Re: Completely missing the point (don't worry, you're not alone)
"Google isn't really that important to Europe"
Huh?? What planet do you live on? It has over 90% of the search market in the EU. The EU can't decide whether to hate or envy it.
165 posts • joined 23 Jun 2009
"Google isn't really that important to Europe"
Huh?? What planet do you live on? It has over 90% of the search market in the EU. The EU can't decide whether to hate or envy it.
There is a very simple answer to all these problems, apparently beyond the ability of the EU to grasp, and that is to permit all search engines to reveal everything they know - ie the historical facts. We people must then, and surely will, learn to filter that information to suit the circumstances.
If I want to employ someone and discover that thirty years ago he stuck his head in the railings while drunk at a teenage party I would be an utter moron to reject him if he now presents as a capable grownup.
Equally if I need someone to look after my young daughter I do not want a paedophile conviction hidden because the EU deems it 'irrelevant'. The EU judges can use their own children to test how relevant it is, not mine.
As usual with the EU, commonsense has completely flown the coop. Inefficiency prevented us knowing things in the past, and efficiency enables us to know them now; there is no cataclysmic social sea-change involved. The EU should be teaching its citizens how to deal with this mass of information, not pontificating disingenuous excuses to censor it.
Even more disturbing, of course, than the half-witted, taxpayer-funded inanity peddled by these gormless, taxpayer-funded Euro-monkeys, is the true motive of the backstage organ grinder.
The Lords oversee the Government. They are not part of it, they protect the people from it. Their great strength lies in the fact that they do not have to lie and cheat in order to get re-elected. They can speak their minds, hopefully for the benefit of the people, and throw ill-thought-out legislation back at the Government with the instruction to "think again".
That's how it is supposed to work, anyway. Their role should be that of an old patriach, telling his son "Don't be stupid. Have you considered xyz in that decision?" And contrary to hysterical lefty complaints, the Lords cannot directly affect legislation by the elected representatives of the people. All they can do is delay it in the hopes that the Commons can be made to see sense.
The purpose of the House of Lords is to protect the people from the government.
Good idea. At least Google's 'monopoly' is caused by its own efficiency, not by a fifty-year farrago of lies and deceit, bribery and political bullying.
The last time Parliament removed the Commission for the sort of gross corruption that one normally sees in African dictatorships run by despotic ex-Corporals, the Commissioners just re-appointed themselves a week later with bigger cars, refurbished offices and hugely increased salaries.
The likelihood of your vote having any effect whatsoever on the EU is on a par with the Pope being a Lizard from Alpha Centauri. Which, of course, is why hardly anyone bothers. To equate the EU's blatant sham of a 'democratic' Parliament to the original poster being able to use a different search engine is too ludicrous for words.
I must assume that you work for the EU's propaganda department, and are one of an army of infilitrators preparing us for the introduction of EuroSearch, which will only return results that further the cause of European integration, and automatically detect the IP of anyone deemed to have criticised the EU.
Google could be a serious competitor to this, so must be emasculated.
Google makes money out of knowing what I like? So does my local fishmonger. The latter saves me from shipping out on an Icelandic trawler for weeks to get dinner, and the former saves me from camping outside the British Library for weeks to get information. Both provide my needs and I benefit from both knowing my needs.
So I am not entirely sure what the problem is here. Perhaps those who hate Google so much would prefer some sort of socialist search engine controlled by the EU, returning only results that "further the cause of European integration"; just as the diktats of its sleazy Kangaroo Court are instructed to do. Doubtless it would also track the whereabouts of anyone daring to criticise the EU or its self-anointed bosses.
Should Google ever become even half as overbearing, incompetent, corrupt and destructive of our freedoms as the EU we can just tell it to take a hike, without fear of being dragged off to a dungeon in Transylvania with no evidence of wrong-doing, no presumption of innocence, and no right to a trial. Such fear will soon be a reality in the EU.
Google may have its faults but do we really think an EU-devised 'solution' has even the remotest chance of resolving them? People who don't actually know what a web browser is are given half a dozen to choose from? Then faced with wondering why all those websites want to store American biscuits? My chickens would be embarrassed to be so stupid.
