What the Australians have done is going to hurt the Australian press not help it. For a big way of getting people to access paywall sites is to titillate them with a social media message and then users find they can only see the first part of the story and to read more they have to be registered paying users
The Australian press (or their representatives) seem to disagree? They've been lobbying for this for some time.
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
That is the cost of getting into the museum. Pretty soon you are going to have to pay to look at each exhibit individually as well. And if you don't pay enough they will shuffle you off into the room displaying nothing but early 20th century telegraph poles and playing Reggie Wilson music.
The cruel jibe about the great Reggie notwithstanding, it's hard to argue.
Capitalism meets Democracy - news is a commodity just like baked beans. Those who "own" it wat to charge those who don't own it. If you don't want to pay for it, you don't hear it.
I'm a capitalist but I'm profoundly uncomfortable with that.
If those who own it want to put a paywall up to charge you for reading it, like The Times have done, that is fair enough.
What they want currently though is a payment just for linking to it. So not just a payment per exhibit but if I tell you about an exhibit then me simply telling you about the exhibit is charged, as opposed to (or more likely as well as) you paying entry.
What the Australians have done is going to hurt the Australian press not help it. For a big way of getting people to access paywall sites is to titillate them with a social media message and then users find they can only see the first part of the story and to read more they have to be registered paying users
The Australian press (or their representatives) seem to disagree? They've been lobbying for this for some time.
I don't think they expected Facebook's response.
Campaigners or politicians expecting nobody to change behaviour as a result is a longstanding reason why policies and taxes fail to work as intended.
Meanwhile, the Twitter response to Keith Cardboard's relaunch speech was predictable. The hard left can't accept that people have rejected them twice, so any failure of "the right" gets them excited for prospects of a return to true socialism.
Having listened to the speech live I still can't tell you what he said as he didn't say much and what he did say was so bland and tedious as to make you zone out. Reading some of the reportage he was pro-business partnerships and anti-poverty - all good things but missing the so what factor.
Politics is sales, and sadly for Labour they have no idea what punters actually want, hence being Here to Here and agreeing with the government about the pressing need to cut funding for school breakfast clubs. Starmer is Milliband - nice but crap, someone who means well, probably genuinely wants to do good, but is so "other" that people won't listen or care what he says.
I would argue Labour should try again with a new leader but like the Tories I struggle to see who they replace their crap leader with.
Well, Starmer still has a couple of years at least until a likely election date and hopefully he can make some progress. Another big Tory win could easily see the wounded Labour membership draw the wrong conclusions - again - and bring back the loony Left in a 2015-style fit of pique. Most likely we then turn into a Japanese-style one-party democracy; or the Tories make such a hash of things further down the line (or simply fall victim to traditional voter fatigue with long-serving administrations) that the loonies actually get to run the country. Neither prospect is particularly appealing.
TBH if the party does worse than Corbyn 2017 before Corbyn and does worse than Corbyn 2017 after Corbyn then surely the argument that even though they are all evil people and don't at all deserve representation and it is better to lose with millions of votes less....
That the Labour party marching over to the right is actually the less electorally sound position starts to have to be accepted even if you would prefer a different reality.
I realise that for a lot of people here that conveniently the right leader of the Labour party is one they prefer politically (guilty here also) but if the facts (with recent elections being the best facts we have in this regard) point to a left wing Labour doing better electorally than a right wing Labour then surely it would be crazy for Labour not to go for a left wing leader if Starmer fails.
I mean are Labour there to try and win votes or to please the commentariat and right wing people on PB?
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
If we're judging by actions then Corbyn ushered in an eighty seat majority for the Tories, nearly a decade after the Tories entered Downing Street.
Thanks Jezziah! 👍
They give out lordships for helping the Conservatives win... there is a reason they go to people from the Labour right.
People struggle with nuance. Bad people, or bad organisations, aren't always in the wrong.
Facebook may be - in aggregate - bad for the world. But it doesn't mean they aren't right in this particular case.
This. Much as the Apple vs Facebook fight has me siding will Apple. Not because they are a nice company. But in that case, they are arguing in favour of the right to control personal data.
This is not the right solution, but it indicative of the increasing tensions between governments, traditional media and social media.
Governments see social media as unaccountable behemoths, spending disinformation and polarisation among society while not paying taxes.
Traditional media has been slowly dying for a while, with huge numbers of redundancies especially at local publications and in smaller countries. They also have the ear of governments.
Social media have been laughing all the way to the bank for years, without a thought as to their negative externalities of their business to society. Australians see Facebook as a massive oil tanker polluting their coastline.
We will be seeing a lot more attempts by government to rein in social media companies in the coming months and years, especially as we see them responsible for spreading more disinformation, and they think of themselves as above regulation by any single state.
But in all those cases they are looking at the wrong thing:-
Local papers were actually killed off not by social media but by Craigslist and similar sites which destroyed their profit base that was local classified advertising. Around the same time Jobsites destroyed the equally profitable job advert market and Rightmove slow destroyed estate agent advertising.
That gave people less reasons to buy the local paper (hence reducing a second income source) which resulted in less reporting so even less reason to purchase the paper.
Social media still drives people to news sources - without links from other sites no one would visit them in the first place (as Google demonstrated back in 2014).
And there is a way of fixing it but that requires subscription services and a standardised pay to view page solution.
The move of advertising to online was indeed a massive factor in the decline of both local newspaper sales and economics. The two biggest players in that market, by far - Google and Facebook.
Rightmove is one of the most annoying website business models - basically the estate agents got together to protect their oligopoly, and did it early enough to entrench themselves online. There's a huge market for disruption there, cutting out that expensive middleman with a basic advertising and conveyancing service.
Rightmove got their timing right there 100%. There was a previous joint ownership attempt (back in the 1997/8) but that was too early (as neither the audience or the background was there) and there have been later joint ownership attempts (onthemarket) that have failed because Rightmove is the unescapable go to site.
As for the expensive middleman approach - Purplebricks and various others all offer far cheaper solutions but that is a market which is very much all or nothing (scale to 1000+ properties quickly or die). And most attempts have died.
One thing that I've found surprising is that high street estate agents still exist as you would expect them to have tried to move to cheaper locations binning that shopfront. It turns out that the shopfront is needed to convince sellers to list with you...
Good morning everyone. I've been following this with a certain amount of bemusement. Maybe it's because I'm old and stuck in my ways, but I don't get my news of the world (!) from Facebook; I read the Guardian and the BBC News pages online regularly and other newspapers sites, and on-line news sites, such as Huffington from time to time.
I agree with Mr Eek about local news though; local newspapers, coming out weekly cannot compete with local FacebookGroups; I'd never think of going to our local newspaper for anything, unless, as for example yesterday, there was a direct reference.
And I'd never think of putting a classified ad in a local newspaper, although I occasionally look at the free sheets if I want any jobs done around my property; fencing, I think was the last time. I'm more likely to go on-line, ask for local recommendations, although the last time I did that I wasn't best pleased, or go to a site such as Checkatrade.
If I was still employing people, and wanted someone. I don't think I put an ad in the local paper, either again I'd use one of the on-line sites.
Yes, the phrasing was a shade clumsy - perhaps I should have said "GB News will always be friendly to the Conservative Party, whether in Government or Opposition"
Seriously, if all we're going to get from GB News is a Fox News style approach where the Conservatives are either praised or treated with kid gloves (apart from anyone openly disagreeing with the Prime Minister who will be vilified) while Labour is criticised and attacked for anything and everything (except for any Labour person who openly criticises the Labour leader who will be praised to the skies) I won't be surprised.
In an ideal world, I'd like any news organisation not to be opinion-free (that's unrealistic) but content consistent. Criticise and challenge all parties equally isn't a bad place to start - praise and support all parties equally isn't a bad maxim either depending on the tone you want to adopt (the latter, a "positive spin on everything" might be the real guarantee of commercial success in the current climate).
I'd pay (though I don't think I should have to) for an equally robust approach across the political spectrum. I'm not paying to stand in my own echo chamber or even someone else's.
What the Australians have done is going to hurt the Australian press not help it. For a big way of getting people to access paywall sites is to titillate them with a social media message and then users find they can only see the first part of the story and to read more they have to be registered paying users
The Australian press (or their representatives) seem to disagree? They've been lobbying for this for some time.
Just because the Australian press are idiots who don't understand the internet doesn't make it a good idea.
What the Australians have done is going to hurt the Australian press not help it. For a big way of getting people to access paywall sites is to titillate them with a social media message and then users find they can only see the first part of the story and to read more they have to be registered paying users
The Australian press (or their representatives) seem to disagree? They've been lobbying for this for some time.
I don't think they expected Facebook's response.
Campaigners or politicians expecting nobody to change behaviour as a result is a longstanding reason why policies and taxes fail to work as intended.
Maybe the answer is for Facebook to be allowed to continue as it has by buying a Licence from the Govt. Then it is just a haggle over price. It has to be a number small enough for Facebook to play ball again.
Sorting it out would provide a model for the world to follow.
For some reason when I read the article on my phone it didn't show who the author was. Now I know it's yours Richard, it was an excellent article and I agree with you completely.
This is a very dangerous idea. Simply linking to a site should never be charged. If it was a charge for copying and pasting that would be fair enough but that's not the case.
It's bizarre because news sites should be wanting lots of links to their news articles. I don't even understand what the proposed charge is trying to achieve.
One thing that I notice about most news websites is that they understand the power of links and they minimise outbound links.
So, if you have a Guardian article about any ONS statistics you will very rarely, if ever, see a link to the statistical release on the ONS website. They know that they don't want to boost the ONS in the search rankings by linking to them.
This demonstrates how important inbound links are. Why would you want to charge for them?
You're right about the lack of links. It can be quite annoying as it seems absurd not to link to say a government report if reporting on it, but they usually dont.
I disagree with the header. I dont like the current advertising model of most of the internet. It would be better if everyone paid a very small fee each time they visited a website like BBC News or PB. If they paid for example 5 pence each time they visited a page they would be more selective in what they viewed and wouldnt waste as much time visiting sites they dont really need to visit because the money would add up over time. But it would be cheap enough not to put people off from visiting sites they really needed to.
One hopes (but does not necessarily expect) the UK to avoid this sort of lunacy.
Obviously because it was outside the scope of this particular article, I didn't mention the Meme ban but that is something that will really drive anger towards the new EU Directive. Basically it bans the use of any original content without the permission of the owner. Now as a writer and content creator I am all in favour of some form of copyright to protect my IP but it has to be proportionate. The meme ban will basically mean that no major platform will be able to risk allowing memes anymore - so no more Hitler Bunker memes for example - because they will be liable if a content owner chooses to object.
According to a coalition of Internet pioneers " "Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the Internet from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users."
TBH if the party does worse than Corbyn 2017 before Corbyn and does worse than Corbyn 2017 after Corbyn then surely the argument that even though they are all evil people and don't at all deserve representation and it is better to lose with millions of votes less....
That the Labour party marching over to the right is actually the less electorally sound position starts to have to be accepted even if you would prefer a different reality.
I realise that for a lot of people here that conveniently the right leader of the Labour party is one they prefer politically (guilty here also) but if the facts (with recent elections being the best facts we have in this regard) point to a left wing Labour doing better electorally than a right wing Labour then surely it would be crazy for Labour not to go for a left wing leader if Starmer fails.
I mean are Labour there to try and win votes or to please the commentariat and right wing people on PB?
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
I don't think you read my post properly if you think the metric I was judging Starmer on was his time as prime minister?
I said the word Labour leader in there repeatedly, Corbyn was Labour leader wasn't he?
I don't actually understand the point of deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote, it seems very unlikely you missed the phrase Labour leader as I said Labour leader 4 times!! Right s Now you could argue that Starmer in the future will swing to the left if elected, you could equally argue that Starmer will swing to the right in future if elected, you can make the argument about anyone doing any number of things in the future. If I join the communist party in the future I will become a communist, but that doesn't make me one now.
Starmer is representing the right of the party, if there was an election now for Labour leader he would either be the choice of the right, or somebody else would, he wouldn't be the choice of the left of Labour. Pretty much because his actions since becoming leader have been to the right.
Starmer's reasoning for representing the right of the party don't really affect his place in the party. Blair was clearly from Labour's right, whatever motive you gave to his time in office wouldn't change his position within the party he'd still be Labour right.
And the trying to get Labour back into government bit is also suspect, looks more like the right of the party taking revenge now they have the leadership back.
My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. Other than lose two elections, which is fairly standard for the left wing in this country (cf 1983, 1987, 1959...)
But you started this exchange telling me Starmer was left wing, now all of a sudden it is unknowable because a LOTO cannot do anything...
Is there some logical consistency in here or are we going to circle back around at some point because I can't find any logical point in here whatsoever.
So you started by disagreeing we me and saying Starmer is actually a left Labour leader.
I countered by pointing out all his actions since becoming Labour leader show him to be on the right of the party and if he was voted Labour leader today it would be votes from the Labour right with the Labour left voting somebody else.
You then claimed my metric actually showed Corbyn was really right wing because he didn't become prime minister.
I then pointed out that my metric was on their time as Labour leader as I had mentioned Labour leader in my post multiple times.
Now you have said LOTO can not to anything so Corbyn did not do anything left wing.
So why did you say 'Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact.' but now say 'My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. '
Either we can ascribe a political position to LOTO who hasn't been prime minister or not.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it here by both describing Starmer as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO but claim Corbyn cannot be described as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO.
In fact using your metric from this quote (you claim its mine but it never appeared in any of my posts)
'Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.'
Going by the metric you use above Starmer is actually quite right wing.
But what the hell is your point really, you argued with me that Starmer was actually on the left of the party and when I pointed out his actions since becoming leader and his support base make him part of the right of Labour you claimed Corbyn was actually right wing.... I mean If your point is Corbyn is bad and Starmer is good knock yourself out but just say that rather than making up some rubbish...
Surely the problem here is how you opt to define "left" and "right". These are not fixed marks in politics - Blair was absolutely a left-winger compared to Thatcher. As was Harold "vote Conservative, look how many council houses we've built" Macmillan.
And again, debating how left wing the guy is misses the point. How left wing the leader, the MPs, the activists are doesn't matter as much as how left wing the potential voters are. The mission isn't to persuade hard left tossers that their strike action inside the party* is serious and should be respected, its to persuade voters that they should vote Labour.
