srkmno

Are they invested in law firms? Because that's the logical explanation for taking up this silly cause.

So they can kill these companies faster?

> Discovery in high-profile cases will wind up resulting in a gigantic PR disaster, which means that the company settles for basically whatever damages the aggrieved employee asks for.

And that's good thing?!

Yes, they are a commodity, so either they can invest in their education and skills to make themselves more valuable or make it easier for companies to take on more of that "commodity".

A stronger safety net that would allow unemployment workers to acquire new skill is a much better social endeavor than antiquated labor unions.

1. I can't take seriously someone who writes "the cost of injustice" in this context.

2. When unions muddle the machinations of corporate management and production ultimately shutting the whole thing down surely they will be happy about the power balance they achieved.

In a free market an employee's own abilities and the dynamism of the economy determines their value. So the trick is to invest in one's education and coming up with policies that keep the economy chugging at a healthy pace, labor unions is not such a policy.

The reason "auxiliary" workers get a raw deal in this country is that health insurance is dealt through employers via a terrible WW2 era tax incentive.

If companies didn't get on the hook for providing health insurance they would directly employ more people instead of using contractors.

So this is why I'm worried about labor unions in tech and the private sector in general; they are never the solution, and their lack isn't the cause to any of the described problems.

Whatever your thoughts about arbitration there is no denying that it's the quicker and cheaper method, what this unfortunate development accomplishes is enlarging the pool of well to do clients and plaintiffs for the lawyers to exploit.

In a related note: organized labor almost killed the US car industry, when economical foreign cars got popular, domestic car companies couldn't quickly make the necessary adjustments to compete with the foreign product largely because of the inertia of union agreements.

Labor unions are adversarial to change and innovation and especially in this era there is no place for them and hopefully automation will eradicate them completely, it's disheartening that many HN commenters would support such antiquated and inefficient agreements.

More wealthy clients and plaintiffs for the lawyers to exploit, somehow it always ends with the parasites on top.

If I understand this correctly the videos in question are family videos uploaded and monetized by parents, and the issue is that perverts are commenting on them, right?

Invariably a small percentage of people are going to suck, it's the way of the world, what is YouTube or anyone to do about it? Are they now responsible for everyone who watches a publicly available video?

This brand of hysteria is the product of alarmism, and sensationalism regarding everything social media, it's gotten ridiculous when we blame theses platforms for all of humanity's failings and newspapers are advocating for censorship.

That's the the anti American narrative your sort have been shopping around for a while now, no need to make it a Trump thing.

I'm saying that YouTube is successfully blocking 99.9999% of cases but journalists make their living by that 0.0001% context and nuance be damned.

Supposing that's true where's the harm there? why should we restrict "speech" because of your colleague's beliefs?

The nytimes' publishings are protected by the first amendment and so is youtube's.

Why not? if people are into that stuff youtube should strive to optimise their enjoyment.

> muckrakers during the Progressive Era

So you're one of those.

Were the "muckrakers" at the time in the same business as the companies they were raking muck at? Cause that sure is the case nowadays.

> And how does any social media company provide "financial relief"?

Zero dollar cost for communication, broadcasting, entertainment, information retrieval, etc while little else is free.

Because if you really care about it you have the option, otherwise it's a valuable resource that should be put to use.

Zealots would be upset sure but I'd argue most people won't.

A shopping list is metadata and the issue here is data ownership, you can't own a shopping list, you can't even copyright one, if you don't want it to be associated with you, you should be able to opt out, but no one should be burned at the stake for it.

Regulation as the result of "bad stories" yeah let heysteria and sensationalism lead the way.

Facebook et al are not the source of all evil, they are actually a source of financial relief to most people, they are only a problem to media companies, and those who write books about how bad they are.

It's healthcare and housing costs that are the bane of everyday people, this media fabricated tech backlash is a strategic distraction.

Facebook is people and people suck. Facebook is also a scapegoat and to the contrary of what a resentful media industry would like you to believe the sum of their contributions to the world is overwhelmingly positive

Yeah let's restrict, ban and kill every new idea in it's crib, that'll surly make the world a better place, I'm happy you're enjoying your time in this entrepreneur community.

Let's also make sure all future gains are made by the lawyers and other middle men so that world peace will finally be at hand.

FYI: "giant corporations" are dictating this copyright law.

I see the confusion here: "champion" in this context is an economic term meaning a leading company that's the pride of it's home nation.

Pitchfork mobs dictating policy, that is why you don't elect an ex state attorney general to the legislative branch: prosecution and grandstanding is all they know.

Also the principle concept of "stealing your data" is more ludicrous than "stealing" in the copyright sense; that data is meta data and it's not yours, it was generated by machines you don't own and have no claim over.

What's an example of an internet champion that's not a web one?

The EU has no internet "champions" so they have few reservations about burning the whole thing to the ground, and that is the lens through which all their internet regulations should be seen.

Anyone hawking wares and/or services in the vicinity of that place will prosper.

It's an important enough matter that economic, political, and clandestine measures should be on the table.

Ah, the oft invoked "cultural difference" excuse for protectionism.

What's "unethical" here is shifting and narrowing legal definitions to target certain companies originating from certain countries.

The euros' incentives are clear, what's our government's incentive to destroy some of our most innovative, successful, and market defining companies?