The only thing that trumps the EU's stupidity is its deceitful authoritarianism. I would put a lot more trust in Google, personally.
Even in Scotland the wind is not predictable, and I understand that the wind farms therefore have to be supported by backup fossil fuel power stations. These run most of the time in standby mode, in which they produce more noxious by-products than they would if they simply ran normally and the wind farms were dispensed with.
It seems to me that most of these religious extremists are being created long before they are old enough to read, never mind study bomb-making and beheading on the internet.
None of this has anything to do with a silly Spaniard trying to pretend his house was not repossessed, nor any spurious need to protect the public from access to 'out-of-date' or 'irrelevant' information (who defines those terms, I wonder?).
This is the EU's well-trained political
poodle court setting a dangerous precedent; one that will enable the unelected, unaccountable EU bosses to exert a gradual, but ever-increasing censorship of all information available to the luckless EU peasantry. They have probably been scouring Google for years looking for such an excuse. Quelle ironie!
There is an acceptable case for even the EU's quasi-government to discuss with search engines the issue of relative importance of results. However, ordering them to be removed, on the dubious grounds that some person does not like what they say, carries the distinctly foul stench of a corrupt ulterior motive on the part of what can best be described charitably as a barely-concealed tinpot oligarchy.
Google doesn't invent information: it finds and displays it, just as the BBC finds information and displays it. Will the BBC be next to have the information it displays censored by the EU? Ordered not to display anything that the EU deems 'irrelevant' or 'out-of-date'? Anything critical of the EU perhaps?
Ridiculous, you all laugh, it is too big a step. Even if taken in small, emotive, ethically unarguable increments? This is the usual EU method for forcing through unpalatable proposals, a technique copied almost verbatim from sleazy Encyclopedia salesmen.
Eg: Free multi-volume encyclopedia, with a small charge for regular updates to ensure that your adorable children get the best possible start in life. What parent could refuse? Even when a few moments' thought shows that it will cost them more money than their car. A few moments thought will also show that this EU ruling will cost the people more rights than it bestows.
This seems rather fishy to me. The BBC exhibits blatant pro-EU bias while receiving millions from it in 'unspecified grants', and the EU demands subservient allegiance in return for its handouts. So why is the BBC apparently cocking a snook at the EU's latest puerile, ill-thought-out ramblings? Something does not add up. I wonder if the bosses know about this?
I agree. A low voter turnout is a clear signal, very difficult to fudge, that there is a fundamental problem with the whole political system. Compulsory voting is a particularly invidious way of enabling the political classes of all persuasions to avoid facing up to and dealing with this very serious issue. Spoiled ballot papers do not have the same power to force them to do so as no-one voting does.
I believe the first Euro Parliament election produced a turnout of about 9% in Liverpool or somewhere. The message contained therein was, naturally, ignored, in a way that would have been very difficult in a Parliamentary Democracy.
Compulsory voting, with its huge vulnerability to a farcical result that bears no relation to anybody's wishes, is even worse for democracy than the people not being allowed to vote at all. At least with the latter the political situation can be seen quite clearly.
You dared to challenge the Supreme Legitimacy (That Which May Not Be Questioned) of the Euro-Gods (Against Whom One May Not Blaspheme) in this Euro-arse-licking forum? And got only one down-vote?
You must be patient, and know thy place, Euro-Pleb. Those on here who have been blessed with 'seeing the Euro-Light' will enlighten you. They will sell you a copy of Democracy Is For Dummies, and help you to understand that these Wondrous All Nobly Knowing Euro RepresentativeS must be obeyed without question if you want to sponge a huge grant for some pointless, idiotic project.
Or you could emigrate to NZ as I did. Now I can once again vote for those who make my laws. And hold them to account. And their books are properly audited. And behold, it is good.
The weather is better too. And I no longer have to walk past obnoxious, patronising posters on the school walls instructing my children to give thanks to the beneficent EU for their daily milk - at best a tenuous, extraordinarily convoluted travesty of the truth, at worst a naked political brainwashing lie.
