Which is a monopoly, which means your choices are diminished.

If you don't have jurisdictions to choose from, your choices are diminished. It really isn't a silly comparison at all.

One person lives in Antarctica, another in Mexico, they have to vote on the thermostat setting. Alright, that example really IS ludicrous, but the metaphor works for many other things (city dwellers drafting legislation completely unaware of how agriculture will be affected in real life. Happens all the time.)

If every cell in your body had to vote to get things done, you would probably die very quickly. For a world government, a lot of things simply don't get done. They won't, and most people don't care what other countries want anyway. Heck, in the USA most people don't care what the other half of the country wants at all. But they're happy to accept authority over them anyway. Now imagine a world-sized version.

Where do we get different standards from? We get them from different needs and different resources (also, culture.) We have lots of different distros to choose from. Why shouldn't everybody just make one giant distro? Because one-size-fits-all can never compete with the fit of bespoke tailoring.

You take away jurisdictions, nothing is tailored anymore. Not solutions, not spending, not cultural differences, not even rights.

We just make cookie cutter everything. And those things we don't legislate, those simply fall by the wayside. We may not be told we have 5 years (for real this time!) to throw away all our non-metric tools. But even if that doesn't happen, we will have similar problems and all sorts of mandatory changes, with the European Copyright Directive being the latest non-hypothetical, non-metaphorical, dazzling real-life example. And we can't learn from it now because of what, metaphors?

It doesn't matter if you legislate which side of a shirt buttons go on or not-- global authorities justify themselves by stopping war, and if they can do that, great. But they have not necessarily proven to do so (there's a lot of war in the world) and now we are asking them to handle finances (the EU) as well.

Russia and Britain had a pretty good thing going, in this regard. How would you like to be in Africa under British rule, or be in Ukraine, under-- well... or be in Ukraine? America is far from solving its problems by voting, the EU is far from solving its problems by voting, and the bigger these things get, the problems seem to grow as large as the solutions.

It's almost as if people are trying to make government more effective by giving it bigger guns. You know what happens when you you escalate the solution like that? You escalate the problems that it's trying to solve. It would be a metaphor, if we weren't living in a world full of examples that people are happy to ignore.

People can't solve their own problems, they still want to invite everyone else's problems to their doorstep. The best place among isolationism and globalism is somewhere in the middle, yet we keep racing towards the edge. There's nothing but conflict ahead-- more than we need too, but for some reason, we welcome it.

History can tell you why. Power-hungry leaders thrive on chaos, and we are building a more endless supply of it. Within the subject of narcissism, it's called "hurt and rescue." For everybody else, it's called political opportunity.

There was no definition as to what defines a "snippet". In some interpretations, a link suffices for a violation.

However, I expect that the lobbyists are not clueless, but rather that they depend on their targets, the MEPs, being electronically clueless. The goal appears not to be about saving anything, since this will hurt the very industry it purports to save, but instead it is about aggregating power and control as is the nature of politics.

I guess you refer to avoiding the application of random solutions to the current problems the world faces today, so, in the current global state of affairs, life in our planet can survive for another 100 years at least, or 100.000 or, hopefully, until the Sun finally explodes and swallows the entire solar system?

That's an extremely glib interpretation of what I said.

The lack of using a world government hammer where everything looks like a nail, doesn't preclude countries working together on big important problems. Getting rid of autonomy needs to be justified somehow, "the sky is falling" works pretty well if history provides any lesson. You're making autonomy and survival an either/or thing-- great rhetoric, disappointing argument.

As every sane, informed and forward-thinking human being I'm in favor of cooperation between countries to solve common issues. And it's not and "either/or" argument for me. When I talked about the Sun exploding and preserving life in our planet, I meant it literally.

Now, how can countries cooperate jointly (without the big hammer) in certain issues that involve legal topics like the one discussed in this thread is beyond me.

Snippet often works in all browsers, when original article does not.
TBH I'd prefer a text snippet, and would opt for no news if the only source of news was chrome with javascript.
So the way I see it where previously there was information, soon there will be an empty void. Good news for vpn/proxy operators, I guess.

Great, me too. I'm not in favour of globalism to make that happen. There's the either/or you're making.

I understand, we don't want to put all our eggs on basket Earth.

That too is what I meant when I said you're making it "either/or." You said it's beyond you, it isn't beyond everybody.

You are insisting (as globalism does) that globalism is required to achieve such things. I insist that autonomy is important, and globalism is NOT required to achieve such things. Your way costs freedom, you insist that my way costs us the human race. It's a good time to point out that the church has made arguments like yours (give us your freedom or we all die) to enslave people for centuries.

Totalitarian regimes use it as well. It's not a new argument in the least, it's a tired either/or argument. I wish humanity would outgrow that already, but it doesn't enjoy learning from history-- it prefers the repeat.

Working together and being shackled together aren't the same. I take issue with the latter, not the former. Why can't you admit that they are two different things? Your argument rests on conflating the two-- insisting that one is required for the other. That's where we differ, anyway. Your (overreaching) one-world government is not necessary. A very minimal version of it is one thing, something we have tolerated (and debatably benefit from) for a long time.

The overreaching is the problem. Ok, you think it isn't overreaching. Well, how about the example that this thread is about? That's overreaching in the extreme-- not for the benefit of citizens or life on earth, but for the benefit of corporations and monopolies as everyone's expense. What exactly is it, that makes you ignore the significance of that problem. Or do you recognise it (this would be better at least) and insist that it can be mended through a due process that was just this very week demonstrated to NOT include the will of the people?

I'm impressed at how you and other fans of globalism can overlook that. In my opinion, the unwillingness of globalists to even try to understand the position of dissent demonstrates globalism's inability to cater to the will of the people. It's not a democracy, the will or the needs of the people (apart from basics like safety-- and that is debatable) are moot-- it's a slowly growing global dictatorship. Now prove that if we give up everything else, that a government that doesn't care about our freedom really still cares about our safety, please. The demand is so high, the justification needs to be proven-- not merely insisted upon, as you are doing.

I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. I'll come back later to have a second read.

Anyway, as I'm sure you must know, I have work to do.

Cheers!

whose interpretation?

I looked into this rather deeply when we discussed it when it first came up (half a year ago maybe?) and it seemed pretty clear that the law is concerned with the quoting of copyrighted material that appears when you hover over an external link (of course it mostly does that on major sites with tons of javascript).

The term "link tax" was coined by those opposing the law, and as right as they otherwise might be, i find that very distorted, very far from the facts.

It seems to place a financial penalty on a certain style of link.

We could even argue that all links are snippets, but I think it's more likely you're both partly right. "Link tax" may exaggerate a bit, but maybe it doesn't as much as you say.

Search engines use snippets to link to pages.

So while an ordinary link may not be covered here, the links that a search engine delivers are (rather stupidly) covered potentially. But since you've read more of the law, you can certainly dispute this.

It came up longer ago than that, but I agree that it started getting more international attention then.

There is no definition of "snippet", that will be left to the member states to decide individually, once it gets that far.

https://www.verdict.co.uk/eu-article-11-vote/

There are still some small opportunities to kill it but the odds are long. For example the UK politicians could kill it off at the EC but the brexit crowd are already using the new EUCD as more motivation for forcing a departure. Or the MEPs could pursue the irregularities in the process and get it wound back. There are more.

Or the whole world could simply recognise this for the foolishness that it is, and oust all the MEPs that dared to support it, impeach May, and hold the EU to a much higher standard.

Meanwhile, I'm boycotting most of Europe and inviting everyone who feels as I do to join me. I will think twice before supporting the EU again, and this is as good a reason for Brexit as any (though I'm still on the fence of whether it's a great idea.) May is a problem with Brexit or without, she supports this nonsense.

this isn't the first round of copyright law being shaken up through electronic media, and probably not the second or third either.

i am confident that this is what this law is about ultimately: some people want to superimpose old notions of copyright to online content.

i say "old" somewhat reluctantly; i don't think copyright as such is outdated.

but the internet has grown into what it is, and this form of law will require exception after exception to be workable until it looks like swiss (well that's not in the EU - maybe dutch Maasdamer) cheese.

and i maintain:
not the link itself - it's about quoted content that can be defined as copyrighted.

demanding a fee for a mere link would be akin to demanding a fee of the tobacconist for the content of the newspaper he's selling.

from previous rounds of copyright law vs. electronic media i can guess with confidence that the length of the quoted content is likely going to be essential here.
or of it is fetched from the originating website everytime you hover, or is actually written into your own website.
or whether it is paraphrased or a straight quote.

I know we have ventured off topic a wee bit but it is in General and we have some leeway.

IMO, (and also Jefferson's), a great sign of freedom is when it is difficult for a government to get things done. When governments easily pass legislation, dictates etc... it becomes easier to have tyranny. Governments will always do what is best for the bureaucracy and rarely what is good for the people. That's one of the purposes behind checks and balances etc..., States versus Federal etc...

Ronald Reagan .. "Government is the problem"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XObcP69dhCg

Ronald Reagan speech: 'Man is not free unless government is limited'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC3x7fvUGwo

^ quoting ronald reagan to make your point against the EU?
oh, that's harsh...