Posts by Nick 1

Deeming Facebook a 'publisher' of users' posts won't tackle paedo or terrorist content

It's interesting that until recently there were plenty of cases where FB was proving quite able to censor user content based on "community standards" or other such nicely sounding reasons:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/09/facebook-history-censoring-nudity-automated-human-means

https://qz.com/719905/a-complete-guide-to-all-the-things-facebook-censors-hate-most/

It seems hypocritical that now it claims it can't easily apply those same standards for hate speech and child abuse imagery.

GM crops are good for you and the planet, reckon boffins

Re: Genetic modification has been done since a long time ago

Genes have been crossing species barriers with the help of viruses for as long as they have existed. The fact that the genes coding for a certain protein have evolved in a fish does not negate the effects of that protein in a tomato cell. There is no innate "fish" or "tomato" essence to a protein or the genes that code for it...

EU copyright law: Is the Pirate Party's MEP in FAVOUR of it?

Nice photoshopping on Paris' thumb...

But really, it's always going to be difficult to keep everybody happy when it comes to copyright. In fact, when it comes to any "right". Since it can only be defined in the context of what you exclude others from having (ie access to the things you own), and in the digital domain that becomes a hazy thing, there will always be trouble about it.

Maybe we should just recognize that any digital creation will never be completely controlled and protected and just stop spending the effort and money trying to achieve that. Just realize that your work will be copied, sampled and mashed together and at most, try using some form of watermarking to mark it enough so that you can track its usage and ask for some attribution and hopefully some money too.