What with that and the EU's political logo plastered over all the roads, bridges and huge floodlit roundabouts on empty back-country goat tracks where I lived, I thought I had died and gone to North Korea.
A bunch of corrupt, unelected has-been politicians ordering a sovereign country into their personal, politicised kangaroo court for failing to instantly obey their direct orders? And not a shot fired? You couldn't make it up. Putin must be green with envy.
Anyone who cannot see this as opening the door for the EU to control what is shown to EU citizens searching the web "should have gone to Specsavers".
Yes, I now live in New Zealand, having rumbled many years ago what the inoffensive-sounding 'European Economic Community' was really up to. I can now, as I once could in the UK, vote for those who make my laws; and hold to account those who implement them.
I can stick my head above the parapet without fear of a secret Corpus Juris inquisition, or arrest without reason by the sinister EUROGENDFOR. I can even criticise my Government and not be charged with blasphemy.
And I can search the internet without being restricted to what is effectively becoming an EU-controlled subset of the truth. I can, for instance, find this gem from http://www.quarterly-review.org/?p=1198 :
"... once the Eurogendarmerie are inside the country, no British government can ever order them to leave".
If you are not alarmed at this prospect of a heavily-armed, secretive EU militarised police force charged with putting down civil unrest, and totally beyond the control of your elected Government, with the power to drag you off to a prison somewhere on the Continent and keep you there indefinitely without trial or evidence of wrong-doing, then it is a new brain you need, not just glasses.
The EU's utter contempt for democracy and the rights of the innocent is far more likely to cause you grief than any refusal by Google to hide aspects of the truth that you don't like.
"But why do Europeans pass crap laws that are intended to circumvent free speech to being with?"
Why do you think? Inadvertently?
PS: I assume 'being' should read 'begin', and 'circumvent' should read 'stifle'?
Well, none of this has tempted me to start watching again. I shall continue to sit and look at my cat; which thankfully does not display the inanity of one from Cheshire, or Clara.
"Coleman was best when she was actually a Dalek"
Yes. And has become ever more pointless and infantile ever since. Bring back Donna, the best foil The Doctor ever had; she supplied the down-to-earth (excuse the pun) attitude that he was too rarified to relate to. I am tired of little girls barely off their mothers' breasts, who the writers make out to be more capable than the Doctor at his own 900 year-old Time Lord game.
"These moments are why I like Doctor Who"
Those sorts of moments are precisely why I USED TO like Dr Who. Their replacement with what seems increasingly like a moronic Saturday morning American kids' cartoon is why I can no longer bear to watch it at all. I tried with this new Doctor but almost find him even more idiotic than the gibbering pre-teen with St Vitus' Dance that preceded him. Where is Christopher Eccleston when you need him?
I now find my cat more interesting than Dr Who. My daughter assures me that behind the occasional twitch of a whisker, and disdainful sneer at the menu, lies a great mind absorbed in the deepest, most mysterious recesses of the Universe. And frankly I find my cat more convincing in that role than the recent infantile iterations of Dr Who. The character should be deep with a shallow veneer, not the other way round.
As for the silly little girl and her rather wet, burgeoning boyfriend - is this the stultifyingly dreary Amy & Rory metaphorically emerging from the shower? Come back River Song, please. Only the heady mix of your sensual magnetism and cosmic intellect can save me from watching the cat.
This seems to be a very rational comment on the difference between Britain's Common Law system, which holds that the Government exists to serve the People, and Europe's Napoleonic Code, which holds that the Government exists to master the People. I am surprised it only received 5 down-votes on this forum.
We were often told when I was a child - "In Britain you can do anything unless it is forbidden, whereas in Germany you can do nothing unless it is permitted", which neatly sums up the basic point made by you and one or two others that only countries ruled by dictators need to beg their dictator bosses to give them a list of their rights.
In a civilised Parliamentary Democracy, that Britain was before it was taken over by the EU, such a thing is not necessary, The Government CANNOT patronisingly 'give you rights', as English Common Law has already given you all the ones available. The Government can only take away individual rights for specific purposes, and then only with the direct permission of the People.
