While the protests and the petition signatures were clear, the directive to restrict copyrighted material, known as Article 13 in the EU, received a “yes.”
Video on YouTube will likely no longer include “remixed” content once individual nations of the EU establish how they’re going to legislate protection for mainstream media, its images, film clips, and music. For years now, the Internet has taken liberties in the name of freedom, to borrow from established media and then return to it transformative work, for the purpose of review, satire, parody and other kinds of humor. This will likely end.
On YouTube, content filters for video uploads could become stodgy, and uninventive. Removing freedoms to speak with ideas recycled from mainstream media inhibits Internet creators’ ability to articulate. These come in the form of memes, even when it is an upset to the original, and identities in solidarity with views closely held to championed archetypes. In the face of traditional media protected by Article 17 in the EU, emerging voices can and will fall by the wayside.
If the nations of the EU no longer can upload or view content that contains copyrighted elements, for YouTube, a platform that facilitates hundreds of millions of hours of new and original video every day, doors are closing for what is a livelihood for hardworking creators.
In addition, the possibility that social accounts would be charged fees to link to webpages is a terrible limitation for small bloggers, with pages that have no hope of affording such a privilege. This was the spring, 2019, that Articles 11 and 13 became Article 17. There is every possibility that the restrictions on uploading copyrighted content in the EU will drift into the same freedoms available regardless where the Internet is accessed and overtake them.
A content filter is complex; it could be, despite how valuable original content is for Google and for Facebook and Twitter, that content filters will only function effectively if they are applied universally, and not just in the EU. This could be a matter of months or years from now, but the challenges facing the EU, by creators on YouTube, and users enjoying social, and the right of Google to chart the world as it’s understood online, should be informing you. You should at least consider the possibility that you need to be informed.
An Internet structured around Article 17 will heavily favor the promotion of mainstream media. Independent voices will lose the opportunity to include portions of copyrighted media, and this could mean a “talking head” style of video on YouTube rather than video containing the freedoms we enjoy now. All art and video would be required to be free of copyrighted material, which I think is a practical impossibility.
There are creators who thrive on the “remix” of media images or industry music or PC games. Formerly, they were smart enough to make a living doing that, and exceptionally. Their opportunities are going to disappear.
The outcome of Article 17 in the EU is only just beginning to take shape, but there will be changes for Facebook and Twitter and YouTube that Article 13 is necessitating, the requirement to filter content video users upload. Users on the Internet, with the support of the infrastructure of YouTube and Google, will have to strategize differently once Article 17 goes into effect. It is a sea change.
You are welcome to “like” this post, to follow the blog, and/or to leave a comment. Whatever your age, if you are interested in tech, you stand alongside the brightest minds challenging the narrative of the mainstream media.
This month I reached two hundred followers with my WordPress blog. I am satisfied with the achievement, and I am grateful to the people following this blog for spending the time they do.
Publishous is a newsletter reaching several thousand subscribers and counting. I began reading it in December.
The writing’s pretty good, I agree, articles published on Medium. Medium introduces newcomers to a few free writing selections each month. Then, you either need to wait for the next month or to move up to a paid membership.
Soon I noticed the newsletter delivered writing prompts.
Writing for prompts feels like a shared experience. I miss the Daily Prompts organized by WordPress. I had thought Publishous could be a great new opportunity for quality blogging.
An example of the style of blog post I write can be found at the following link:
Since the last time I wrote, I received two more editions of Publishous. I enjoy them, but I have not seen another writing prompt. The newsletter exploded by 1500 subscribers in only several days. Did they abandoned their prompts? Or the prompts are not weekly, contrary to an assumption I made.
I feel like I’m getting behind.
In 2019 there are a lot of posts being written, I’ve long known. Expert and YouTuber Neil Patel suggests quality over quantity. He pitches one post a week or once a month.
Neil Patel is a gentleman with an ad agency, but I don’t want to wait the span of a month between posts.
