It's worth noting that in the US there is already the DMCA that content creators can use to take down their work.
Most content owners even big companies like Disney choose to allow (or maybe just ignore) the memes and likenesses because it's free advertising. So in a way they are getting value.
> "The indictment further alleges that Holmes and Balwani knew that many of their representations about the analyzer were false. For example, allegedly, Holmes and Balwani knew that the analyzer, in truth, had accuracy and reliability problems, performed a limited number of tests, was slower than some competing devices, and, in some respects, could not compete with existing, more conventional machines."
>"But, more crucial, it’s also an expression of techno-fundamentalism, the unshakable belief that one can and must invent the next technology to fix the problem caused by the last technology. Techno-fundamentalism is what has landed us in this trouble. And it’s the wrong way to get us out."
Platforms like Facebook are just exposing these innate human biases that have existed since the birth of our species.
The congressional hearings showed that even for some really smart people it's hard to understand the annals of technology and the broader dynamics.
In my view Mr. Zuckerberg's points on AI were more about identifying bots, and bad actor campaigns and not focused on censorship of individual ideas.
Mark Miller's class "The Science of Great UI" at DevIQ is pretty awesome. He teaches principles of design and ease of use and then shows example after example in the physical and digital realms.
Many countries don't have network neutrality. In Australia, Optus use to off "free social" where Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia and a few other sites didn't count against your bandwidth.
Add network neutrality legislation and it would be very easy to lobby against: "Turnbull wants you to pay more for Facebook and Twitter"
Most people don't have an understanding of what Quality of Service is.
The biggest problem with terms with a positive connotation is that both sides will claim them.
For example, Comcast will simply say "we support Open Internet" with the implication that "Open" in this context means "We can do whatever we want with our own lines.", i.e. complete corporate freedom. This deliberately promotes confusion, and then whoever has the most money wins.
In my opinion, the biggest problem is that this topic is relatively more technical than most people are used to understanding, which makes it very difficult to convey the various ramifications without over-simplifying.
The ever popular 'Free Choice/Freedom' angle? Removal of Net Neutrality ensures that the ISP gets to decide what the consumer watches. 'Don't let them tell you what to watch!' (followed by horrified alpha males watching Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman on Youtube or whatever else passes for horrifying nowadays.)
Ha, just passing along a tired old joke :). I personally never saw the show myself but plenty of shows had a good time making fun of it (Home Improvement, Red Green Show (?)) I guess I stopped watching TV after the 90s sitcoms stopped so my references are old and tired.
Most content owners even big companies like Disney choose to allow (or maybe just ignore) the memes and likenesses because it's free advertising. So in a way they are getting value.