The EU is not like that. You only have the rights that its de facto Government permits you, and can at any time take away; and the laws controlling every moment of your life are made by unelected, unaccountable, self-anointed politicians you have never heard of, and over whom you have no control (The various quoted percentages of UK laws emanating from Brussels are meaningless, as any law that has not been made by the EU can be over-ruled by it at any time without discussion. Therefore the effective percentage is 100).
Anyone who thinks dictatorial, overbearing, bureaucratic 'Europe' dispenses greater democracy than English Common Law, with its simple concept of Government being subservient to the People, needs their head examining. No amount of bribery, outright lies and spurious, sanctimonious babble about the rights of murderers, thieves and despots can disguise the fact that the EU is a totalitarian state, that exists to serve not the people but itself.
Internet Mana was thrown out by the electorate because it was seen clearly as a corrupt and cynical manipulation of the democratic weakness inherent in MMP, solely to give Hone Harawira a pot of money to finance his personal ambitions, and Kim Dotcom a power base from which to personally attack John Key. Harawira was just as responsible for this travesty as Dotcom, and fortunately it backfired spectacularly, giving both of them precisely what they deserved.
'Middle NZ' supported John Key as they clearly see him, whatever his faults, as a safe pair of hands, capable of adding up 2 + 2 and getting 4.
And if the UK Government refuses to accept Salmond's undoubtedly preposterous demands? I understand that a 'Yes' in this mockery of a referendum will lead to negotiation between Scotland and the UK with a view to the granting of independence, not the automatic gaining of it.
The wording of the question is interesting, too. It says "Should Scotland be an independent country?", not "Do you want Scotland to be an independent country?" I can see many loyal but intelligent Scots saying 'Yes' to the first dream but 'No' to the second reality. There seems to be considerable scope for a massive fudge here, designed to just shut the Scots up.
Perhaps Scotland will become an independent country that amicably and sensibly shares all aspects of its infrastructure and governance with its larger neighbour, thus effectively preserving the status quo and keeping the EU handouts coming, while deluding the woad and sporran brigade into believing they are finally free of the hated English.
Salmond can boldly strut to the front of the stage and announce that he has, bravely and singlehandedly, saved tens of thousands of jobs and many millions of pounds by ordering the English to move their submarines half a mile down the loch instead of all the way to Portsmouth. And so on.
Then Hollywood can rush out Braveheart 2 in time for Christmas, telling the Scots how the Scots won the Great Battle to drive out the English and gain Independence. And the Scots will all live happily ever after.
PS: and if a single deciding vote comes from a witless 16 year-old glue-sniffer on the Benefit, then Salmond's new voting age will doubtless be lauded a success.
"Building on the work of previous researchers, trying to build a platform high enough to glimpse the far-off ocean of Truth."
Which is essentially a fancy way of saying that science is never right, only slightly less wrong than it was before. Explanations are not the same as truths.
Yes. After getting fed up with my wife constantly complaining that her MS colleagues opened her Linux Textmaker DOC files and found bullet points in the wrong place I asked if they needed to edit them. No, she said. Then send them PDFs, I said.
Or as the computer engineer wrote when asked to justify his charge of $500 for chalking a cross on a component with the instruction "replace this" -
- for chalking cross on item -- $00.01
- for knowing which item to chalk it on -- $499.99
Dear God, is there really anyone on the planet who genuinely believes the EU is enforcing this for the benefit of the peasantry? In a democracy any idiotic ruling like this will be mocked, twisted and generally made to look as stupid as it is, and the authorities will be forced to reassess its obvious shortcomings.
Not in the EU. Their attitude is: "How dare you question our rulings!" Or in Eurospeak: "I will not let them abuse this crucial ruling to stop us from opening the digital single market for our companies and putting in place stronger protection for our citizens." (Er, Google is not stopping you doing any of those things.)
The arrogance and deceit of that emotive Eurobabble alone should be cause for concern, never mind the obvious stupidity and deliberately indefinable vagueness of the ruling. Any criticism of the EU or its unelected bosses can now be deemed not only blasphemous but also out-of-date, irrelevant or not-in-the-public-interest, and thus be hidden from the people.
And that does NOT pose a danger to Free Speech? Commenters here would rather risk political subjugation than rejection by a stupid employer over an ancient photo on the web? Seriously?
The notion that people can 'own' publicly available information about themselves makes straight bananas look quite sensible. I feel I am living in a heightened Monty Python sketch about commonsense lying flat on its back with its feet in the air.
The only real thing in this tidal wave of emotive, factless twaddle about 'out-of-date, irrelevant, unimportant, not-in-the-public-interest' and other supremely indefinable types of information, is the certainty that the final say on what EU peasants will be permitted to know lies with the EU's politicised 'Supreme Court'. Anyone who is not concerned by that should wipe the stardust from their eyes and grow some brain cells.
Google is right to make a mockery of this dangerous nonsense. Not only does it hand a powerful censorship tool to the EU, but it also degrades the extraordinary, free service that search engines provide for ordinary people, even those consumed with such hatred over them making money that they have lost sight of what life was like without one.
Thanks for the link - a riveting film. I have just watched a bit as it is bedtime in the deep south where I live but I will certainly continue it tomorrow.
One thing I would mention is that he did not go back far enough in his search for the origins of the EU. The initial germ was planted long before the European Coal and Steel Community in the 1950s. It was apparently planted by the Nazis in the closing stages of the war when they realised they were going to lose and decided to lay the groundwork for a new United Europe, which would adopt different tactics to the fire and brimstone methods that had failed them. This was based on a plan originating from the German company IG Farben in 1940.
The first President of what would evolve into today's European Commission was a prominent Nazi lawyer called Walter Hallstein. Google 'nazis and EU' for a lot more disturbing stuff like that.
The British were tricked into joining what liars like Edward Heath convinced them would be a friendly trading cooperative, by a self-appointed European political elite who knew exactly what it was always intended to be - a dictatorial European Super-Power controlled by a single, economically powerful country masquerading as one of the team. What is it the Scots say about 'he who pays the piper'?
Instead of cowing the peasantry with bombs and bullets as the last lot tried to do, the EU very shrewdly chose the weapon of stultifying bureaucracy - it is cheaper, does not damage the infrastructure, does not kill off the cannon-fodder, and is more effective at sapping the will and clouding the judgement of the people. The EU's non-stop, mind-numbing bureaucratic diarrhoea is easy to mock, but it is an essential, and carefully manipulated part of this process.
There is no place for Britain, with its long history of freedom and democracy, in this lumbering, bullying behemoth. And the notion that, despite its infrastructure, expertise, economy and global connections, Britain could not survive outside the suffocating Euro-monster, is simply ludicrous. The last European dictatorship that invited Britain to join was rebuffed with disgust, and this one should be too.
"unlikely to move its thousands of employees out of Scotland" does not have the same meaning as "will definitely not move its business out of Scotland"
Presumably the significance of a formal Currency Union with Britain is that it would be the Bank of England that would have to spend vast amounts of money to rescue the pound should an independent Scotland get in a financial mess? This I understand is precisely why the UK Chancellor will not offer one to an independent Scotland - the risk of failure is deemed too high.
It was, paradoxically, precisely this risk of failure that caused the EU to offer one to all who adopted the Euro, as it gave the EU the power to dictate the terms on which it would bail out miscreants - such as taking complete political and economic control of their countries. So perhaps an independent Scotland should be pleased with the UK Chancellor's refusal as otherwise it would effectively become a vassal of the UK (as the small Euro countries are of the EU) rather than the honourable partner that it currently is.
.Salmond: "We will have a currency union with the pound" : The Pound: "Er, no you won't, you're far too much of a risk"
Salmond: "We will automatically become full members of the EU" : The EU: "Er, no you won't, we already have a queue and you'll be at the end of it"
Salmond: "We will be wallowing in money from North Sea Oil" : North Sea Oil: "Er, no you won't, read the small print in our contracts"
Salmond: "We Scots are absolutely wonderful and wear kilts, so we should be independent" : Many Normal People: "Er, why? For whose benefit?"
Would you abandon a cruise liner (albeit with imperfections) for a small boat in uncharted waters with a buffoon at the helm? I don't think the quiet majority of Scots will be sufficiently swayed by sporrans and haggis and silly American movies to do that. I used to live there and the greatest enthusiasm for separation nearly always came from those with the least understanding of its implications.
The social and economic risks are literally incalculable. And for what exactly? No-one is banning bagpipes or Burns, or burning the books; there is no impediment to their culture; their best politicians pretty much run the UK anyway. They probably have more independence and power and money now than they could ever get on their own. Unless it is a ploy to lever increased devolution (a far more intelligent ambition) it seems totally insane to me; like divorcing a perfectly nice, working wife because some tart on the bus hitches up her skirt and smiles at you.
Talking of the EU, I recall that the original objective of 'independence' was simply to secure a direct line to EU handouts, avoiding Westminster. Is that Mr Salmond's great romantic vision of kilted independence - just another EU welfare junkie? He does realise, surely, that the EU's 'financial encouragement' of minorities is firmly based on the 'divide & conquer' principle? And that they may not let him in anyway? Or does he, more cynically, simply care only about his own 'fifteen minutes of fame'? Either way I think a "YES" will give the author rather more to worry about than his broadband speed.
There has been some interesting discussion in the comments here, but I still have no clue what the point of the article was. I moved to New Zealand a few years ago and have finally changed all my electrical plugs to ones that fit the NZ sockets. This means I no longer have to buy plug adapters from a specialist UK supplier, and can just pop into any local store for a standard plug.
Perhaps I should add a thousand or so words to that paragraph and sell The Reg a breathless article about freetards having to face the fact that UK plug manufacturers, although I am no longer personally beholden to them, have not been specifically banned from making and selling plugs that will fit into my standard sockets.
At which point in time does history become 'out of date' I wonder? Will all events in the EU now have to come stamped with a 'Use By' date? What will the Hindus make of that?
Someone will have to be given control over what in the EU is deemed 'out-of-date', 'irrelevant' or 'not in the public interest', and thus be denied to the public. I wonder who that will be? Google? Or a court specifically instructed by the EU to make decisions that will increase the EU's power over the people?
Despite outward appearances, this is not ludicrous bureaucratic stupidity; it is carefully-crafted groundwork for a censorship regime, masquerading as well-meant lunacy. The political muppets that strut on the EU stage may be bumbling idiots but those pulling their strings are not. Anyone who seriously believes this has been done for the benefit of the people should stop taking the soma.
Google are vilified for showing links and for not showing links, for making judgements and for not making judgements, for informing journalists and for not informing journalists. They are vilified for obeying this fatuous ruling and for not obeying it, and are now being vilified for showing up the unutterable idiocy of it. They are even vilified for efficiently running a business that provides the peoples of Europe with a hugely valuable, entirely free service without which most of them could barely operate. Vilified? Really?
This shambolic, insoluble mess was caused by the ECJ, not by Google, and it is the ECJ that should be asked - WHY do it (when strongly advised not to by your own legal team)? EU citizens should question the agenda of this so-called 'court' that now has absolute power over what publicly available information they will effectively be permitted to see.
There is a big picture here that is considerably more important to the average citizen than the stupidity of a 30 year-old who actually wants to work for someone stupid enough to judge him on a teenage indiscretion.
As the ECJ was apparently advised by its expert legal team not to do this, one must ask oneself why it did. There may be a clue in the Maastricht Treaty, which instructed the ECJ to 'return verdicts that further the cause of European integration'.
Whether there is any connection between that and the provision of a legal mechanism to control the people's access to information (albeit with an ostensibly high moral purpose for the benefit of some of said people), I don't know. However, the fact that it is so loosely formulated that it requires the ECJ to interpret it - which seems odd given the expert legal advice it has access to - should be disturbing. Some might think it deliberate rather than incompetent.
I remember when research that Google freely gives me in .001234 milliseconds would have taken weeks of trailing about major city libraries at vast expense. And Google is vilified for earning money by doing that? By metaphorically wandering round the global village reading public noticeboards and making the information easily available to all?
This is a very dangerous, far-reaching ruling made by an authority that appears to be absurdly stupid; but clearly is not. It understands perfectly the hugely powerful control over the dissemination of information that it has effectively given itself, being the final arbiter of any disagreement. Google is right to warn us that our searches, and our writings - indeed, our view of, and interaction with the world - may now be censored by the EU's Supreme Court under the guise of the farcical notion of a "right to be forgotten".
Anyone who thinks Google poses a greater threat to them than the EU should stop taking the soma.
"And like any powerful corporation, it may have an agenda of self-interest"
And immensely powerful, unelected, unaccountable quasi-governments do not?
Who will be the final arbiter of which historical facts are to be hidden from the peasantry? Because hiding the truth from the people is precisely what this is about, carefully disguised with emotive pandering to ex-students who want to cover up their peccadilloes, and unconvincing assurances that 'matters of public interest will not be affected'. Well, the very court that has just effectively given itself that arbitrary power is the same one that not long ago decreed that any criticism of the EU should be viewed as blasphemy!
I think Google reporting the existence of everything that is on record, together with us having to live with and deal with our own pasts, is a great deal healthier for society than having our reality censored by the dysfunctional, unaccountable and dangerously dictatorial EU. You would have to be blind not to see that the EU oligarchy has its own "agenda of self-interest", and that its ambitions are orders of magnitude more to be feared than Google's.
"how to make money from the music itself, which (presumably) is the issue"
'Presumably', of course, is the key word here, is it not? I do not see why a musician should care in the slightest how his money is earned - advertising on radio/streaming services, selling merchandise, live shows, or whatever else the future might bring - they all indicate that people like his music and want to both listen to that music and relate to him.
Making money by 'selling' a song as though it were a bag of carrots seems to me to be mostly in the interests of the grasping middlemen who neither create music nor have fans who want to buy t-shirts with their faces on. Real musicians should be delighted that the internet enables them to shake these parasites off their backs, enabling them to connect directly with those fans who want to connect with them.
"how can we flog crap with our band name on it?" Easy - build up a fan base that wants to spend money on such things. Then get off your arse and go and play in their towns. And as they all troop out of the venue flog them a DVD or digital download of the show, and a few other mementoes. "Exit through the gift shop", as those who understand these things might say.
Here is a thing: I would have loved to have gone to see Leonard Cohen when he played in Auckland recently to rave reviews, but could not make it for various reasons. Afterwards I thought I would buy a DVD of the show to make up for missing it. Very likely there were thousands of others in NZ, and possibly millions worldwide who thought the same thing. So how do you think I got on with this apparently simple wish?
"the internet will suck the creative content out of the world"
My son was recently told at school that most of the jobs that will be available to him when he leaves have not been invented yet. It seems to me the same can be said of ways for artists to monetize their work on the internet. As long as the inventors ignore the sort of drivel spouted above. Which I am sure they will.
Anyone else remember payola? When the pop music bosses paid slush money to the equivalent of Spotify in return for advertising their songs.
They see women wearing dresses not men, so a man in a dress is odd, and from the few i've seen in a dress, they look damned odd...
I saw a few wandering down a street on a CCTV once, just as they came across a drunken moron who, thinking they were transvestites, decided to beat them up. Sadly for him they turned out to be professional cage fighters going to a fancy dress party.
So, to go back to the article, things are not always what they seem.
Those without their heads in the sand can see exactly the same thing going on much closer to the English Channel.
PS This was a reply to @Graham_Dawson's comment "Want to know a funny thing" - don't know how it got here. However, it sits quite well after the Russian thing.
Free access to:
-- gazillions of pounds worth of global marketing and publicity
-- a zillion pound worldwide digital distribution system
-- gigazillions of pounds worth of free technical advice
-- a captive audience of literally billions
HOW is this a good thing for a poor struggling musician trying to publicise his work?
Is there any evidence for the assumption that governments have ever represented the people? I suspect this is highly doubtful. This is the old saw about 'is crime rising or is it simply being reported more openly?'
While the internet has the power to enable particularly corrupt gangsters like American Big Media and its lackeys in the US government to control the world in order to slake their own mindless materialistic greed, it also enables us the people, courtesy of the likes of Wikileaks, to expose and damn them. It should also enable us, courtesy of the many exceedingly clever people the internet lets us connect with, to defeat them.
There is a story in fairy-tale land about 'killing the golden goose' which should be instructive to us, trying to deal with an organisation so consumed with and blinded by greed that it cannot think rationally. The MAFIAA's golden goose is us - we, the people. We are the ones who lay its golden eggs, and if we stop doing so it will wither and die. If we don't, it will be our civilisation that withers and dies.
If some crappy video of a farting cat can get the interest of millions of people, surely some clever folk can produce a meme to fill the public with such revulsion for corrupt American Big Media that millions will be persuaded to stop buying from it. Then perhaps, like the proverbial phoenix, real art and creativity can be encouraged to rise, above the ashes of the current grasping, sickening dross. Remember the Ratner story.
A massive, world-wide boycott of the next blockbuster movie, which smug MAFIAA bosses confidently expect to give them a financial orgasm, would send a useful shot across their bows. Big Media is hellbent on turning us all into literal slaves, trapped forever in terror of "stealing' some thug's copyright whenever we open our mouths. It has to be stopped. Is this the sort of 'civilisation' we want to pass on to our children?
"Daddy, was it you lot who handed these bastards control of our world?"
A school system officially peddling insidious, manipulative propaganda from a despicable, money-grubbing cartel that is barely distinguishable from Organised Crime? Every corrupt social blight in the US must be rubbing its hands in glee at the prospect of these floodgates opening for access to the malleable minds of little children.
"Just sign that cheque, sir; I'll fill in the amount. The classroom is first on the left."
How do parents feel about schools using their children as commercial cannon-fodder?
That this is being taken seriously enough to actually discuss simply beggars belief.
Yes, wouldn't disagree with that, other than to observe that, theoretically, if one knew every tiny factor that influences the oncoming weather one could, theoretically, predict it with precision any time into the future. In practice we never know every tiny factor so can only make a best estimate, and try to prepare for other possibilities. As a long-time offshore sailor I have spent many hours doing exactly that.
I think the same applies to Google's systems. Accumulations of microscopically small, unforeseen inaccuracies can at times cause the system to make a decision that the programmer would not expect. But, as clean_state said in response to your earlier post, there is nothing weird or biological about that. It seems more akin to my car running slightly rougher than expected because of an intermittent high tension leak from a sparkplug.
As a layman it seems to me that this system's behaviour is not 'unpredictable', just not currently completely predictable by Google. Someone earlier compared it to meteorology. This, again, is not unpredictable; it simply has so many complex factors affecting it that even the best of human weathermen are currently unable to fully predict the precise resultant effect of them all.
To infer from this that the system is 'alive' is on a par with claiming that the weather is alive. Even calling it weird seems a big stretch. Which is not to say that we should be any less concerned about the potential dangers of such immensely powerful and currently unpredictable systems than we are about the potential dangers of immensely powerful and currently unpredictable weather.
And here is an American's take on it, complete with:
"Yoni photographic transfer on a Volkswagen hood attains a level of pictorial literalism that may preclude the automobile’s use as a kindergarten taxi".
Which may amuse some readers. He can even sell you a book about strange words.
I believe car manufacturers spend millions on research to avoid such marketing mistakes as designing Ford Faggots in Britain then advertising them in America. I can't be bothered researching now but I believe there have been a few hilarious mistakes over the years. Look here:
If you are currently driving to Spain in your Mitsubishi Pajero, turn round now.
Am I the only one who read this in an earlier post?
Can't read Swedish so cannot check the link. However, as others have said, if it is true then it deserves a lot more than a slap on the wrist and a fatuous judge's comment to the effect that "teens will be teens".
Perhaps these managers should be sent to agricultural college, where apparently they are taught that the best fertiliser is the farmer's wellies.
"Interestingly enough even the semi-literate, gay bashing asshats at Fox News had the class to say 'Greenwald partner' not boyfriend or lover in their articles..."
Er, why is this interesting? Or classy?
Would you have made the same criticism if the journalist had been a girl?