#NeilPatel #ContentMarketing #Blogging
I’ve never tried tips such as Patel’s, but they could help. I try to think how I could deliver a better post.
If I’m fortunate, Publishous will again include a writing prompt. I will handle it as though I am alongside great people.
I’m ending with a question, one of Patel’s tips. Do you blog?
You’re welcome to “like” this post and/or subscribe.
When my maternal grandmother was in her golden years, she tried to assure me, “Don’t worry!”
It hasn’t been that bad.
Today’s WordPress Daily Prompt is the word, “fret,” and it’s a timely choice by the folk at WordPress.
What’s being outlined by writers on tech around the world in the news and elsewhere is big trouble… the Cambridge Analytics scandal dealt with Mark Zuckerberg decimated trust in Facebook and cost Zuckerberg a fortune. For someone like me, maintaining a tiny little Facebook business page to assist with the operations and goals of our likewise tiny little nonprofit, I am sure I am characteristically flabbergasted the same as so many other people struggling to market their brand on Facebook in the same boat.
It is potentially back to the drawing board for many.
Meanwhile Twitter, beginning the twenty-third of March, put into effect a change in policy that restricts marketers from tweeting the identical thing across multiple Twitter accounts, which is less a problem for me personally as I only have one Twitter account, but which is intended to scale back the impact that spammers and the like can have if they’re active on several Twitter accounts. For example, there is far less risk that trending topics on Twitter will be launched by the dubious and artificial method of conflated Twitter accounts bringing to prominence a devious trend.
It is nonsense, though, because honest Twitter users who make Twitter part of their business model have far less freedom to market their brand. It also comes on top of several months of other changes to Twitter that consistently kept people who love Twitter up in arms, like notably extending the famed hundred and forty character limit for a tweet to twice that, two hundred and eighty characters.
The little tweet was suddenly full on birdsong, and now, counterintuitively, restrictions are in place so that the social noise on Twitter is slowed down considerably.
My little blog defaults to options to share a post on both Facebook and Twitter, and now both social media giants are mired in an unpredictable morass that quiets down an outcry that until this year seemed like just a normal part of using the social media leaders.
Could be time to shop around.
Twitter finally made a quarterly profit, it is worth noting, so the changes effected under the leadership of Jack Dorsey may continue to prove effective. For Facebook, on the other hand, the steep increase in distrust of the formerly reputable social media giant will play out a drama that will see many Facebookers transmuting their internet profiles elsewhere, or at least becoming far more aware of what can happen to data once it is committed to the Internet.
What’s happened with Facebook is only one page in the news-intensive deconstruction of all the trouble the United States is seeing given their leadership is so unsteady at a time when a strong technology industry is necessary for friendly waters in the face of the potential for major change in the near future when many players want as much control as possible over the cyber landscape.
There is every reason to fret. Above and beyond prayer, it would be advisable to equip yourself with as much information as possible to ride the tide back to shore. It is exciting to observe, and if you have a tidy niche from which to beam the perspective you want people to take, I’d recommend you do it with dedication and surety.
If you’ve read today’s post, I thank you. Any like, follow or comment is welcome.
Twitter is introducing a new policy at the end of this week that users with more than one account on Twitter won’t be permitted to tweet the same thing across their different platforms. The reason someone on Twitter might think of the same tweet on more than one account is to leave more impressions, in order to make out like a bandit with increased lead generation.
I only have one account—https://twitter.com/findingenvirons–but I do have a strategy in place where I automate trending webpages in order to keep the account continually tweeting without requiring too much of my time to get the tweets on Twitter.
Now that this policy change at Twitter is fast approaching, I am going to change my strategy, so that I shall be safely within the “safety zone” of the change in policy. I will keep automating tweets, but on fewer days overall.
Today’s WordPress Daily Prompt is the word identical, and I think of this change in Twitter policy that’s very close to being here, and how it doesn’t permit identical tweets to be posted on several different Twitter accounts, which I never thought much about doing at all, anyway. I feel the change could be good. For me, Twitter is a hobby, and I use it for the same kind of reasons that other people who are likeminded to me use it similarly (read possibly identically :)).
I am looking forward to getting a glimpse of how the new policy impacts the “noise” on Twitter, the tweets of all the users competing to be heard. I don’t spend a lot of time on social media, but Twitter is my favorite of the social media sites I am familiar with.
The International Day of Democracy is today, 15 September. I am curating my Conventional Wisdom post.
May 13, 2018
The Internet bid RIP to Margot Kidder, the sixty-nine-year-old actress who was Lois Lane for the seventies’ and eighties’ Superman films. For 1978’s film Superman, Kidder played Lois Lane near perfectly.
I have also watched a few random episodes of Krypton, the prequel TV series for the Superman universe. The design is quite appealing and the ideas are complex but interesting.
While there are no more new Discover Challenges for WordPress,I wanted to update this post for clarity.
In March I borrowed a box of comic books belonging to a cousin and reflected a touch on those stories that I remembered. It got me catching up on the Innerspace sci-fi news series on Space on cable TV. Reflecting on their launch of the Superman origins series Krypton, one of the hosts of Innerspace in an episode from earlier this winter reflected briefly but pointedly that Man of Steel is a bad movie.
I take it Man of Steel is regarded many times as such and to counter the perception that it isn’t a good retelling of the thousands of Superman comics available in print, I want to include here from Jun 2, 2014, Exploring Man of Steel on YouTube TWITTER ► https://goo.gl/koijhV which is a go-to for a review in detail about a maligned film.
It is now known that Henry Cavill will no longer appear in the film role of Superman. You can hear thoughts on Man of Steel in a brief discussion piece about Superman and the rest of the DC Comics Universe. Henry Cavill Leaves Superman
My thoughts on the conventional wisdom of Man of Steel are presented here.
This week’s WordPress Discover Challenge presents the trial of posting a different point of view than what other people have, whatever POV. This appealed to me because I thought of Superman, as a matter of fact, from the films of the nineteen seventies and eighties about the beloved comic book character, and also from the 2013 film Man of Steel, which is what specifically I have a different interpretation to write about than the casual interpretation it often gets otherwise (a great superhero film).
Christmas Eve last year, December 24 of 2016, late in the afternoon my younger brother and his son went with me to my parents’ house for dinner and the Christmas tree. My brother let me know that the two had been in the middle of complaining about Superman, in the movies, and I was surprised that they have this opinion, which is not the same opinion I have. We’re very different people from one another.
Man of Steel presents the Superman character as an alien, which I know he is, as in the story of his life told in the 1978 film about him (titled Superman, naturally). However, whereas in that film Superman is a very human character, who blends in with his peers quite easily, in Man of Steel (2013) Superman is almost an alien monster, considering that while he looks human, he has the mentality of an outsider. This is clear, for example, when he only takes his job as a reporter for the Daily Planet at the conclusion of the film (spoiler), which is unlike Superman (1978), in which his entire time in Metropolis is spent in the alter ego of Clark Kent, a reporter alongside Lois Lane.
What I think about Man of Steel is that Man of Steel is the story of an alien creature living among humans whose fate it is to help the human race. This is like how in ancient Egypt, Egyptian workers built enormous pyramids, which were probably tombs for their leaders once deceased (the Pharaohs).
It is unknown how the ancient Egyptians were able to build these pyramids because there is no evidence that the Egyptians of ancient times had technology which could have made building those pyramids possible. It is a great mystery.
One theory is that, as in history when impossible feats were accomplished without the benefit of technology, alien forces could have visited Egypt and helped the Egyptians build the pyramids with the help of the alien people’s technology. It is a popular theory among people who believe in life among the stars (Erich von Daniken is one scholar who argues that the theory is based on real history, of Ancient Egypt).
Given that the pyramids would have been nearly impossible to build without technology, consider that aliens visited and lent a helping hand, with an interest in contributing to the prosperity of human beings (as a species). Man of Steel is a little like that because Superman is an alien living among humans helping preserve the human race from dangers that are inherent to people encountering alien creatures.
What I think is that when Superman reveals himself to human authorities, when he is given the ultimatum to surrender by his enemies, it is noted that Superman may be a hazard for human folk merely because his body may contain a disease that could be inflicted on the humans. I say this because it is not immediately the fear of Superman’s powers as a superhero that bothers the authorities, or the details of Superman’s past in the Kansas town of Smallville, but whether Superman’s body could spread illness and death to the humans who meet him. I don’t think that the Egyptians meeting aliens who gave them help to build the pyramids, stopped their alien benefactors to question whether they would become sick from contact.
What I am thinking about Man of Steel, is what if the point of Superman’s existence among humans is that he doesn’t succeed at guiding human beings to a better existence? Every time it is questioned if humans in ancient times had visitors from other worlds among them, there is never evidence that the aliens caused devastation and ruin for people of the past.
What if Superman’s role as a visitor to modern-day people of the world demonstrates good intentions on Superman’s part, but poor planning for the man from Krypton that actually reduces the success of people to safely maintain conditions for life around the planet? When you sit down with Man of Steel, consider the possibility that while the strange realities that led the men and women of Ancient Egypt to construct pyramids, in this film, when Superman is battling and causing destruction in both Smallville and Metropolis, this could be the beginning of events that challenge human’s mastery of Planet Earth and undermine them in a way that will end in defeat and downfall. If Superman for once is the alien visitor closest to human beings in his physical form, could he likewise have the kinds of human weaknesses at the end of human’s reign over their blue and green planet?
Every other time in history that aliens might have come to help humans with the growth of their civilizations, are we, at last, to understand that there is no more? For however Superman feels about belonging to the human race, which is clearly passionate, considering the climax of the film when Superman is challenged by his nemesis how he feels about human life, if Superman is the final alien visitor to Earth, is it because he will eventually destroy us all? That is how I would understand Man of Steel, instead of interpretations that are more along the lines of a visitor from the stars who kindly brings the benefit of his superpowers to help us, folk.
Thank you for reading and good luck to you, whatever you do. Take care of yourself as always.
My mother’s parents bought me the game Wings for the family Amiga 500 when it was fashionable. It grew on me, becoming a sense of being more deeply involved in playing games.
Much of Wings was strategic dogfights between you and the enemy. The box for the game contained factual information about WWI, and a narrative within the game took you through to victory in 1918.
I liked playing the game. I just didn’t like being nailed by enemy fire.
Playing the game required extreme player ability. The dogfights were mad.
You flew with a view from over the shoulder of the pilot, in the cockpit of your craft. Soon you would see the pilot turn his head. Enemy aircraft was nearing, and the time was at hand to go in that direction. If bullets hit your plane, you knew you were in trouble.
Then it was time for diving away and getting as far from the fire as you could. If you could get an enemy in front of you, firing a volley ahead of him often meant he would fly right into it, and your trouble would be solved.
The game’s realist play meant that you were likely to get cut to pieces no matter what happened. The game fascinated me, but as soon as your pilot met his end, the game required you to begin the war over. No one would wish for that, particularly with my computer’s loading time.
There was a workaround that would mean evading death, and hence becoming one of the best pilots of the war–but it was cheating.
I found out by intuition that if enemy aircraft had me defeated, I could hit the hard reset command for the computer, and the rebooting computer would sweep away the game. What was the upshot? The diskette wouldn’t save the destruction of the pilot’s mission, and I could try again.
With successive missions, your pilot became better at combat. The hardest missions could be won with an extraordinary pilot in your control.
War shouldn’t be treated lightly, and if the game reflected the time in the life of a teenage pilot at the outset of World War I, I would have gone to the grave. I am sorry, of course, not that I would have been shot down, but that I insisted foolishly to play a game so insensitively. How NPC is that?