back to 16th century Rome.

Galileo to the fire; Berlusconi for Pope!




Despite Any
By JonnyDough on 2/24/2010 5:11:23 PM , Rating: 2
Despite any details or outcomes of this case I think its high time we started addressing privacy violations, online censorship, and big brother's snooping on citizens a bit more. Don't you? Rate me up to a six if you agree!




Europe: is it something in the water?
By onelittleindian on 2/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: Europe: is it something in the water?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/24/2010 8:38:57 AM , Rating: 5
What I don't understand is how exactly Google was supposed to be able to stop the video from being uploaded in the first place...


RE: Europe: is it something in the water?
By meepstone on 2/24/10, Rating: 0
By Hieyeck on 2/24/2010 9:00:58 AM , Rating: 1
And throughout the world.

And throughout DT, apparently.

Why did people rate Gul Westfale's post down? Mick DID say what he quoted. EVERYONE here should have the common sense to know Mick sensationalizes, misspells, and murders grammar in EVERYTHING he writes, then ninja edits when people with sense tell him how to do his job.

Really Mick, if you've let Microsoft Word ruin your sense of English, at least use it to fix your articles.


By gralex on 2/24/2010 10:20:30 AM , Rating: 2
Common sense may not be common, but shouldn't it be a prerequisite for a JUDGE? To (grossly) parphrase one of my favorite Bill Hicks lines:

Just once I'd like to see a POSITIVE display of human intelligence... Just once! "A European Court today realized that a judge in Italy is mentally challenged, and passed on a six month prison sentence to all those involved in giving him the gig. Here's Tom with the weather".


RE: Europe: is it something in the water?
By reader1 on 2/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: Europe: is it something in the water?
By Flahrydog on 2/24/2010 9:42:41 AM , Rating: 5
I feel bad for reader1
Either he really does believe this stuff, which means hes not very smart and probably doesn't have any friends (who would want to listen to him all day?)
Or, he finds trolling to be fun, which means he probably doesn't have any friends and isn't very smart


RE: Europe: is it something in the water?
By reader1 on 2/24/10, Rating: -1
By DaveSylvia on 2/24/2010 11:03:55 AM , Rating: 1
Sir, no to you. Just no.

You are railing against the open nature of the Web and the immoral/unfiltered content that exists there. The Internet bubble and subsequent collapse have NOTHING to do with that.

There are a number of economic causes that went into the the dot-com bubble bursting. None of it has to do with poor content.

Have you ever researched the history of ancient Athens?


By funkyd99 on 2/24/2010 11:27:57 AM , Rating: 2
...and your solution takes all responsibility and freedom away from the individual and places it in the hands of the corporation.

Why should a parent need to monitor a kid's internet usage? Just remove all questionable content from the web!

Why should a parent need to monitor a kid's cell phone usage? Just let Apple take away all questionable apps!

In fact, cell phone companies should probably start monitoring all text and video messages as well, just in case little Susie tries to send some underwear pics to her crush. Daddy pays the cell phone bill, but he can't be bothered by checking her phone every now and then.

And once the web is closed, all content monitored by corporations, we won't need to worry about someone posting something insulting, questionable, or intelligent. Political parties can finally shush naysayers by giving kickbacks to the corporations that control the content. News can be finally "toned down," as the truth sometimes is a bit too depressing. Why should little Susie be subjected to images of war on her home page? On the closed internet, all walls will be padded, and she can use some of the "internet credits" that daddy bought her to listen to the new Jonas Brother's song.

And reader1 can finally subscribe to Apple internet, where he will get the recognition he deserves, getting 5 and even 6 stars for all his brilliant posts.

I can't wait for your future!


By nuarbnellaffej on 2/24/2010 10:47:42 PM , Rating: 2
Reader1 is FAKE, I don't know who it is, or why they have created that persona.

I discovered this when he said the ipad is the greatest invention in the history of mankind ... Nearly all his posts are of the same tone, no one could be that crazy.

Just read all of his posts you see, and you'll discover what I mean. I thought it was funny when I first came to this conclusion, but its not, he just derails every single thread that could other wise be an interesting discussion.

My advice is to never ever reply to his posts, they're fun to read because they are soo ridiculous, just don't respond to any of them.


RE: Europe: is it something in the water?
By ertomas on 2/24/2010 10:19:57 AM , Rating: 2
It's funny to read your posts about the evil Microsoft monopoly and then read that
quote:
Getting rid of the open-platform Web will be a tremendous benefit to society


No comment...


By bhieb on 2/24/2010 9:38:23 AM , Rating: 1
See my posts below but here is the jist.

quote:
The real question is. Is Google a broadcaster? If so why don't the rules apply to them. America's Funniest Videos is largely made up of videos "uploaded" (via mail) to ABC, but are you saying they can play whatever they want no matter the content? And without consent?


By JediJeb on 2/24/2010 11:43:54 AM , Rating: 2
I guess the judge thinks Google should accept uploads then only post them after someone has viewed them and accepted them as ok. I guess he doesn't realize just how many videos get uploaded per day.


By jm90210 on 2/24/2010 8:39:57 AM , Rating: 3
We mostly lack fluor in our water, mostly.


By frobizzle on 2/24/2010 9:13:45 AM , Rating: 4
I see cretinism runs rampant worldwide!


By Murloc on 2/24/2010 10:55:11 AM , Rating: 1
don't be fooled by what jason mick writes.

It's italy that is messed up.

Nothing works down there, there's a mix of mafia, pope related shit, berlusconi and inability to understand the internet.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki