Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

January 28 2012

Play fullscreen
Richard Wolff: Replace Capitalism (2012-01-24 | ~95 min)

Hochgeladen von joefriendly am 27.01.2012

Economics Professor Richard Wolff details the problems of capitalism and urges our recognizing its obsolescence and replacing it with institutions that truly serve the people.
Talk at Church of All Souls in New York City, January 24, 2012. Camera, audio: Joe Friendly

// oAnth - via Diaspora* 

see also:

- Richard Wolff, Q and A after Replacing Capitalism talk

Reposted byeat-slowMaybeADayOffanders-wirtschaftenpowerToThePoeple99percent

What Does Twitter’s Country-by-Country Takedown System Mean for Freedom of Expression?

This post was originally published on the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Deeplinks blog.

Yesterday, Twitter announced in a blog post that it was launching a system that would allow the company to take down content on a country-by-country basis, as opposed to taking it down across the Twitter system. The Internet immediately exploded with allegations of censorship, conspiracy theories about Twitter’s Saudi investors and automated content filtering, and calls for a January 28 protest. One thing is clear: there is widespread confusion over Twitter's new policy and what its implications are for freedom of expression all over the world.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: Twitter already takes down some tweets and has done so for years. All of the other commercial platforms that we're aware of remove content, at a minimum, in response to valid court orders. Twitter removes some tweets because they are deemed to be abuse or spam, while others are removed in compliance with court orders or DMCA notifications. Until now, when Twitter has taken down content, it has had to do so globally. So for example, if Twitter had received a court order to take down a tweet that is defamatory to Ataturk–which is illegal under Turkish law–the only way it could comply would be to take it down for everybody. Now Twitter has the capability to take down the tweet for people with IP addresses that indicate that they are in Turkey and leave it up everywhere else. Right now, we can expect Twitter to comply with court orders from countries where they have offices and employees, a list that includes the United Kingdom, Ireland, Japan, and soon Germany.

Twitter's increasing need to remove content comes as a byproduct of its growth into new countries, with different laws that they must follow or risk that their local employees will be arrested or held in contempt, or similar sanctions. By opening offices and moving employees into other countries, Twitter increases the risks to its commitment to freedom of expression. Like all companies (and all people) Twitter is bound by the laws of the countries in which it operates, which results both in more laws to comply with and also laws that inevitably contradict one another. Twitter could have reduced its need to be the instrument of government censorship by keeping its assets and personnel within the borders of the United States, where legal protections exist like CDA 230 and the DMCA safe harbors (which do require takedowns but also give a path, albeit a lousy one, for republication).

Twitter is trying to mitigate these problems by only taking down access to content for people coming from IP addresses the country seeking to censor that content. That's good. For now, the overall effect is less censorship rather than more censorship, since they used to take things down for all users. But people have voiced concerns that “if you build it, they will come,”–if you build a tool for state-by-state censorship, states will start to use it. We should remain vigilant against this outcome.

In the meantime, Twitter is taking two additional steps to ensure that users know that the censorship has happened. First, they are giving users notice when they seek that content. Second, they are sending the notices they receive to the Chilling Effects Project, which publishes the orders, creating an archive. Note: EFF is one of the partners in the Chilling Effects project. So far, of very big websites only Google and Wikipedia are this transparent about what they take down or block and why. When Facebook takes down a post, there is no public accountability at all. Through Chilling Effects, users can track exactly what kinds of content Twitter is being asked to censor or take down and how that happened.

So what should Twitter users do? Keep Twitter honest. First, pay attention to the notices that Twitter sends and to the archive being created on Chilling Effects. If Twitter starts honoring court orders from India to take down tweets that are offensive to the Hindu gods, or tweets that criticize the king in Thailand, we want to know immediately. Furthermore, transparency projects such as Chilling Effects allow activists to track censorship all over the world, which is the first step to putting pressure on countries to stand up for freedom of expression and put a stop to government censorship.

What else? Circumvent censorship. Twitter has not yet blocked a tweet using this new system, but when it does, that tweet will not simply disappear—there will be a message informing you that content has been blocked due to your geographical location. Fortunately, your geographical location is easy to change on the Internet. You can use a proxy or a Tor exit node located in another country. Read Write Web also suggests that you can circumvent per-country censorship by simply changing the country listed in your profile.

Qu'est-ce qu'un système philosophique ? - Jacques Bouveresse - Texte intégral en ligne

Jacques Bouveresse a consacré deux années de son enseignement (2007 et 2008) au Collège de France à la question : Qu’est-ce qu’un système philosophique ? Le point de départ de sa réflexion a été « le travail monumental et décisif, mais malheureusement beaucoup trop peu connu et utilisé » de Jules Vuillemin, son prédécesseur. Il y confronte ses idées à celles de philosophes français du xixe siècle comme Jouffroy et Renouvier, et à celles d’auteurs contemporains comme Gueroult, Quine, Dummett et Peacocke. Il y affronte notamment trois questions : (1) Qu’est-ce qu’un système philosophique ? (2) La philosophie possède-t-elle par essence une forme systématique ? Et, si oui, pourquoi ? (3) Pourquoi les systèmes philosophiques ne sont-ils jamais parvenus et ne parviendront-ils probablement jamais à se départager ?


// oAnth - original URL --

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.
Get rid of the ads (sfw)

Don't be the product, buy the product!