*Some CLP officials are on strike from their duties (e.g. Secretary, Treasurer) protesting about some faux right wing outrage the party has done.
I disagree with the header. I dont like the current advertising model of most of the internet. It would be better if everyone paid a very small fee each time they visited a website like BBC News or PB. If they paid for example 5 pence each time they visited a page they would be more selective in what they viewed and wouldnt waste as much time visiting sites they dont really need to visit because the money would add up over time. But it would be cheap enough not to put people off from visiting sites they really needed to.
That would completely destroy the internet or massively restrict it to those relatively few who could afford to access it. It is simply the capitalist version of Chinese censorship.
Yes, the phrasing was a shade clumsy - perhaps I should have said "GB News will always be friendly to the Conservative Party, whether in Government or Opposition"
Seriously, if all we're going to get from GB News is a Fox News style approach where the Conservatives are either praised or treated with kid gloves (apart from anyone openly disagreeing with the Prime Minister who will be vilified) while Labour is criticised and attacked for anything and everything (except for any Labour person who openly criticises the Labour leader who will be praised to the skies) I won't be surprised.
In an ideal world, I'd like any news organisation not to be opinion-free (that's unrealistic) but content consistent. Criticise and challenge all parties equally isn't a bad place to start - praise and support all parties equally isn't a bad maxim either depending on the tone you want to adopt (the latter, a "positive spin on everything" might be the real guarantee of commercial success in the current climate).
I'd pay (though I don't think I should have to) for an equally robust approach across the political spectrum. I'm not paying to stand in my own echo chamber or even someone else's.
Sadly that's not what most would pay for I suspect. They have to have no choice but to pay to get that even to the level of the BBC.
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
I signed up for Starlink at my place in France this week - 100€/month! I guess that Martian colony is going be expensive.
Starlink is a massive game-changer, if it works even half as well as trailed. Bringing high-speed internet to rural communities across the world.
In theory we can get ADSL at our house but in practice its sometimes fucked or really slow when it's not fucked. The cables appear to be attached to the pole with bailing twine and optimism so every time a cow farts in the adjacent field it comes down. Bretagne...
I think Starlink are on a collision course with governments in several jurisdictions who will not be amped on Starlink's direct to the customer unregulated model.
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
That is the cost of getting into the museum. Pretty soon you are going to have to pay to look at each exhibit individually as well. And if you don't pay enough they will shuffle you off into the room displaying nothing but early 20th century telegraph poles and playing Reggie Wilson music.
The cruel jibe about the great Reggie notwithstanding, it's hard to argue.
Capitalism meets Democracy - news is a commodity just like baked beans. Those who "own" it wat to charge those who don't own it. If you don't want to pay for it, you don't hear it.
I'm a capitalist but I'm profoundly uncomfortable with that.
If those who own it want to put a paywall up to charge you for reading it, like The Times have done, that is fair enough.
What they want currently though is a payment just for linking to it. So not just a payment per exhibit but if I tell you about an exhibit then me simply telling you about the exhibit is charged, as opposed to (or more likely as well as) you paying entry.
I've read copy portraying the issue differently. Its not linking that they want dollah for, its the teaser paragraph that goes out on the link. Which I kind of get, but at the same time the Twitter feed of these news companies literally does this. A rule thats OK for them but not OK for someone else is not OK.
Meanwhile, the Twitter response to Keith Cardboard's relaunch speech was predictable. The hard left can't accept that people have rejected them twice, so any failure of "the right" gets them excited for prospects of a return to true socialism.
Having listened to the speech live I still can't tell you what he said as he didn't say much and what he did say was so bland and tedious as to make you zone out. Reading some of the reportage he was pro-business partnerships and anti-poverty - all good things but missing the so what factor.
Politics is sales, and sadly for Labour they have no idea what punters actually want, hence being Here to Here and agreeing with the government about the pressing need to cut funding for school breakfast clubs. Starmer is Milliband - nice but crap, someone who means well, probably genuinely wants to do good, but is so "other" that people won't listen or care what he says.
I would argue Labour should try again with a new leader but like the Tories I struggle to see who they replace their crap leader with.
Well, Starmer still has a couple of years at least until a likely election date and hopefully he can make some progress. Another big Tory win could easily see the wounded Labour membership draw the wrong conclusions - again - and bring back the loony Left in a 2015-style fit of pique. Most likely we then turn into a Japanese-style one-party democracy; or the Tories make such a hash of things further down the line (or simply fall victim to traditional voter fatigue with long-serving administrations) that the loonies actually get to run the country. Neither prospect is particularly appealing.
TBH if the party does worse than Corbyn 2017 before Corbyn and does worse than Corbyn 2017 after Corbyn then surely the argument that even though they are all evil people and don't at all deserve representation and it is better to lose with millions of votes less....
That the Labour party marching over to the right is actually the less electorally sound position starts to have to be accepted even if you would prefer a different reality.
I realise that for a lot of people here that conveniently the right leader of the Labour party is one they prefer politically (guilty here also) but if the facts (with recent elections being the best facts we have in this regard) point to a left wing Labour doing better electorally than a right wing Labour then surely it would be crazy for Labour not to go for a left wing leader if Starmer fails.
I mean are Labour there to try and win votes or to please the commentariat and right wing people on PB?
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
If we're judging by actions then Corbyn ushered in an eighty seat majority for the Tories, nearly a decade after the Tories entered Downing Street.
Thanks Jezziah! 👍
That was the first election since 1865 where a governing party that had lost seats at a previous election made a net gain of them, and the first time ever a party that had been in government for nine years or more increased their majority.
It was a stunningly bad performance by Labour from every metric. It just should not have happened.
Fantastic that it did though.
For us, not the left.
For *you* PhilIip not *us* please. I never voted for Johnson.
It was a very bad result for anyone who wants proper two party democracy. In fact, just about the worst imaginable.
"Us" on the right.
And in my eyes the country, but that's just my opinion.
And in my opinion for those who want proper two party democracy since it should have provided a wake up call to the left rather than them wanting a "one more heave" approach.
I agree it should. But it clearly hasn’t.
The fact Keith won instead of Wrong Daily shows they've at least learned some lessons. Not enough perhaps but some. But even he's pretty left of centre.
Possibly one more teachable moment in 2024 then it can sink in? Happy for them to get as many lessons as they need.
The problem here is claiming Keith as left wing when his entire tenure as Labour leader has consisted of kicking the left for the rights entertainment is going to be a hard sell...
This was thrown together late last night so I was relying mostly in my own immediate knowledge (I spent a lot of time looking at this a couple of years ago) and, ironically, a quick google to check my facts.
Sadly further research this morning has shown that in fact the EU Parliament has passed the Copyright Directive including the 'link tax' and 'meme ban'. It will effectively come into force in the EU in June 2021.
And what about the UK ? Pretty all encompassing: ...The EU has weighed in on to whom the directive will apply, only the biggest of websites need to be worried as a result of the talks that preceded the final Parliament vote. The directive will apply to every website unless it meets all of the following three conditions:
A startup that has been active for less than three years A Website with an annual turnover below 10 million A website with less than 5 million monthly unique visitors Upload filters will have to be applied for every website that fails to meet the narrow exclusions above which are many of the mainstream sites and apps used today. If the notoriously erroneous upload filters were to became mandatory, sites such as YouTube have said that they will cease to allow uploads completely from the EU.
Punishment for breaching the rules as set out in the copyright directive is unknown as of yet. Copyright breaches in the UK typically result in the handing of a three-to-six-month prison sentence and/or a 5,000 fine, so staying original has never been more important...
What the Australians have done is going to hurt the Australian press not help it. For a big way of getting people to access paywall sites is to titillate them with a social media message and then users find they can only see the first part of the story and to read more they have to be registered paying users
The Australian press (or their representatives) seem to disagree? They've been lobbying for this for some time.
I don't think they expected Facebook's response.
Campaigners or politicians expecting nobody to change behaviour as a result is a longstanding reason why policies and taxes fail to work as intended.
Maybe the answer is for Facebook to be allowed to continue as it has by buying a Licence from the Govt. Then it is just a haggle over price. It has to be a number small enough for Facebook to play ball again.
Sorting it out would provide a model for the world to follow.
But that would be money for the government. I get the sense that this is all about lining the coffers of media companies.
What the Australians have done is going to hurt the Australian press not help it. For a big way of getting people to access paywall sites is to titillate them with a social media message and then users find they can only see the first part of the story and to read more they have to be registered paying users
The Australian press (or their representatives) seem to disagree? They've been lobbying for this for some time.
I don't think they expected Facebook's response.
Campaigners or politicians expecting nobody to change behaviour as a result is a longstanding reason why policies and taxes fail to work as intended.
Which is strange as Facebook had 3 options:-
1) pay what was demand without argument. 2) create a system to track what links appeared so you could work out who got what 3) add a few sites to the system that blocks links to blocked sites.
Option 3 was always going to be the implemented solution as that both protected their current business model and was the least work.
Yes, the phrasing was a shade clumsy - perhaps I should have said "GB News will always be friendly to the Conservative Party, whether in Government or Opposition"
Seriously, if all we're going to get from GB News is a Fox News style approach where the Conservatives are either praised or treated with kid gloves (apart from anyone openly disagreeing with the Prime Minister who will be vilified) while Labour is criticised and attacked for anything and everything (except for any Labour person who openly criticises the Labour leader who will be praised to the skies) I won't be surprised.
In an ideal world, I'd like any news organisation not to be opinion-free (that's unrealistic) but content consistent. Criticise and challenge all parties equally isn't a bad place to start - praise and support all parties equally isn't a bad maxim either depending on the tone you want to adopt (the latter, a "positive spin on everything" might be the real guarantee of commercial success in the current climate).
I'd pay (though I don't think I should have to) for an equally robust approach across the political spectrum. I'm not paying to stand in my own echo chamber or even someone else's.
I hope that's not what we get, I don't want a Fox News style approach.
But why does nobody object to the fact we already have that in this country with Channel 4? Why does nobody object to the fact Labour are either treated with kid gloves (or attacked from the left) while the Tories are always attacked from the left?
Surely the key question for Labour members isn't where politically is Starmer, but where politically are the millions of votes they need to recover? Most voters consider themselves in the centre ground - and that includes most Labour / Tory supporters who abhor the extremes at either end of the political spectrum.
I can understand the howls of anguish from Labour's left that "not enough was done by the Blair government" because its clearly true. However, the reality check has to be that you can't win an election by promising to go much further as the votes aren't there. Unless you are elected into office you can't actually do anything, regardless f how righteous you may believe your cause to be.
Whether Starmer is left or right is a distraction from the real question of "is he any good". I'm not sure the Labour Party is leadable at the moment, anyone would struggle in the job. Keith though seems to be missing any real political antennae, and that ultimately is why he will fail.
When people look back on this albeit extraordinary period of time there foggy memory might be "oh yes the bloke that agreed with the government about everything".
To then branch out with a differentiating policy platform (whether it actually is or not) will be seen in the context of them having voted with the government multiple times previously.
TBH if the party does worse than Corbyn 2017 before Corbyn and does worse than Corbyn 2017 after Corbyn then surely the argument that even though they are all evil people and don't at all deserve representation and it is better to lose with millions of votes less....
That the Labour party marching over to the right is actually the less electorally sound position starts to have to be accepted even if you would prefer a different reality.
I realise that for a lot of people here that conveniently the right leader of the Labour party is one they prefer politically (guilty here also) but if the facts (with recent elections being the best facts we have in this regard) point to a left wing Labour doing better electorally than a right wing Labour then surely it would be crazy for Labour not to go for a left wing leader if Starmer fails.
I mean are Labour there to try and win votes or to please the commentariat and right wing people on PB?
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
I don't think you read my post properly if you think the metric I was judging Starmer on was his time as prime minister?
I said the word Labour leader in there repeatedly, Corbyn was Labour leader wasn't he?
I don't actually understand the point of deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote, it seems very unlikely you missed the phrase Labour leader as I said Labour leader 4 times!! Right s Now you could argue that Starmer in the future will swing to the left if elected, you could equally argue that Starmer will swing to the right in future if elected, you can make the argument about anyone doing any number of things in the future. If I join the communist party in the future I will become a communist, but that doesn't make me one now.
Starmer is representing the right of the party, if there was an election now for Labour leader he would either be the choice of the right, or somebody else would, he wouldn't be the choice of the left of Labour. Pretty much because his actions since becoming leader have been to the right.
Starmer's reasoning for representing the right of the party don't really affect his place in the party. Blair was clearly from Labour's right, whatever motive you gave to his time in office wouldn't change his position within the party he'd still be Labour right.
And the trying to get Labour back into government bit is also suspect, looks more like the right of the party taking revenge now they have the leadership back.
My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. Other than lose two elections, which is fairly standard for the left wing in this country (cf 1983, 1987, 1959...)
But you started this exchange telling me Starmer was left wing, now all of a sudden it is unknowable because a LOTO cannot do anything...
Is there some logical consistency in here or are we going to circle back around at some point because I can't find any logical point in here whatsoever.
So you started by disagreeing we me and saying Starmer is actually a left Labour leader.
I countered by pointing out all his actions since becoming Labour leader show him to be on the right of the party and if he was voted Labour leader today it would be votes from the Labour right with the Labour left voting somebody else.
You then claimed my metric actually showed Corbyn was really right wing because he didn't become prime minister.
I then pointed out that my metric was on their time as Labour leader as I had mentioned Labour leader in my post multiple times.
Now you have said LOTO can not to anything so Corbyn did not do anything left wing.
So why did you say 'Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact.' but now say 'My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. '
Either we can ascribe a political position to LOTO who hasn't been prime minister or not.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it here by both describing Starmer as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO but claim Corbyn cannot be described as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO.
In fact using your metric from this quote (you claim its mine but it never appeared in any of my posts)
'Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.'
Going by the metric you use above Starmer is actually quite right wing.
But what the hell is your point really, you argued with me that Starmer was actually on the left of the party and when I pointed out his actions since becoming leader and his support base make him part of the right of Labour you claimed Corbyn was actually right wing.... I mean If your point is Corbyn is bad and Starmer is good knock yourself out but just say that rather than making up some rubbish...
Surely the problem here is how you opt to define "left" and "right". These are not fixed marks in politics - Blair was absolutely a left-winger compared to Thatcher. As was Harold "vote Conservative, look how many council houses we've built" Macmillan.
And again, debating how left wing the guy is misses the point. How left wing the leader, the MPs, the activists are doesn't matter as much as how left wing the potential voters are. The mission isn't to persuade hard left tossers that their strike action inside the party* is serious and should be respected, its to persuade voters that they should vote Labour.
*Some CLP officials are on strike from their duties (e.g. Secretary, Treasurer) protesting about some faux right wing outrage the party has done.
My view (caveat that I am a moderate Conservative) is that Starmer has good abilities and a reasonable amount of time to detox Labour. If you recall there were lots of people that thought Cameron was a busted flush when he was LOTO. In the end he won because he detoxed the Tories, but more importantly, was not Gordon Brown. The current clown that is PM won because he was perceived to be clownish but not as much of a dangerous clown as Corbyn. Starmer may win because he is dull, but not a clown. A lot also depends on "events dear boy"
I don't get the argument. Content has to be created, and that which is created by companies costs money. If Facebook provides links to said content and people click through to consume it then wouldn't everyone be happy? The story notes that a deal has been struck between Google and NewsCorp, yet if I go onto Google News it does not host stories and content, merely links to them. In this instance Google is driving traffic to News Corp not stealing from it.
So if Facebook's argument is that it has the right to offer plagiarised content that has been lifted from elsewhere and hosted on its own site, then surely the Aussie government is right? Facebook should allow people to *link* to news hosted elsewhere but not steal it for its own platform. Surely...
That's the problem, it is the links which they are being made to pay for. There is no stealing involved, the idea is that by merely linking to a site you need to pay for it.
Which is insane. A link should be a free advert for a site. Not something to charge. If sites aren't making money from all these free adverts to themselves then they need to sort their own business model out, not demand payment from every link.
Facebook are entirely in the right here.
I remember when people would pay you to link to them. I used to have a blog that did quite well in Page Rank as it was aggregated on a site with high Page Rank (so every time I did a post I got another link from high Page Rank site) even though traffic to the blog itself was pretty low (most people read it on the other site's aggregator). I'd get offered hundreds, on on a couple of occasions into four figures, to put links in old blog posts by dodgy SEO companies.
RT's right of course. I'm glad the big companies are not paying up. They could and in some ways it would be easier for them, but if this works then it'll do doubt start to apply everywhere and Scott and Carlotta will bankrupt Mike
A bizarre thread attempting to defend the indefensible. Facebook is a disgusting organisation which, and this is the most bizarre aspect of RT's one-sided thread, constantly data mines to invade and intrude into personal privacy. One of its most egregious examples is in its new data privacy invasion rules on WhatsApp, which Facebook owns.
Let's be clear about this. It has nothing to do with freedom. It has everything to do with profit. The more Facebook can invade your privacy, the more it can manipulate what you see, when you see it, and what you can be coerced into buying. Facebook and Google are duopolies controlling around 65% of your access to the news and where a monopoly exists you can be certain that there your freedom and right to access any news you like ... ends.
As I say, a bizarre article. Richard has pinned his ultra-libertarian ideals to the wrong mast.
You are conflating arguments. The question of privacy invasion and paying tax on profits is entirely separate from this. Those arguments only apply to the big companies like Facebook who have the weight and reach to get try and get away with it. This argument applies to everyone. It can and will entirely change the way the internet works.
Excellent article and I think this is a part of a wider problem of governments using legislation with a desire to show something is being done rather than a coherent plan showing why their country will be better off after the additional legislation. Too little thought, too much media pressure, too many laws, too quickly passed, not enough dissent and review from tightly managed political parties combining for bad government.
Good post, and a common problem. Like creating new rules and laws rather than making existing ones work.
Also, why Chernogolovka? I'm Vladivostok.
Clearly you annoyed the central committee authorities comrade. All the favoured bots are housed at Chernogolovka, close to the capitalist wonders of Moscow.
Surely the key question for Labour members isn't where politically is Starmer, but where politically are the millions of votes they need to recover? Most voters consider themselves in the centre ground - and that includes most Labour / Tory supporters who abhor the extremes at either end of the political spectrum.
I can understand the howls of anguish from Labour's left that "not enough was done by the Blair government" because its clearly true. However, the reality check has to be that you can't win an election by promising to go much further as the votes aren't there. Unless you are elected into office you can't actually do anything, regardless f how righteous you may believe your cause to be.
Whether Starmer is left or right is a distraction from the real question of "is he any good". I'm not sure the Labour Party is leadable at the moment, anyone would struggle in the job. Keith though seems to be missing any real political antennae, and that ultimately is why he will fail.
When people look back on this albeit extraordinary period of time there foggy memory might be "oh yes the bloke that agreed with the government about everything".
To then branch out with a differentiating policy platform (whether it actually is or not) will be seen in the context of them having voted with the government multiple times previously.
During an emergency. Sounds like a reasonable chap.
The debate about what counts as "politically leaning" news is interesting. The newsflash is that ALL news is biased because it is produced by biased journalists (which is all of them). Philip can describe C4 News as "left leaning 'news' " and that's fine as long as the same "news" quote marks can be used for GB "News" etc.
Just because you disagree with the questions being asked does not disabuse it from being news reporting. If "news" only speaks to your existing prejudices and perspectives then it serves no useful purpose other than to propagandise and weaponise. My objections to Shitebox and Novara isn't that they are biased, its that they are crap. Right wing "news" sources do such a better job, mainly because their reporters and editors don't bleat on about how biased everyone is apart from themselves. They know they are biased, that is their purpose.
Its a free press in a free country - we should be allowed to choose openly partisan "news" sources if we want to. Otherwise the news is one-sided partisan as dictated by the government...
I disagree with the header. I dont like the current advertising model of most of the internet. It would be better if everyone paid a very small fee each time they visited a website like BBC News or PB. If they paid for example 5 pence each time they visited a page they would be more selective in what they viewed and wouldnt waste as much time visiting sites they dont really need to visit because the money would add up over time. But it would be cheap enough not to put people off from visiting sites they really needed to.
That would completely destroy the internet or massively restrict it to those relatively few who could afford to access it. It is simply the capitalist version of Chinese censorship.
In theory micropayments would work - but people have been trying to create them for the web for 26 + years and no business model has been found the even vaguely scales.
the closest I've ever seen to working is Apple News yet while I could use it paying for the New York Times and the Times is my preferred approach.
Yes, the phrasing was a shade clumsy - perhaps I should have said "GB News will always be friendly to the Conservative Party, whether in Government or Opposition"
Seriously, if all we're going to get from GB News is a Fox News style approach where the Conservatives are either praised or treated with kid gloves (apart from anyone openly disagreeing with the Prime Minister who will be vilified) while Labour is criticised and attacked for anything and everything (except for any Labour person who openly criticises the Labour leader who will be praised to the skies) I won't be surprised.
In an ideal world, I'd like any news organisation not to be opinion-free (that's unrealistic) but content consistent. Criticise and challenge all parties equally isn't a bad place to start - praise and support all parties equally isn't a bad maxim either depending on the tone you want to adopt (the latter, a "positive spin on everything" might be the real guarantee of commercial success in the current climate).
I'd pay (though I don't think I should have to) for an equally robust approach across the political spectrum. I'm not paying to stand in my own echo chamber or even someone else's.
GB News will just make the already angry, angrier, just as Fox News does. It will be all about left wing bias at the BBC, how the EU are undermining the plucky English, how asylum seekers are prioritised over hard working Brits and statues.
Man, it's making me angry just thinking about it. Perhaps I should complain to my MP.
TBH if the party does worse than Corbyn 2017 before Corbyn and does worse than Corbyn 2017 after Corbyn then surely the argument that even though they are all evil people and don't at all deserve representation and it is better to lose with millions of votes less....
That the Labour party marching over to the right is actually the less electorally sound position starts to have to be accepted even if you would prefer a different reality.
I realise that for a lot of people here that conveniently the right leader of the Labour party is one they prefer politically (guilty here also) but if the facts (with recent elections being the best facts we have in this regard) point to a left wing Labour doing better electorally than a right wing Labour then surely it would be crazy for Labour not to go for a left wing leader if Starmer fails.
I mean are Labour there to try and win votes or to please the commentariat and right wing people on PB?
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
I don't think you read my post properly if you think the metric I was judging Starmer on was his time as prime minister?
I said the word Labour leader in there repeatedly, Corbyn was Labour leader wasn't he?
I don't actually understand the point of deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote, it seems very unlikely you missed the phrase Labour leader as I said Labour leader 4 times!! Right s Now you could argue that Starmer in the future will swing to the left if elected, you could equally argue that Starmer will swing to the right in future if elected, you can make the argument about anyone doing any number of things in the future. If I join the communist party in the future I will become a communist, but that doesn't make me one now.
Starmer is representing the right of the party, if there was an election now for Labour leader he would either be the choice of the right, or somebody else would, he wouldn't be the choice of the left of Labour. Pretty much because his actions since becoming leader have been to the right.
Starmer's reasoning for representing the right of the party don't really affect his place in the party. Blair was clearly from Labour's right, whatever motive you gave to his time in office wouldn't change his position within the party he'd still be Labour right.
And the trying to get Labour back into government bit is also suspect, looks more like the right of the party taking revenge now they have the leadership back.
My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. Other than lose two elections, which is fairly standard for the left wing in this country (cf 1983, 1987, 1959...)
But you started this exchange telling me Starmer was left wing, now all of a sudden it is unknowable because a LOTO cannot do anything...
Is there some logical consistency in here or are we going to circle back around at some point because I can't find any logical point in here whatsoever.
So you started by disagreeing we me and saying Starmer is actually a left Labour leader.
I countered by pointing out all his actions since becoming Labour leader show him to be on the right of the party and if he was voted Labour leader today it would be votes from the Labour right with the Labour left voting somebody else.
You then claimed my metric actually showed Corbyn was really right wing because he didn't become prime minister.
I then pointed out that my metric was on their time as Labour leader as I had mentioned Labour leader in my post multiple times.
Now you have said LOTO can not to anything so Corbyn did not do anything left wing.
So why did you say 'Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact.' but now say 'My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. '
Either we can ascribe a political position to LOTO who hasn't been prime minister or not.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it here by both describing Starmer as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO but claim Corbyn cannot be described as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO.
In fact using your metric from this quote (you claim its mine but it never appeared in any of my posts)
'Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.'
Going by the metric you use above Starmer is actually quite right wing.
But what the hell is your point really, you argued with me that Starmer was actually on the left of the party and when I pointed out his actions since becoming leader and his support base make him part of the right of Labour you claimed Corbyn was actually right wing.... I mean If your point is Corbyn is bad and Starmer is good knock yourself out but just say that rather than making up some rubbish...
You seem to be conflating two separate issues, whether Starmer is "of the left" or "of the right", with whether Starmer is "of the left of the party" or "of the right of the party". This is a mistake some Tories make too.
This isn't Communist China, the party is not the be all and end all. In your case the party is to the left as a whole, indeed right now it is very far off to the left.
The choice in Labour at the minute isn't left or right, there is no right in Labour. It is centre-left, solidly left and extremely far left. Starmer is solidly left, but he's not extremely far left.
Why you have to add the weasel phrase "of the party" its clear you're not wanting to represent the country. Fine, let other parties lead the country then.
I disagree with the header. I dont like the current advertising model of most of the internet. It would be better if everyone paid a very small fee each time they visited a website like BBC News or PB. If they paid for example 5 pence each time they visited a page they would be more selective in what they viewed and wouldnt waste as much time visiting sites they dont really need to visit because the money would add up over time. But it would be cheap enough not to put people off from visiting sites they really needed to.
Internet microtransactions are like nuclear fusion and self-driving cars - always a couple of years away, and have been for decades.
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
I signed up for Starlink at my place in France this week - 100€/month! I guess that Martian colony is going be expensive.
Starlink is a massive game-changer, if it works even half as well as trailed. Bringing high-speed internet to rural communities across the world.
In theory we can get ADSL at our house but in practice its sometimes fucked or really slow when it's not fucked. The cables appear to be attached to the pole with bailing twine and optimism so every time a cow farts in the adjacent field it comes down. Bretagne...
I think Starlink are on a collision course with governments in several jurisdictions who will not be amped on Starlink's direct to the customer unregulated model.
Starlink, quite deliberately gets around the jurisdictional/regulation issue, by having the downlink for a subscriber to the same country.
So if you connect to Starlink in the UK, the connection to the internet goes to the satellite and then back to the UK. Where it plugs in to the rest of the Internet.
It is designed this way because, otherwise it would be a way to get around national controls. Which as @Dura_Ace says, would upset a large range of governments. And they have the right to control Starlink, by allowing or disallowing transmissions from the terminals in their territory,
The possibility of using laser sidelines on the satellites to route traffic internationally hasn't been implemented yet. When it is, it will *have* to abide by the practise and agreements that those running underseas cables already abide by.
Significant numbers of people get their news through links on Facebook.
Those links are either to "free" sites or to pay walled sites.
If it is the former then users of facebook can access the news for free increasing the traffic on that site. If it is the latter than they can't unless they subscribe. Surely the issue here is the business model of the news media, not facebook?
If facebook use the content to put up stories on their site (as opposed to just links) they should pay for it. Otherwise...no, not really getting it.
The problem the news media have is that not enough people go to their sites direct so they lose out on advertising revenue. Facebook gets the advertising revenue because people use their site. Isn't that just tough?
The underlying problem is that the creation of news content costs money. How is that to be funded in the internet age? I suppose a tax on facebook links is one way but I am not sure it is a good one.
I can see why the sporting regulations want to make cars fast on corner entry and slower on exit hence lots of front aero and less rear aero but it makes the cars look fucking stupid.
They seem weird and old fashioned compared to IndyCars.
Surely the key question for Labour members isn't where politically is Starmer, but where politically are the millions of votes they need to recover? Most voters consider themselves in the centre ground - and that includes most Labour / Tory supporters who abhor the extremes at either end of the political spectrum.
I can understand the howls of anguish from Labour's left that "not enough was done by the Blair government" because its clearly true. However, the reality check has to be that you can't win an election by promising to go much further as the votes aren't there. Unless you are elected into office you can't actually do anything, regardless f how righteous you may believe your cause to be.
Whether Starmer is left or right is a distraction from the real question of "is he any good". I'm not sure the Labour Party is leadable at the moment, anyone would struggle in the job. Keith though seems to be missing any real political antennae, and that ultimately is why he will fail.
When people look back on this albeit extraordinary period of time there foggy memory might be "oh yes the bloke that agreed with the government about everything".
To then branch out with a differentiating policy platform (whether it actually is or not) will be seen in the context of them having voted with the government multiple times previously.
During an emergency. Sounds like a reasonable chap.
We shall see. Once the immediacy of this has passed, perhaps an enquiry or a narrative emerges of the govt f*cking it up, perhaps an almighty f*ck up is identified (care homes anyone?) then Lab will have been the Opposition that supported it all.
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
I signed up for Starlink at my place in France this week - 100€/month! I guess that Martian colony is going be expensive.
Starlink is a massive game-changer, if it works even half as well as trailed. Bringing high-speed internet to rural communities across the world.
In theory we can get ADSL at our house but in practice its sometimes fucked or really slow when it's not fucked. The cables appear to be attached to the pole with bailing twine and optimism so every time a cow farts in the adjacent field it comes down. Bretagne...
I think Starlink are on a collision course with governments in several jurisdictions who will not be amped on Starlink's direct to the customer unregulated model.
Starlink meeting china is going to be a sight to behold but it's going to have significant impact in the Middle East where the price won't be so much of an issue.
Mr. Tyndall, the furore was a while ago so I've forgotten some of the detail, but is that going to put things like videogame reviews and let's play videos at risk?
I realise most here won't personally care too much about that, but lots of people make a living that way and have significant followings.
Meanwhile, the Twitter response to Keith Cardboard's relaunch speech was predictable. The hard left can't accept that people have rejected them twice, so any failure of "the right" gets them excited for prospects of a return to true socialism.
Having listened to the speech live I still can't tell you what he said as he didn't say much and what he did say was so bland and tedious as to make you zone out. Reading some of the reportage he was pro-business partnerships and anti-poverty - all good things but missing the so what factor.
Politics is sales, and sadly for Labour they have no idea what punters actually want, hence being Here to Here and agreeing with the government about the pressing need to cut funding for school breakfast clubs. Starmer is Milliband - nice but crap, someone who means well, probably genuinely wants to do good, but is so "other" that people won't listen or care what he says.
I would argue Labour should try again with a new leader but like the Tories I struggle to see who they replace their crap leader with.
Well, Starmer still has a couple of years at least until a likely election date and hopefully he can make some progress. Another big Tory win could easily see the wounded Labour membership draw the wrong conclusions - again - and bring back the loony Left in a 2015-style fit of pique. Most likely we then turn into a Japanese-style one-party democracy; or the Tories make such a hash of things further down the line (or simply fall victim to traditional voter fatigue with long-serving administrations) that the loonies actually get to run the country. Neither prospect is particularly appealing.
TBH if the party does worse than Corbyn 2017 before Corbyn and does worse than Corbyn 2017 after Corbyn then surely the argument that even though they are all evil people and don't at all deserve representation and it is better to lose with millions of votes less....
That the Labour party marching over to the right is actually the less electorally sound position starts to have to be accepted even if you would prefer a different reality.
I realise that for a lot of people here that conveniently the right leader of the Labour party is one they prefer politically (guilty here also) but if the facts (with recent elections being the best facts we have in this regard) point to a left wing Labour doing better electorally than a right wing Labour then surely it would be crazy for Labour not to go for a left wing leader if Starmer fails.
I mean are Labour there to try and win votes or to please the commentariat and right wing people on PB?
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
If we're judging by actions then Corbyn ushered in an eighty seat majority for the Tories, nearly a decade after the Tories entered Downing Street.
Thanks Jezziah! 👍
That was the first election since 1865 where a governing party that had lost seats at a previous election made a net gain of them, and the first time ever a party that had been in government for nine years or more increased their majority.
It was a stunningly bad performance by Labour from every metric. It just should not have happened.
Fantastic that it did though.
For us, not the left.
For *you* PhilIip not *us* please. I never voted for Johnson.
It was a very bad result for anyone who wants proper two party democracy. In fact, just about the worst imaginable.
"Us" on the right.
And in my eyes the country, but that's just my opinion.
And in my opinion for those who want proper two party democracy since it should have provided a wake up call to the left rather than them wanting a "one more heave" approach.
I agree it should. But it clearly hasn’t.
The fact Keith won instead of Wrong Daily shows they've at least learned some lessons. Not enough perhaps but some. But even he's pretty left of centre.
Possibly one more teachable moment in 2024 then it can sink in? Happy for them to get as many lessons as they need.
The problem here is claiming Keith as left wing when his entire tenure as Labour leader has consisted of kicking the left for the rights entertainment is going to be a hard sell...
He's not kicking the left. He is the left. He's kicking the extreme far left.
I support the Tories. I recognise both Boris Johnson and David Cameron as right wing.
I have no problems whatsoever with either Boris or Dave "kicking" the extreme far right. Indeed I welcome it.
For some reason when I read the article on my phone it didn't show who the author was. Now I know it's yours Richard, it was an excellent article and I agree with you completely.
This is a very dangerous idea. Simply linking to a site should never be charged. If it was a charge for copying and pasting that would be fair enough but that's not the case.
It's bizarre because news sites should be wanting lots of links to their news articles. I don't even understand what the proposed charge is trying to achieve.
One thing that I notice about most news websites is that they understand the power of links and they minimise outbound links.
So, if you have a Guardian article about any ONS statistics you will very rarely, if ever, see a link to the statistical release on the ONS website. They know that they don't want to boost the ONS in the search rankings by linking to them.
This demonstrates how important inbound links are. Why would you want to charge for them?
You're right about the lack of links. It can be quite annoying as it seems absurd not to link to say a government report if reporting on it, but they usually dont.
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
That is the cost of getting into the museum. Pretty soon you are going to have to pay to look at each exhibit individually as well. And if you don't pay enough they will shuffle you off into the room displaying nothing but early 20th century telegraph poles and playing Reggie Wilson music.
The cruel jibe about the great Reggie notwithstanding, it's hard to argue.
Capitalism meets Democracy - news is a commodity just like baked beans. Those who "own" it wat to charge those who don't own it. If you don't want to pay for it, you don't hear it.
I'm a capitalist but I'm profoundly uncomfortable with that.
If those who own it want to put a paywall up to charge you for reading it, like The Times have done, that is fair enough.
What they want currently though is a payment just for linking to it. So not just a payment per exhibit but if I tell you about an exhibit then me simply telling you about the exhibit is charged, as opposed to (or more likely as well as) you paying entry.
I've read copy portraying the issue differently. Its not linking that they want dollah for, its the teaser paragraph that goes out on the link. Which I kind of get, but at the same time the Twitter feed of these news companies literally does this. A rule thats OK for them but not OK for someone else is not OK.
Sadly not the case.
"In September last year, Google announced that it would avoid signing license agreements with press publishers by only displaying a quantity of text necessary to meet baselines set out in the EU’s copyright directive, due to the fact that “very short extracts” are excluded from the scope of the directive.
At the time, the move provoked the ire of French policymakers, with France’s former Culture Minister Franck Riester calling Google’s decision “unacceptable”.
Digital Secretary Cédric O had also added that the tech giant’s move was “disrespectful of the spirit of the European directive and the French law”."
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
I don't think you read my post properly if you think the metric I was judging Starmer on was his time as prime minister?
I said the word Labour leader in there repeatedly, Corbyn was Labour leader wasn't he?
I don't actually understand the point of deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote, it seems very unlikely you missed the phrase Labour leader as I said Labour leader 4 times!! Right s Now you could argue that Starmer in the future will swing to the left if elected, you could equally argue that Starmer will swing to the right in future if elected, you can make the argument about anyone doing any number of things in the future. If I join the communist party in the future I will become a communist, but that doesn't make me one now.
Starmer is representing the right of the party, if there was an election now for Labour leader he would either be the choice of the right, or somebody else would, he wouldn't be the choice of the left of Labour. Pretty much because his actions since becoming leader have been to the right.
Starmer's reasoning for representing the right of the party don't really affect his place in the party. Blair was clearly from Labour's right, whatever motive you gave to his time in office wouldn't change his position within the party he'd still be Labour right.
And the trying to get Labour back into government bit is also suspect, looks more like the right of the party taking revenge now they have the leadership back.
My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. Other than lose two elections, which is fairly standard for the left wing in this country (cf 1983, 1987, 1959...)
But you started this exchange telling me Starmer was left wing, now all of a sudden it is unknowable because a LOTO cannot do anything...
Is there some logical consistency in here or are we going to circle back around at some point because I can't find any logical point in here whatsoever.
So you started by disagreeing we me and saying Starmer is actually a left Labour leader.
I countered by pointing out all his actions since becoming Labour leader show him to be on the right of the party and if he was voted Labour leader today it would be votes from the Labour right with the Labour left voting somebody else.
You then claimed my metric actually showed Corbyn was really right wing because he didn't become prime minister.
I then pointed out that my metric was on their time as Labour leader as I had mentioned Labour leader in my post multiple times.
Now you have said LOTO can not to anything so Corbyn did not do anything left wing.
So why did you say 'Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact.' but now say 'My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. '
Either we can ascribe a political position to LOTO who hasn't been prime minister or not.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it here by both describing Starmer as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO but claim Corbyn cannot be described as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO.
In fact using your metric from this quote (you claim its mine but it never appeared in any of my posts)
'Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.'
Going by the metric you use above Starmer is actually quite right wing.
But what the hell is your point really, you argued with me that Starmer was actually on the left of the party and when I pointed out his actions since becoming leader and his support base make him part of the right of Labour you claimed Corbyn was actually right wing.... I mean If your point is Corbyn is bad and Starmer is good knock yourself out but just say that rather than making up some rubbish...
Surely the problem here is how you opt to define "left" and "right". These are not fixed marks in politics - Blair was absolutely a left-winger compared to Thatcher. As was Harold "vote Conservative, look how many council houses we've built" Macmillan.
And again, debating how left wing the guy is misses the point. How left wing the leader, the MPs, the activists are doesn't matter as much as how left wing the potential voters are. The mission isn't to persuade hard left tossers that their strike action inside the party* is serious and should be respected, its to persuade voters that they should vote Labour.
*Some CLP officials are on strike from their duties (e.g. Secretary, Treasurer) protesting about some faux right wing outrage the party has done.
The main point in my original post was exactly about that, the votes from the public.
So lets say some blairite tossers are happy now they have power, stitch ups, stalinism faux left wing outrage etc. but the Labour right go back to getting worse results than Corbyn did in 2017 like they did before Corbyn 2017, would it be time to accept that even though it goes against the views on people of PB and left wing people are evil and immoral the electoral argument is with left Labour.
I mean if more people vote for left wing Labour than right wing Labour (because they are immoral and stupid) then surely the electoral argument moves to left wing Labour.
You can still make the argument for Blairite Labour on purity or preference grounds but when Starmer likely fails to match 2017 questions have to be asked if Labour should continue to appeal to the commentariat and PB or to actual normal voters?
For some reason when I read the article on my phone it didn't show who the author was. Now I know it's yours Richard, it was an excellent article and I agree with you completely.
This is a very dangerous idea. Simply linking to a site should never be charged. If it was a charge for copying and pasting that would be fair enough but that's not the case.
It's bizarre because news sites should be wanting lots of links to their news articles. I don't even understand what the proposed charge is trying to achieve.
One thing that I notice about most news websites is that they understand the power of links and they minimise outbound links.
So, if you have a Guardian article about any ONS statistics you will very rarely, if ever, see a link to the statistical release on the ONS website. They know that they don't want to boost the ONS in the search rankings by linking to them.
This demonstrates how important inbound links are. Why would you want to charge for them?
You're right about the lack of links. It can be quite annoying as it seems absurd not to link to say a government report if reporting on it, but they usually don't.
And that is (quite probably) how Facebook will address the problem.
AIs are getting quite good at particular tasks, and Facebook, like the rest of big tech, is spending quite a lot of money on them. It won't take all that long to train systems to browse the news sites, understand what the most interesting stories might be, track back to the original sources for the news, and rewrite the story, linking to the free to access original sources. Won't happen overnight, and it won't work for every news story, but I'm pretty sure it will happen (perhaps initially with some human editing of the stories).
For some reason when I read the article on my phone it didn't show who the author was. Now I know it's yours Richard, it was an excellent article and I agree with you completely.
This is a very dangerous idea. Simply linking to a site should never be charged. If it was a charge for copying and pasting that would be fair enough but that's not the case.
It's bizarre because news sites should be wanting lots of links to their news articles. I don't even understand what the proposed charge is trying to achieve.
One thing that I notice about most news websites is that they understand the power of links and they minimise outbound links.
So, if you have a Guardian article about any ONS statistics you will very rarely, if ever, see a link to the statistical release on the ONS website. They know that they don't want to boost the ONS in the search rankings by linking to them.
This demonstrates how important inbound links are. Why would you want to charge for them?
You're right about the lack of links. It can be quite annoying as it seems absurd not to link to say a government report if reporting on it, but they usually dont.
Mr. Tyndall, the furore was a while ago so I've forgotten some of the detail, but is that going to put things like videogame reviews and let's play videos at risk?
I realise most here won't personally care too much about that, but lots of people make a living that way and have significant followings.
In the original draft directive there was no exemption for reviews. I am not sure if that has been maintained into the final directive.
A bizarre thread attempting to defend the indefensible. Facebook is a disgusting organisation which, and this is the most bizarre aspect of RT's one-sided thread, constantly data mines to invade and intrude into personal privacy. One of its most egregious examples is in its new data privacy invasion rules on WhatsApp, which Facebook owns.
Let's be clear about this. It has nothing to do with freedom. It has everything to do with profit. The more Facebook can invade your privacy, the more it can manipulate what you see, when you see it, and what you can be coerced into buying. Facebook and Google are duopolies controlling around 65% of your access to the news and where a monopoly exists you can be certain that there your freedom and right to access any news you like ... ends.
As I say, a bizarre article. Richard has pinned his ultra-libertarian ideals to the wrong mast.
I really don't understand what your point is. We all know that for a social media service that is free at the point of use then there is a cost associated with in terms of data and advertising. How this is different from TV - subscription /:license and advertising, or NHS / schools through taxes I am not sure but it seems a bizarre objection.
In the end we don't have to use social media, and or we can use it as much / little as our concern over data or convenience lets us.
RT also highlights his concerns over Social media companies paying taxes, and coordination of digital advertising revenue taxes across the world would be a better move than this. In essence RT is saying that this will have a chilling effect on social media and sites such as PB. If you think this outcome is good then I am surprised.
Yes, the phrasing was a shade clumsy - perhaps I should have said "GB News will always be friendly to the Conservative Party, whether in Government or Opposition"
Seriously, if all we're going to get from GB News is a Fox News style approach where the Conservatives are either praised or treated with kid gloves (apart from anyone openly disagreeing with the Prime Minister who will be vilified) while Labour is criticised and attacked for anything and everything (except for any Labour person who openly criticises the Labour leader who will be praised to the skies) I won't be surprised.
In an ideal world, I'd like any news organisation not to be opinion-free (that's unrealistic) but content consistent. Criticise and challenge all parties equally isn't a bad place to start - praise and support all parties equally isn't a bad maxim either depending on the tone you want to adopt (the latter, a "positive spin on everything" might be the real guarantee of commercial success in the current climate).
I'd pay (though I don't think I should have to) for an equally robust approach across the political spectrum. I'm not paying to stand in my own echo chamber or even someone else's.
GB News will just make the already angry, angrier, just as Fox News does. It will be all about left wing bias at the BBC, how the EU are undermining the plucky English, how asylum seekers are prioritised over hard working Brits and statues.
Man, it's making me angry just thinking about it. Perhaps I should complain to my MP.
Either that, or consider it a spectrum bookend to the already-existing (and hyper-biased) Channel 4 News.
Significant numbers of people get their news through links on Facebook.
Those links are either to "free" sites or to pay walled sites.
If it is the former then users of facebook can access the news for free increasing the traffic on that site. If it is the latter than they can't unless they subscribe. Surely the issue here is the business model of the news media, not facebook?
If facebook use the content to put up stories on their site (as opposed to just links) they should pay for it. Otherwise...no, not really getting it.
The problem the news media have is that not enough people go to their sites direct so they lose out on advertising revenue. Facebook gets the advertising revenue because people use their site. Isn't that just tough?
The underlying problem is that the creation of news content costs money. How is that to be funded in the internet age? I suppose a tax on facebook links is one way but I am not sure it is a good one.
News sites could charge a very small fee for reading each page. Problem is theyd all have to implement it at pretty much the same time, otherwise people would mostly visit the ones that continue to be free.
People criticise facebook for all kinds of things - as I have mentioned, I have friends who were at Cambridge Analytica and they say that what they were doing differed little from what, say, the Graun does in terms of data analytics, albeit they would say that - but the reality, as the article notes, is that there is often a different agenda.
And being an oldie, I still use fb. I was going to get off it a couple of years ago and then, BLAM, a photo was posted from 25 years ago of a group I was in and those people all "got together" again so I do see the value.
What will do for it? A usurper, perhaps being conceived right now in someone's basement, as always with these kinds of things.
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
I signed up for Starlink at my place in France this week - 100€/month! I guess that Martian colony is going be expensive.
Starlink is a massive game-changer, if it works even half as well as trailed. Bringing high-speed internet to rural communities across the world.
In theory we can get ADSL at our house but in practice its sometimes fucked or really slow when it's not fucked. The cables appear to be attached to the pole with bailing twine and optimism so every time a cow farts in the adjacent field it comes down. Bretagne...
I think Starlink are on a collision course with governments in several jurisdictions who will not be amped on Starlink's direct to the customer unregulated model.
Every authoritarian regime on the globe. Plus the EU ?
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
That is the cost of getting into the museum. Pretty soon you are going to have to pay to look at each exhibit individually as well. And if you don't pay enough they will shuffle you off into the room displaying nothing but early 20th century telegraph poles and playing Reggie Wilson music.
The cruel jibe about the great Reggie notwithstanding, it's hard to argue.
Capitalism meets Democracy - news is a commodity just like baked beans. Those who "own" it wat to charge those who don't own it. If you don't want to pay for it, you don't hear it.
I'm a capitalist but I'm profoundly uncomfortable with that.
If those who own it want to put a paywall up to charge you for reading it, like The Times have done, that is fair enough.
What they want currently though is a payment just for linking to it. So not just a payment per exhibit but if I tell you about an exhibit then me simply telling you about the exhibit is charged, as opposed to (or more likely as well as) you paying entry.
I've read copy portraying the issue differently. Its not linking that they want dollah for, its the teaser paragraph that goes out on the link. Which I kind of get, but at the same time the Twitter feed of these news companies literally does this. A rule thats OK for them but not OK for someone else is not OK.
Sadly not the case.
"In September last year, Google announced that it would avoid signing license agreements with press publishers by only displaying a quantity of text necessary to meet baselines set out in the EU’s copyright directive, due to the fact that “very short extracts” are excluded from the scope of the directive.
At the time, the move provoked the ire of French policymakers, with France’s former Culture Minister Franck Riester calling Google’s decision “unacceptable”.
Digital Secretary Cédric O had also added that the tech giant’s move was “disrespectful of the spirit of the European directive and the French law”."
The common thread here, is that both the existing media companies and governments expected the internet companies to simply pay up, rather than adjusting their businesses to the new laws in a way that meant they didn't have to.
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
I don't think you read my post properly if you think the metric I was judging Starmer on was his time as prime minister?
I said the word Labour leader in there repeatedly, Corbyn was Labour leader wasn't he?
I don't actually understand the point of deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote, it seems very unlikely you missed the phrase Labour leader as I said Labour leader 4 times!! Right s Now you could argue that Starmer in the future will swing to the left if elected, you could equally argue that Starmer will swing to the right in future if elected, you can make the argument about anyone doing any number of things in the future. If I join the communist party in the future I will become a communist, but that doesn't make me one now.
Starmer is representing the right of the party, if there was an election now for Labour leader he would either be the choice of the right, or somebody else would, he wouldn't be the choice of the left of Labour. Pretty much because his actions since becoming leader have been to the right.
Starmer's reasoning for representing the right of the party don't really affect his place in the party. Blair was clearly from Labour's right, whatever motive you gave to his time in office wouldn't change his position within the party he'd still be Labour right.
And the trying to get Labour back into government bit is also suspect, looks more like the right of the party taking revenge now they have the leadership back.
My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. Other than lose two elections, which is fairly standard for the left wing in this country (cf 1983, 1987, 1959...)
But you started this exchange telling me Starmer was left wing, now all of a sudden it is unknowable because a LOTO cannot do anything...
Is there some logical consistency in here or are we going to circle back around at some point because I can't find any logical point in here whatsoever.
So you started by disagreeing we me and saying Starmer is actually a left Labour leader.
I countered by pointing out all his actions since becoming Labour leader show him to be on the right of the party and if he was voted Labour leader today it would be votes from the Labour right with the Labour left voting somebody else.
You then claimed my metric actually showed Corbyn was really right wing because he didn't become prime minister.
I then pointed out that my metric was on their time as Labour leader as I had mentioned Labour leader in my post multiple times.
Now you have said LOTO can not to anything so Corbyn did not do anything left wing.
So why did you say 'Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact.' but now say 'My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. '
Either we can ascribe a political position to LOTO who hasn't been prime minister or not.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it here by both describing Starmer as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO but claim Corbyn cannot be described as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO.
In fact using your metric from this quote (you claim its mine but it never appeared in any of my posts)
'Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.'
Going by the metric you use above Starmer is actually quite right wing.
But what the hell is your point really, you argued with me that Starmer was actually on the left of the party and when I pointed out his actions since becoming leader and his support base make him part of the right of Labour you claimed Corbyn was actually right wing.... I mean If your point is Corbyn is bad and Starmer is good knock yourself out but just say that rather than making up some rubbish...
Surely the problem here is how you opt to define "left" and "right". These are not fixed marks in politics - Blair was absolutely a left-winger compared to Thatcher. As was Harold "vote Conservative, look how many council houses we've built" Macmillan.
And again, debating how left wing the guy is misses the point. How left wing the leader, the MPs, the activists are doesn't matter as much as how left wing the potential voters are. The mission isn't to persuade hard left tossers that their strike action inside the party* is serious and should be respected, its to persuade voters that they should vote Labour.
*Some CLP officials are on strike from their duties (e.g. Secretary, Treasurer) protesting about some faux right wing outrage the party has done.
The main point in my original post was exactly about that, the votes from the public.
So lets say some blairite tossers are happy now they have power, stitch ups, stalinism faux left wing outrage etc. but the Labour right go back to getting worse results than Corbyn did in 2017 like they did before Corbyn 2017, would it be time to accept that even though it goes against the views on people of PB and left wing people are evil and immoral the electoral argument is with left Labour.
I mean if more people vote for left wing Labour than right wing Labour (because they are immoral and stupid) then surely the electoral argument moves to left wing Labour.
You can still make the argument for Blairite Labour on purity or preference grounds but when Starmer likely fails to match 2017 questions have to be asked if Labour should continue to appeal to the commentariat and PB or to actual normal voters?
And surely the latter is the answer...
Good points. So what happens if, as you acutely note, Corbyn 2017 was the apex for Lab?
Is it one more push or should there be an amended approach and if so what would that be?
What the Australians have done is going to hurt the Australian press not help it. For a big way of getting people to access paywall sites is to titillate them with a social media message and then users find they can only see the first part of the story and to read more they have to be registered paying users
The Australian press (or their representatives) seem to disagree? They've been lobbying for this for some time.
I don't think they expected Facebook's response.
Campaigners or politicians expecting nobody to change behaviour as a result is a longstanding reason why policies and taxes fail to work as intended.
Which is strange as Facebook had 3 options:-
1) pay what was demand without argument. 2) create a system to track what links appeared so you could work out who got what 3) add a few sites to the system that blocks links to blocked sites.
Option 3 was always going to be the implemented solution as that both protected their current business model and was the least work.
Its the same all the time though when people talk about taxes.
The thinking goes.
People do [this] x amount of times.
We should tax [this] by y
This will generate x.y of revenue
Almost nobody stops to think if you add tax y that will stop or reduce x so you will never get x.y revenue
For some reason when I read the article on my phone it didn't show who the author was. Now I know it's yours Richard, it was an excellent article and I agree with you completely.
This is a very dangerous idea. Simply linking to a site should never be charged. If it was a charge for copying and pasting that would be fair enough but that's not the case.
It's bizarre because news sites should be wanting lots of links to their news articles. I don't even understand what the proposed charge is trying to achieve.
One thing that I notice about most news websites is that they understand the power of links and they minimise outbound links.
So, if you have a Guardian article about any ONS statistics you will very rarely, if ever, see a link to the statistical release on the ONS website. They know that they don't want to boost the ONS in the search rankings by linking to them.
This demonstrates how important inbound links are. Why would you want to charge for them?
You're right about the lack of links. It can be quite annoying as it seems absurd not to link to say a government report if reporting on it, but they usually dont.
Ars Technica is a fantastic site that really knows their stuff and doesn't rely upon clickbait and keeping people on their own site to succeed. 👍🏻
And as Philip says it's using links absolutely correctly - the article makes a statement and provides a link so that you can read more or confirm that the statement is correct.
It's the perfect example of the error checking the Times and New York Times does but made visible for all to see.
This was thrown together late last night so I was relying mostly in my own immediate knowledge (I spent a lot of time looking at this a couple of years ago) and, ironically, a quick google to check my facts.
Sadly further research this morning has shown that in fact the EU Parliament has passed the Copyright Directive including the 'link tax' and 'meme ban'. It will effectively come into force in the EU in June 2021.
And what about the UK ? Pretty all encompassing: ...The EU has weighed in on to whom the directive will apply, only the biggest of websites need to be worried as a result of the talks that preceded the final Parliament vote. The directive will apply to every website unless it meets all of the following three conditions:
A startup that has been active for less than three years A Website with an annual turnover below 10 million A website with less than 5 million monthly unique visitors Upload filters will have to be applied for every website that fails to meet the narrow exclusions above which are many of the mainstream sites and apps used today. If the notoriously erroneous upload filters were to became mandatory, sites such as YouTube have said that they will cease to allow uploads completely from the EU.
Punishment for breaching the rules as set out in the copyright directive is unknown as of yet. Copyright breaches in the UK typically result in the handing of a three-to-six-month prison sentence and/or a 5,000 fine, so staying original has never been more important...
The last bit of he quotation is a little misleading - yes, copyright can be a criminal offence in the UK, but that tends to be reserved for the really willful infringement - the selling of bootleg DVDs (remember them?) down the market or, more recently, running file sharing sites (or of course the high profile if ridiculous individual torrent cases where someone downloading and seeding a film is supposed to have made 300k copies).
'White collar' style copyright infringement, copying too much on to a website or - in this case - unauthorised linking is much more likely to be a civil matter. Just as chilling, of course, but I don't see people ending up in prison over this.
(Source: I used to work in the UK Intellectual Property Office 'enforcement' division - although only in the sense that they decided, while I worked there, that they ought to have some kind of enforcement role, hired a couple of people - I've no idea what they actually did - and put them in my division, so we gained the "& enforcement" title. The Newport market traders quivered in fear!)
For some reason when I read the article on my phone it didn't show who the author was. Now I know it's yours Richard, it was an excellent article and I agree with you completely.
This is a very dangerous idea. Simply linking to a site should never be charged. If it was a charge for copying and pasting that would be fair enough but that's not the case.
It's bizarre because news sites should be wanting lots of links to their news articles. I don't even understand what the proposed charge is trying to achieve.
One thing that I notice about most news websites is that they understand the power of links and they minimise outbound links.
So, if you have a Guardian article about any ONS statistics you will very rarely, if ever, see a link to the statistical release on the ONS website. They know that they don't want to boost the ONS in the search rankings by linking to them.
This demonstrates how important inbound links are. Why would you want to charge for them?
You're right about the lack of links. It can be quite annoying as it seems absurd not to link to say a government report if reporting on it, but they usually dont.
Ars Technica is a fantastic site that really knows their stuff and doesn't rely upon clickbait and keeping people on their own site to succeed. 👍🏻
And as Philip says it's using links absolutely correctly - the article makes a statement and provides a link so that you can read more or confirm that the statement is correct.
It's the perfect example of the error checking the Times and New York Times does but made visible for all to see.
Although I do love the argument within the article that tries to explain why nothing has been done since the last cold winter in 2011 to fix the issues that were found then.
"Even if we had fixed the issues we found then, this winter is colder so it wouldn't have fixed all the issues" isn't quite the argument you may think it is.
TBH if the party does worse than Corbyn 2017 before Corbyn and does worse than Corbyn 2017 after Corbyn then surely the argument that even though they are all evil people and don't at all deserve representation and it is better to lose with millions of votes less....
That the Labour party marching over to the right is actually the less electorally sound position starts to have to be accepted even if you would prefer a different reality.
I realise that for a lot of people here that conveniently the right leader of the Labour party is one they prefer politically (guilty here also) but if the facts (with recent elections being the best facts we have in this regard) point to a left wing Labour doing better electorally than a right wing Labour then surely it would be crazy for Labour not to go for a left wing leader if Starmer fails.
I mean are Labour there to try and win votes or to please the commentariat and right wing people on PB?
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
I don't think you read my post properly if you think the metric I was judging Starmer on was his time as prime minister?
I said the word Labour leader in there repeatedly, Corbyn was Labour leader wasn't he?
I don't actually understand the point of deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote, it seems very unlikely you missed the phrase Labour leader as I said Labour leader 4 times!! Right s Now you could argue that Starmer in the future will swing to the left if elected, you could equally argue that Starmer will swing to the right in future if elected, you can make the argument about anyone doing any number of things in the future. If I join the communist party in the future I will become a communist, but that doesn't make me one now.
Starmer is representing the right of the party, if there was an election now for Labour leader he would either be the choice of the right, or somebody else would, he wouldn't be the choice of the left of Labour. Pretty much because his actions since becoming leader have been to the right.
Starmer's reasoning for representing the right of the party don't really affect his place in the party. Blair was clearly from Labour's right, whatever motive you gave to his time in office wouldn't change his position within the party he'd still be Labour right.
And the trying to get Labour back into government bit is also suspect, looks more like the right of the party taking revenge now they have the leadership back.
My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. Other than lose two elections, which is fairly standard for the left wing in this country (cf 1983, 1987, 1959...)
But you started this exchange telling me Starmer was left wing, now all of a sudden it is unknowable because a LOTO cannot do anything...
Is there some logical consistency in here or are we going to circle back around at some point because I can't find any logical point in here whatsoever.
So you started by disagreeing we me and saying Starmer is actually a left Labour leader.
I countered by pointing out all his actions since becoming Labour leader show him to be on the right of the party and if he was voted Labour leader today it would be votes from the Labour right with the Labour left voting somebody else.
You then claimed my metric actually showed Corbyn was really right wing because he didn't become prime minister.
I then pointed out that my metric was on their time as Labour leader as I had mentioned Labour leader in my post multiple times.
Now you have said LOTO can not to anything so Corbyn did not do anything left wing.
So why did you say 'Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact.' but now say 'My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. '
Either we can ascribe a political position to LOTO who hasn't been prime minister or not.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it here by both describing Starmer as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO but claim Corbyn cannot be described as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO.
In fact using your metric from this quote (you claim its mine but it never appeared in any of my posts)
'Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.'
Going by the metric you use above Starmer is actually quite right wing.
But what the hell is your point really, you argued with me that Starmer was actually on the left of the party and when I pointed out his actions since becoming leader and his support base make him part of the right of Labour you claimed Corbyn was actually right wing.... I mean If your point is Corbyn is bad and Starmer is good knock yourself out but just say that rather than making up some rubbish...
You seem to be conflating two separate issues, whether Starmer is "of the left" or "of the right", with whether Starmer is "of the left of the party" or "of the right of the party". This is a mistake some Tories make too.
This isn't Communist China, the party is not the be all and end all. In your case the party is to the left as a whole, indeed right now it is very far off to the left.
The choice in Labour at the minute isn't left or right, there is no right in Labour. It is centre-left, solidly left and extremely far left. Starmer is solidly left, but he's not extremely far left.
Why you have to add the weasel phrase "of the party" its clear you're not wanting to represent the country. Fine, let other parties lead the country then.
Wrong. TheJezziah is consistently saying that Starmer represents the right "of the Labour Party" (literally using those very words from the start). That is the question under discussion, I can't see any way to twist his meaning into what you are claiming.
What the Australians have done is going to hurt the Australian press not help it. For a big way of getting people to access paywall sites is to titillate them with a social media message and then users find they can only see the first part of the story and to read more they have to be registered paying users
The Australian press (or their representatives) seem to disagree? They've been lobbying for this for some time.
I don't think they expected Facebook's response.
Campaigners or politicians expecting nobody to change behaviour as a result is a longstanding reason why policies and taxes fail to work as intended.
Maybe the answer is for Facebook to be allowed to continue as it has by buying a Licence from the Govt. Then it is just a haggle over price. It has to be a number small enough for Facebook to play ball again.
Sorting it out would provide a model for the world to follow.
But that would be money for the government. I get the sense that this is all about lining the coffers of media companies.
But the fight would move away from Facebook - to how much of that licence fee from Facebook the Govt. passes on to domestic media companies.
Yes, the phrasing was a shade clumsy - perhaps I should have said "GB News will always be friendly to the Conservative Party, whether in Government or Opposition"
Seriously, if all we're going to get from GB News is a Fox News style approach where the Conservatives are either praised or treated with kid gloves (apart from anyone openly disagreeing with the Prime Minister who will be vilified) while Labour is criticised and attacked for anything and everything (except for any Labour person who openly criticises the Labour leader who will be praised to the skies) I won't be surprised.
In an ideal world, I'd like any news organisation not to be opinion-free (that's unrealistic) but content consistent. Criticise and challenge all parties equally isn't a bad place to start - praise and support all parties equally isn't a bad maxim either depending on the tone you want to adopt (the latter, a "positive spin on everything" might be the real guarantee of commercial success in the current climate).
I'd pay (though I don't think I should have to) for an equally robust approach across the political spectrum. I'm not paying to stand in my own echo chamber or even someone else's.
GB News will just make the already angry, angrier, just as Fox News does. It will be all about left wing bias at the BBC, how the EU are undermining the plucky English, how asylum seekers are prioritised over hard working Brits and statues.
Man, it's making me angry just thinking about it. Perhaps I should complain to my MP.
Either that, or consider it a spectrum bookend to the already-existing (and hyper-biased) Channel 4 News.
And ignore both.
It is very amusing that everyone getting themselves into a tizzy about GB News completely ignores the responses about Channel 4 News. Nobody wants to step in and say "yes that's a good point, fair enough" - or even attempt to claim that Channel 4 News is "fair and balanced".
Significant numbers of people get their news through links on Facebook.
Those links are either to "free" sites or to pay walled sites.
If it is the former then users of facebook can access the news for free increasing the traffic on that site. If it is the latter than they can't unless they subscribe. Surely the issue here is the business model of the news media, not facebook?
If facebook use the content to put up stories on their site (as opposed to just links) they should pay for it. Otherwise...no, not really getting it.
The problem the news media have is that not enough people go to their sites direct so they lose out on advertising revenue. Facebook gets the advertising revenue because people use their site. Isn't that just tough?
The underlying problem is that the creation of news content costs money. How is that to be funded in the internet age? I suppose a tax on facebook links is one way but I am not sure it is a good one.
News sites could charge a very small fee for reading each page. Problem is theyd all have to implement it at pretty much the same time, otherwise people would mostly visit the ones that continue to be free.
Yes, that is the problem with paywalls here. The Times often has good stories that are linked to here but as a non subscriber I can't read them. In the past people have copy pasted the best bits and the Times has given warning shots to OGH saying that is a breach of copyright. That seems to depend on the degree of copying but OGH of course wanted to play safe and discouraged the practice.
Would I read more Times stories if they were "free to air"? Undoubtedly. But the Times have made a business decision not to allow that in the hope I will subscribe. Which is fair enough. Trying to run a business off of advertising revenue seems pretty impossible, hence the begging messages from the Guardian.
Yes, the phrasing was a shade clumsy - perhaps I should have said "GB News will always be friendly to the Conservative Party, whether in Government or Opposition"
Seriously, if all we're going to get from GB News is a Fox News style approach where the Conservatives are either praised or treated with kid gloves (apart from anyone openly disagreeing with the Prime Minister who will be vilified) while Labour is criticised and attacked for anything and everything (except for any Labour person who openly criticises the Labour leader who will be praised to the skies) I won't be surprised.
In an ideal world, I'd like any news organisation not to be opinion-free (that's unrealistic) but content consistent. Criticise and challenge all parties equally isn't a bad place to start - praise and support all parties equally isn't a bad maxim either depending on the tone you want to adopt (the latter, a "positive spin on everything" might be the real guarantee of commercial success in the current climate).
I'd pay (though I don't think I should have to) for an equally robust approach across the political spectrum. I'm not paying to stand in my own echo chamber or even someone else's.
I hope that's not what we get, I don't want a Fox News style approach.
But why does nobody object to the fact we already have that in this country with Channel 4? Why does nobody object to the fact Labour are either treated with kid gloves (or attacked from the left) while the Tories are always attacked from the left?
I think that is merely your interpretation of Channel 4 News, granted many on here will agree with you. C4 News seems pretty balanced to me, and it is relatively serious
I was always very fond of the BBC News, however over the last ten years they have become so reluctant to be seen to be biased against the party of the day in Westminster they pull stupid stunts like substituting the 2019 Cenotaph footage with that from 2016 for fear of antagonising the Prime Minister. I don't believe that to mean there is a Conservative bias at the BBC, it is just those editing the BBC News, have lost site of what impartiality means. All except Naga who is happy to give any Tory Minister a good hiding, but then she is balanced out by Emma Barnett who will give anyone outside the Conservative Party a good kicking!
Very interesting article. I'm not sure we know enough yet, and secondly, the law and common sense have not yet caught up with a cataclysmic new reality.
It seems to me that the questions that need considering can begin with the pub.
Scenes:
We are in the pub and have a political conversation and Alf says he's read an article in his hard copy New Statesman and it's worth looking at. You go out and buy a copy/he lends you his copy.
Ditto and he summarises it verbally.
Ditto and you photocopy his NS
Ditto and you do 100 copies and give them to your friends
Ditto and you sell then copies.
Ditto but you copy the article from link on Facebook.
These examples can be multiplied for ever.
In the UK what is legal and what illegal among these examples is legislated for, and some industries (sheet music publishing for example) have been pretty good at enforcing it.
The current internet law has many problems. Among them are the scale and unenforceability of any provisions whatever and the fact that platforms which in the old days would be publishers (like hard copy New Statesman) are now subject to laws as if they were private phone calls, even though there is a potential audience of billions.
In Richard Tyndall's article he instances how governments are wanting to stop the equivalent of pub conversation. I'm not convinced. PB discussion as such is unaffected. I think they are struggling to find a way to prevent the appropriation of property the same as if I do thousands of copies of the NS and don't pay for them, while sometimes making money out of it myself.
For some reason when I read the article on my phone it didn't show who the author was. Now I know it's yours Richard, it was an excellent article and I agree with you completely.
This is a very dangerous idea. Simply linking to a site should never be charged. If it was a charge for copying and pasting that would be fair enough but that's not the case.
It's bizarre because news sites should be wanting lots of links to their news articles. I don't even understand what the proposed charge is trying to achieve.
One thing that I notice about most news websites is that they understand the power of links and they minimise outbound links.
So, if you have a Guardian article about any ONS statistics you will very rarely, if ever, see a link to the statistical release on the ONS website. They know that they don't want to boost the ONS in the search rankings by linking to them.
This demonstrates how important inbound links are. Why would you want to charge for them?
You're right about the lack of links. It can be quite annoying as it seems absurd not to link to say a government report if reporting on it, but they usually dont.
Mr. Thompson, I stopped watching Channel 4 News when Jon Snow claimed not being able to report on Prince Harry's location in Afghanistan (due to a D-notice) was 'Soviet style censorship'.
For some reason when I read the article on my phone it didn't show who the author was. Now I know it's yours Richard, it was an excellent article and I agree with you completely.
This is a very dangerous idea. Simply linking to a site should never be charged. If it was a charge for copying and pasting that would be fair enough but that's not the case.
It's bizarre because news sites should be wanting lots of links to their news articles. I don't even understand what the proposed charge is trying to achieve.
One thing that I notice about most news websites is that they understand the power of links and they minimise outbound links.
So, if you have a Guardian article about any ONS statistics you will very rarely, if ever, see a link to the statistical release on the ONS website. They know that they don't want to boost the ONS in the search rankings by linking to them.
This demonstrates how important inbound links are. Why would you want to charge for them?
You're right about the lack of links. It can be quite annoying as it seems absurd not to link to say a government report if reporting on it, but they usually don't.
And that is (quite probably) how Facebook will address the problem.
AIs are getting quite good at particular tasks, and Facebook, like the rest of big tech, is spending quite a lot of money on them. It won't take all that long to train systems to browse the news sites, understand what the most interesting stories might be, track back to the original sources for the news, and rewrite the story, linking to the free to access original sources. Won't happen overnight, and it won't work for every news story, but I'm pretty sure it will happen (perhaps initially with some human editing of the stories).
Scott might attempt something similar for PB...
Whilst I understand your comment I think you misunderstand the nature of Facebook.
Facebook are not a news agglomeration service. They do not, as a company, provide news content for their users. In fact facebook put up almost no content - either of their own creation or created by someone else - at all.
They provide a platform on which the users post links and articles and make comments. As such, short of banning those links and articles, there is nothing Facebook can do about them. There is no way that AIs can modify or rewrite them. This is the crux of the problem. For all that they would like to frame it that way, these new laws are not an attack on Facebook as such but on the users who will no longer be able to link to articles or discussion.
Very interesting article. I'm not sure we know enough yet, and secondly, the law and common sense have not yet caught up with a cataclysmic new reality.
It seems to me that the questions that need considering can begin with the pub.
Scenes:
We are in the pub and have a political conversation and Alf says he's read an article in his hard copy New Statesman and it's worth looking at. You go out and buy a copy/he lends you his copy.
Ditto and he summarises it verbally.
Ditto and you photocopy his NS
Ditto and you do 100 copies and give them to your friends
Ditto and you sell then copies.
Ditto but you copy the article from link on Facebook.
These examples can be multiplied for ever.
In the UK what is legal and what illegal among these examples is legislated for, and some industries (sheet music publishing for example) have been pretty good at enforcing it.
The current internet law has many problems. Among them are the scale and unenforceability of any provisions whatever and the fact that platforms which in the old days would be publishers (like hard copy New Statesman) are now subject to laws as if they were private phone calls, even though there is a potential audience of billions.
In Richard Tyndall's article he instances how governments are wanting to stop the equivalent of pub conversation. I'm not convinced. PB discussion as such is unaffected. I think they are struggling to find a way to prevent the appropriation of property the same as if I do thousands of copies of the NS and don't pay for them, while sometimes making money out of it myself.
I would agree if the law was regarding copying the article. It is not. It is about linking to it. As such, if applied in the same way to PB it would not just affect those posting excerpts from articles but would apply to any link at all.
TBH if the party does worse than Corbyn 2017 before Corbyn and does worse than Corbyn 2017 after Corbyn then surely the argument that even though they are all evil people and don't at all deserve representation and it is better to lose with millions of votes less....
That the Labour party marching over to the right is actually the less electorally sound position starts to have to be accepted even if you would prefer a different reality.
I realise that for a lot of people here that conveniently the right leader of the Labour party is one they prefer politically (guilty here also) but if the facts (with recent elections being the best facts we have in this regard) point to a left wing Labour doing better electorally than a right wing Labour then surely it would be crazy for Labour not to go for a left wing leader if Starmer fails.
I mean are Labour there to try and win votes or to please the commentariat and right wing people on PB?
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
I don't think you read my post properly if you think the metric I was judging Starmer on was his time as prime minister?
I said the word Labour leader in there repeatedly, Corbyn was Labour leader wasn't he?
I don't actually understand the point of deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote, it seems very unlikely you missed the phrase Labour leader as I said Labour leader 4 times!! Right s Now you could argue that Starmer in the future will swing to the left if elected, you could equally argue that Starmer will swing to the right in future if elected, you can make the argument about anyone doing any number of things in the future. If I join the communist party in the future I will become a communist, but that doesn't make me one now.
Starmer is representing the right of the party, if there was an election now for Labour leader he would either be the choice of the right, or somebody else would, he wouldn't be the choice of the left of Labour. Pretty much because his actions since becoming leader have been to the right.
Starmer's reasoning for representing the right of the party don't really affect his place in the party. Blair was clearly from Labour's right, whatever motive you gave to his time in office wouldn't change his position within the party he'd still be Labour right.
And the trying to get Labour back into government bit is also suspect, looks more like the right of the party taking revenge now they have the leadership back.
My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. Other than lose two elections, which is fairly standard for the left wing in this country (cf 1983, 1987, 1959...)
But you started this exchange telling me Starmer was left wing, now all of a sudden it is unknowable because a LOTO cannot do anything...
Is there some logical consistency in here or are we going to circle back around at some point because I can't find any logical point in here whatsoever.
So you started by disagreeing we me and saying Starmer is actually a left Labour leader.
I countered by pointing out all his actions since becoming Labour leader show him to be on the right of the party and if he was voted Labour leader today it would be votes from the Labour right with the Labour left voting somebody else.
You then claimed my metric actually showed Corbyn was really right wing because he didn't become prime minister.
I then pointed out that my metric was on their time as Labour leader as I had mentioned Labour leader in my post multiple times.
Now you have said LOTO can not to anything so Corbyn did not do anything left wing.
So why did you say 'Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact.' but now say 'My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. '
Either we can ascribe a political position to LOTO who hasn't been prime minister or not.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it here by both describing Starmer as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO but claim Corbyn cannot be described as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO.
In fact using your metric from this quote (you claim its mine but it never appeared in any of my posts)
'Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.'
Going by the metric you use above Starmer is actually quite right wing.
But what the hell is your point really, you argued with me that Starmer was actually on the left of the party and when I pointed out his actions since becoming leader and his support base make him part of the right of Labour you claimed Corbyn was actually right wing.... I mean If your point is Corbyn is bad and Starmer is good knock yourself out but just say that rather than making up some rubbish...
You seem to be conflating two separate issues, whether Starmer is "of the left" or "of the right", with whether Starmer is "of the left of the party" or "of the right of the party". This is a mistake some Tories make too.
This isn't Communist China, the party is not the be all and end all. In your case the party is to the left as a whole, indeed right now it is very far off to the left.
The choice in Labour at the minute isn't left or right, there is no right in Labour. It is centre-left, solidly left and extremely far left. Starmer is solidly left, but he's not extremely far left.
Why you have to add the weasel phrase "of the party" its clear you're not wanting to represent the country. Fine, let other parties lead the country then.
Wrong. TheJezziah is consistently saying that Starmer represents the right "of the Labour Party" (literally using those very words from the start). That is the question under discussion, I can't see any way to twist his meaning into what you are claiming.
Wrong. I'll repost the post I replied to putting in bold times of generic "left or right" and underlining "of the party" times.
But you started this exchange telling me Starmer was left wing, now all of a sudden it is unknowable because a LOTO cannot do anything...
Is there some logical consistency in here or are we going to circle back around at some point because I can't find any logical point in here whatsoever.
So you started by disagreeing we me and saying Starmer is actually a left Labour leader.
I countered by pointing out all his actions since becoming Labour leader show him to be on the right of the party and if he was voted Labour leader today it would be votes from the Labour right with the Labour left voting somebody else.
You then claimed my metric actually showed Corbyn was really right wing because he didn't become prime minister.
I then pointed out that my metric was on their time as Labour leader as I had mentioned Labour leader in my post multiple times.
Now you have said LOTO can not to anything so Corbyn did not do anything left wing.
So why did you say 'Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact.' but now say 'My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. '
Either we can ascribe a political position to LOTO who hasn't been prime minister or not.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it here by both describing Starmer as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO but claim Corbyn cannot be described as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO.
In fact using your metric from this quote (you claim its mine but it never appeared in any of my posts)
'Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.'
Going by the metric you use above Starmer is actually quite right wing.
But what the hell is your point really, you argued with me that Starmer was actually on the left of the party and when I pointed out his actions since becoming leader and his support base make him part of the right of Labour you claimed Corbyn was actually right wing.... I mean If your point is Corbyn is bad and Starmer is good knock yourself out but just say that rather than making up some rubbish...
The conversation is jumping from left wing or right wing to left of the party or right of the party. Given Labour as a whole is left wing, its different shades of left wing being debated.
I don't want the extreme far right in my party. It is perfectly reasonable for Labour not to want the extreme far left in theirs.
For some reason when I read the article on my phone it didn't show who the author was. Now I know it's yours Richard, it was an excellent article and I agree with you completely.
This is a very dangerous idea. Simply linking to a site should never be charged. If it was a charge for copying and pasting that would be fair enough but that's not the case.
It's bizarre because news sites should be wanting lots of links to their news articles. I don't even understand what the proposed charge is trying to achieve.
One thing that I notice about most news websites is that they understand the power of links and they minimise outbound links.
So, if you have a Guardian article about any ONS statistics you will very rarely, if ever, see a link to the statistical release on the ONS website. They know that they don't want to boost the ONS in the search rankings by linking to them.
This demonstrates how important inbound links are. Why would you want to charge for them?
You're right about the lack of links. It can be quite annoying as it seems absurd not to link to say a government report if reporting on it, but they usually don't.
And that is (quite probably) how Facebook will address the problem.
AIs are getting quite good at particular tasks, and Facebook, like the rest of big tech, is spending quite a lot of money on them. It won't take all that long to train systems to browse the news sites, understand what the most interesting stories might be, track back to the original sources for the news, and rewrite the story, linking to the free to access original sources. Won't happen overnight, and it won't work for every news story, but I'm pretty sure it will happen (perhaps initially with some human editing of the stories).
Scott might attempt something similar for PB...
Whilst I understand your comment I think you misunderstand the nature of Facebook.
Facebook are not a news agglomeration service. They do not, as a company, provide news content for their users. In fact facebook put up almost no content - either of their own creation or created by someone else - at all.
They provide a platform on which the users post links and articles and make comments. As such, short of banning those links and articles, there is nothing Facebook can do about them. There is no way that AIs can modify or rewrite them. This is the crux of the problem. For all that they would like to frame it that way, these new laws are not an attack on Facebook as such but on the users who will no longer be able to link to articles or discussion.
In which case the AIs might present the user who tries to link to a news site with an alternate link the the Facebook story... ?
I understand your point, but Facebook, if necessary, will try their best to modify their business in response. Going news blackout on various parts of the world is, for them, a problem to be solved. And perhaps a business opportunity.
Very interesting article. I'm not sure we know enough yet, and secondly, the law and common sense have not yet caught up with a cataclysmic new reality.
It seems to me that the questions that need considering can begin with the pub.
Scenes:
We are in the pub and have a political conversation and Alf says he's read an article in his hard copy New Statesman and it's worth looking at. You go out and buy a copy/he lends you his copy.
Ditto and he summarises it verbally.
Ditto and you photocopy his NS
Ditto and you do 100 copies and give them to your friends
Ditto and you sell then copies.
Ditto but you copy the article from link on Facebook.
These examples can be multiplied for ever.
In the UK what is legal and what illegal among these examples is legislated for, and some industries (sheet music publishing for example) have been pretty good at enforcing it.
The current internet law has many problems. Among them are the scale and unenforceability of any provisions whatever and the fact that platforms which in the old days would be publishers (like hard copy New Statesman) are now subject to laws as if they were private phone calls, even though there is a potential audience of billions.
In Richard Tyndall's article he instances how governments are wanting to stop the equivalent of pub conversation. I'm not convinced. PB discussion as such is unaffected. I think they are struggling to find a way to prevent the appropriation of property the same as if I do thousands of copies of the NS and don't pay for them, while sometimes making money out of it myself.
Except the payment isn't for copying the article. The payment the australians have brought in for a link to the article on the newspapers own site
In pub conversation terms its....there is a good article called x in the new statesmen you should read it
Mr. Ace, yes and no. Even the simplified F1 wings are far more complex than those of the IndyCar you put up.
That's more a function of the regulations and the tracks. F1 mandates the 'neutral' section in the middle of the front aero and in F1, Cl is more important than Cd so we get baroque multi element aero to maximise Cl.
In IndyCar the speeds are much higher (they can average 230mph+ over a lap of the brickyard) and there is no regulated neutral section so they are optimising for low Cd at the expense of Cl.
Its odd when RIchard Littlejohn is more pro-vaccine than a number of European politicians.
"RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: No jab, no job - it's a no-brainer. We live in a relatively free country where vaccination against anything is not compulsory... but why would anyone object?"
Back to optimising vaccine rollout, there are three parts of the equation which are going to be slightly different for each country
Supply, demand, maximum throughput speed, determined priority.
The UK is in the good position of having strong supply, strong demand and strong maximum throughput speed. One of the limiters on throughput speed is eligibility checks for those receiving the vaccine, the JCVI might have looked at what has been happening with group 6 constantly being bumped up, perhaps administration has slowed it a little... Checking who is or isn't a key worker. OK you start with teachers and police, but then you'll need bus drivers; and binmen. Do private plumbers count ? They're quite key... vets - well if you have an animal you'll want them - just adds complexity... it might be appropriate if you have weak supply and a low maximum throughput speed but if your rollout is going quickly then a simple (age) rather than complex (key worker) priority system is best.
For some reason when I read the article on my phone it didn't show who the author was. Now I know it's yours Richard, it was an excellent article and I agree with you completely.
This is a very dangerous idea. Simply linking to a site should never be charged. If it was a charge for copying and pasting that would be fair enough but that's not the case.
It's bizarre because news sites should be wanting lots of links to their news articles. I don't even understand what the proposed charge is trying to achieve.
One thing that I notice about most news websites is that they understand the power of links and they minimise outbound links.
So, if you have a Guardian article about any ONS statistics you will very rarely, if ever, see a link to the statistical release on the ONS website. They know that they don't want to boost the ONS in the search rankings by linking to them.
This demonstrates how important inbound links are. Why would you want to charge for them?
You're right about the lack of links. It can be quite annoying as it seems absurd not to link to say a government report if reporting on it, but they usually dont.
Ars Technica is a fantastic site that really knows their stuff and doesn't rely upon clickbait and keeping people on their own site to succeed. 👍🏻
Yep. The annoying thing is that for scientific research Ars do a decent and normally pretty accurate write up, so I don't often need to follow the link unless I'm really interested in the detail. BBC or Guardian etc the write-up is normally so vague that I really need the link to see what was really found, but the link is not there and I have to hope Google can find it for me from the details in the article.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
Looking at the answers with a significant gap between the two men, it seems people would like to go out for a night out with Boris while Sir Keir stays in and assembles their flat pack furniture
Yes, the phrasing was a shade clumsy - perhaps I should have said "GB News will always be friendly to the Conservative Party, whether in Government or Opposition"
Seriously, if all we're going to get from GB News is a Fox News style approach where the Conservatives are either praised or treated with kid gloves (apart from anyone openly disagreeing with the Prime Minister who will be vilified) while Labour is criticised and attacked for anything and everything (except for any Labour person who openly criticises the Labour leader who will be praised to the skies) I won't be surprised.
In an ideal world, I'd like any news organisation not to be opinion-free (that's unrealistic) but content consistent. Criticise and challenge all parties equally isn't a bad place to start - praise and support all parties equally isn't a bad maxim either depending on the tone you want to adopt (the latter, a "positive spin on everything" might be the real guarantee of commercial success in the current climate).
I'd pay (though I don't think I should have to) for an equally robust approach across the political spectrum. I'm not paying to stand in my own echo chamber or even someone else's.
I hope that's not what we get, I don't want a Fox News style approach.
But why does nobody object to the fact we already have that in this country with Channel 4? Why does nobody object to the fact Labour are either treated with kid gloves (or attacked from the left) while the Tories are always attacked from the left?
I think that is merely your interpretation of Channel 4 News, granted many on here will agree with you. C4 News seems pretty balanced to me, and it is relatively serious
I was always very fond of the BBC News, however over the last ten years they have become so reluctant to be seen to be biased against the party of the day in Westminster they pull stupid stunts like substituting the 2019 Cenotaph footage with that from 2016 for fear of antagonising the Prime Minister. I don't believe that to mean there is a Conservative bias at the BBC, it is just those editing the BBC News, have lost site of what impartiality means. All except Naga who is happy to give any Tory Minister a good hiding, but then she is balanced out by Emma Barnett who will give anyone outside the Conservative Party a good kicking!
For some reason when I read the article on my phone it didn't show who the author was. Now I know it's yours Richard, it was an excellent article and I agree with you completely.
This is a very dangerous idea. Simply linking to a site should never be charged. If it was a charge for copying and pasting that would be fair enough but that's not the case.
It's bizarre because news sites should be wanting lots of links to their news articles. I don't even understand what the proposed charge is trying to achieve.
One thing that I notice about most news websites is that they understand the power of links and they minimise outbound links.
So, if you have a Guardian article about any ONS statistics you will very rarely, if ever, see a link to the statistical release on the ONS website. They know that they don't want to boost the ONS in the search rankings by linking to them.
This demonstrates how important inbound links are. Why would you want to charge for them?
You're right about the lack of links. It can be quite annoying as it seems absurd not to link to say a government report if reporting on it, but they usually don't.
And that is (quite probably) how Facebook will address the problem.
AIs are getting quite good at particular tasks, and Facebook, like the rest of big tech, is spending quite a lot of money on them. It won't take all that long to train systems to browse the news sites, understand what the most interesting stories might be, track back to the original sources for the news, and rewrite the story, linking to the free to access original sources. Won't happen overnight, and it won't work for every news story, but I'm pretty sure it will happen (perhaps initially with some human editing of the stories).
Scott might attempt something similar for PB...
Whilst I understand your comment I think you misunderstand the nature of Facebook.
Facebook are not a news agglomeration service. They do not, as a company, provide news content for their users. In fact facebook put up almost no content - either of their own creation or created by someone else - at all.
They provide a platform on which the users post links and articles and make comments. As such, short of banning those links and articles, there is nothing Facebook can do about them. There is no way that AIs can modify or rewrite them. This is the crux of the problem. For all that they would like to frame it that way, these new laws are not an attack on Facebook as such but on the users who will no longer be able to link to articles or discussion.
In which case the AIs present the user who tries to link to a news site with an alternate link the the Facebook story...
Surely the problem there, as we well now, is context again. Rightly or wrongly I am more likely to trust an article researched and written by a journalist from the Times or the Guardian than one from the Express or Mirror. If you are saying that Facebook should rewrite these news stories then you are putting yourself at the mercy of their own bias.
This is what is so ludicrous about this. Facebook and Google drive readers to these outlets. In effect what your solution would do is set up a competitor to them and so further reduce their readership.
Surely the key question for Labour members isn't where politically is Starmer, but where politically are the millions of votes they need to recover? Most voters consider themselves in the centre ground - and that includes most Labour / Tory supporters who abhor the extremes at either end of the political spectrum.
I can understand the howls of anguish from Labour's left that "not enough was done by the Blair government" because its clearly true. However, the reality check has to be that you can't win an election by promising to go much further as the votes aren't there. Unless you are elected into office you can't actually do anything, regardless f how righteous you may believe your cause to be.
Whether Starmer is left or right is a distraction from the real question of "is he any good". I'm not sure the Labour Party is leadable at the moment, anyone would struggle in the job. Keith though seems to be missing any real political antennae, and that ultimately is why he will fail.
When people look back on this albeit extraordinary period of time there foggy memory might be "oh yes the bloke that agreed with the government about everything".
To then branch out with a differentiating policy platform (whether it actually is or not) will be seen in the context of them having voted with the government multiple times previously.
During an emergency. Sounds like a reasonable chap.
We shall see. Once the immediacy of this has passed, perhaps an enquiry or a narrative emerges of the govt f*cking it up, perhaps an almighty f*ck up is identified (care homes anyone?) then Lab will have been the Opposition that supported it all.
Sorry, but you really haven't been listening/reading. Labour has been highly critical of many aspects of government crisis policy and the ensuing high death rate. Locking down too late in March, November and January. Easing too many restrictions too quickly back in May. Poorly targeted financial support for self-employed. Not enough financial help for self-isolation. Lucrative contracts for mates. Poor controls at the border. Not enough localised track and trace. I could go on.
Where Labour hasn't been critical is over the broad thrust of policy: the way to reduce and then get rid of the virus is through severely restricting social interactions and then through vaccination. And that's because Labour (rightly) agrees with this approach to reducing Covid.
Yes, the phrasing was a shade clumsy - perhaps I should have said "GB News will always be friendly to the Conservative Party, whether in Government or Opposition"
Seriously, if all we're going to get from GB News is a Fox News style approach where the Conservatives are either praised or treated with kid gloves (apart from anyone openly disagreeing with the Prime Minister who will be vilified) while Labour is criticised and attacked for anything and everything (except for any Labour person who openly criticises the Labour leader who will be praised to the skies) I won't be surprised.
In an ideal world, I'd like any news organisation not to be opinion-free (that's unrealistic) but content consistent. Criticise and challenge all parties equally isn't a bad place to start - praise and support all parties equally isn't a bad maxim either depending on the tone you want to adopt (the latter, a "positive spin on everything" might be the real guarantee of commercial success in the current climate).
I'd pay (though I don't think I should have to) for an equally robust approach across the political spectrum. I'm not paying to stand in my own echo chamber or even someone else's.
I hope that's not what we get, I don't want a Fox News style approach.
But why does nobody object to the fact we already have that in this country with Channel 4? Why does nobody object to the fact Labour are either treated with kid gloves (or attacked from the left) while the Tories are always attacked from the left?
I think that is merely your interpretation of Channel 4 News, granted many on here will agree with you. C4 News seems pretty balanced to me, and it is relatively serious
I was always very fond of the BBC News, however over the last ten years they have become so reluctant to be seen to be biased against the party of the day in Westminster they pull stupid stunts like substituting the 2019 Cenotaph footage with that from 2016 for fear of antagonising the Prime Minister. I don't believe that to mean there is a Conservative bias at the BBC, it is just those editing the BBC News, have lost site of what impartiality means. All except Naga who is happy to give any Tory Minister a good hiding, but then she is balanced out by Emma Barnett who will give anyone outside the Conservative Party a good kicking!
"C4 News seems pretty balanced to me"
Houston, we have a problem.....
Indeed.
Some people claim that the Beeb is balanced as its attacked by right and left. I'm not sure that's a fair measure of impartiality but if it is, then Channel 4 is not attacked by the left.
Meanwhile, the Twitter response to Keith Cardboard's relaunch speech was predictable. The hard left can't accept that people have rejected them twice, so any failure of "the right" gets them excited for prospects of a return to true socialism.
Having listened to the speech live I still can't tell you what he said as he didn't say much and what he did say was so bland and tedious as to make you zone out. Reading some of the reportage he was pro-business partnerships and anti-poverty - all good things but missing the so what factor.
Politics is sales, and sadly for Labour they have no idea what punters actually want, hence being Here to Here and agreeing with the government about the pressing need to cut funding for school breakfast clubs. Starmer is Milliband - nice but crap, someone who means well, probably genuinely wants to do good, but is so "other" that people won't listen or care what he says.
I would argue Labour should try again with a new leader but like the Tories I struggle to see who they replace their crap leader with.
Well, Starmer still has a couple of years at least until a likely election date and hopefully he can make some progress. Another big Tory win could easily see the wounded Labour membership draw the wrong conclusions - again - and bring back the loony Left in a 2015-style fit of pique. Most likely we then turn into a Japanese-style one-party democracy; or the Tories make such a hash of things further down the line (or simply fall victim to traditional voter fatigue with long-serving administrations) that the loonies actually get to run the country. Neither prospect is particularly appealing.
TBH if the party does worse than Corbyn 2017 before Corbyn and does worse than Corbyn 2017 after Corbyn then surely the argument that even though they are all evil people and don't at all deserve representation and it is better to lose with millions of votes less....
That the Labour party marching over to the right is actually the less electorally sound position starts to have to be accepted even if you would prefer a different reality.
I realise that for a lot of people here that conveniently the right leader of the Labour party is one they prefer politically (guilty here also) but if the facts (with recent elections being the best facts we have in this regard) point to a left wing Labour doing better electorally than a right wing Labour then surely it would be crazy for Labour not to go for a left wing leader if Starmer fails.
I mean are Labour there to try and win votes or to please the commentariat and right wing people on PB?
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
If we're judging by actions then Corbyn ushered in an eighty seat majority for the Tories, nearly a decade after the Tories entered Downing Street.
Thanks Jezziah! 👍
That was the first election since 1865 where a governing party that had lost seats at a previous election made a net gain of them, and the first time ever a party that had been in government for nine years or more increased their majority.
It was a stunningly bad performance by Labour from every metric. It just should not have happened.
Fantastic that it did though.
For us, not the left.
For *you* PhilIip not *us* please. I never voted for Johnson.
It was a very bad result for anyone who wants proper two party democracy. In fact, just about the worst imaginable.
"Us" on the right.
And in my eyes the country, but that's just my opinion.
And in my opinion for those who want proper two party democracy since it should have provided a wake up call to the left rather than them wanting a "one more heave" approach.
I agree it should. But it clearly hasn’t.
The fact Keith won instead of Wrong Daily shows they've at least learned some lessons. Not enough perhaps but some. But even he's pretty left of centre.
Possibly one more teachable moment in 2024 then it can sink in? Happy for them to get as many lessons as they need.
The problem here is claiming Keith as left wing when his entire tenure as Labour leader has consisted of kicking the left for the rights entertainment is going to be a hard sell...
He's not kicking the left. He is the left. He's kicking the extreme far left.
I support the Tories. I recognise both Boris Johnson and David Cameron as right wing.
I have no problems whatsoever with either Boris or Dave "kicking" the extreme far right. Indeed I welcome it.
TBH in Conservative terms the example probably would be Dave kicking Boris' ass, I can't imagine it would actually be too welcome in reality...
Okay extreme far left (a new one I think, bit of a mouthful though too many words) is pretty much just considered left in Labour circles, nationalising railways and opposing war and such pretty common place outside of Blairite circles in the party TBH, sorry if this comes as bad news but 'extreme far left' is pretty much just regular mainstream left...
There is lots of left (not great in population numbers) that wouldn't vote for Corbyn even as a compromise (whilst some communist party or another did advise voting Labour in 2015)
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
I signed up for Starlink at my place in France this week - 100€/month! I guess that Martian colony is going be expensive.
Starlink is a massive game-changer, if it works even half as well as trailed. Bringing high-speed internet to rural communities across the world.
In theory we can get ADSL at our house but in practice its sometimes fucked or really slow when it's not fucked. The cables appear to be attached to the pole with bailing twine and optimism so every time a cow farts in the adjacent field it comes down. Bretagne...
I think Starlink are on a collision course with governments in several jurisdictions who will not be amped on Starlink's direct to the customer unregulated model.
Starlink meeting china is going to be a sight to behold but it's going to have significant impact in the Middle East where the price won't be so much of an issue.
Starlink won't operate in Russia, for example - there was a preemptive ban, but I'm not sure if they even applied for a license.
The terminals are geo-fenced. That is, since they require exact positioning to work, they use GPS to locate themselves. If they are outside their assigned location, they won't work. Movable terminals will come later apparently.
The law is quite clear. To transmit in the territory of a given country, you require a license (nearly everywhere). So Starlink is going through the list of countries in the UN, applying for licenses.
They have stated that they will use the geo-fencing to prevent usage, even of the future mobile terminals, in countries that refuse a license.
The idea that they are going to become sky pirates is entertaining, but not borne out by the facts.
For some reason when I read the article on my phone it didn't show who the author was. Now I know it's yours Richard, it was an excellent article and I agree with you completely.
This is a very dangerous idea. Simply linking to a site should never be charged. If it was a charge for copying and pasting that would be fair enough but that's not the case.
It's bizarre because news sites should be wanting lots of links to their news articles. I don't even understand what the proposed charge is trying to achieve.
One thing that I notice about most news websites is that they understand the power of links and they minimise outbound links.
So, if you have a Guardian article about any ONS statistics you will very rarely, if ever, see a link to the statistical release on the ONS website. They know that they don't want to boost the ONS in the search rankings by linking to them.
This demonstrates how important inbound links are. Why would you want to charge for them?
You're right about the lack of links. It can be quite annoying as it seems absurd not to link to say a government report if reporting on it, but they usually don't.
And that is (quite probably) how Facebook will address the problem.
AIs are getting quite good at particular tasks, and Facebook, like the rest of big tech, is spending quite a lot of money on them. It won't take all that long to train systems to browse the news sites, understand what the most interesting stories might be, track back to the original sources for the news, and rewrite the story, linking to the free to access original sources. Won't happen overnight, and it won't work for every news story, but I'm pretty sure it will happen (perhaps initially with some human editing of the stories).
Scott might attempt something similar for PB...
Whilst I understand your comment I think you misunderstand the nature of Facebook.
Facebook are not a news agglomeration service. They do not, as a company, provide news content for their users. In fact facebook put up almost no content - either of their own creation or created by someone else - at all.
They provide a platform on which the users post links and articles and make comments. As such, short of banning those links and articles, there is nothing Facebook can do about them. There is no way that AIs can modify or rewrite them. This is the crux of the problem. For all that they would like to frame it that way, these new laws are not an attack on Facebook as such but on the users who will no longer be able to link to articles or discussion.
In which case the AIs present the user who tries to link to a news site with an alternate link the the Facebook story...
Surely the problem there, as we well now, is context again. Rightly or wrongly I am more likely to trust an article researched and written by a journalist from the Times or the Guardian than one from the Express or Mirror. If you are saying that Facebook should rewrite these news stories then you are putting yourself at the mercy of their own bias.
This is what is so ludicrous about this. Facebook and Google drive readers to these outlets. In effect what your solution would do is set up a competitor to them and so further reduce their readership.
Is the danger that Facebook AI reads several versions of the same story online from various media sources posted by its users, then writes and publishes its own version - and sends everyone to that, instead of linking to the original stories?
Mr. Ace, yes and no. Even the simplified F1 wings are far more complex than those of the IndyCar you put up.
That's more a function of the regulations and the tracks. F1 mandates the 'neutral' section in the middle of the front aero and in F1, Cl is more important than Cd so we get baroque multi element aero to maximise Cl.
In IndyCar the speeds are much higher (they can average 230mph+ over a lap of the brickyard) and there is no regulated neutral section so they are optimising for low Cd at the expense of Cl.
moral = don't fuck with Dura about car dynamics. We get it.
Why do you think Facebook are going to lose the fight - they make their profit from charging companies for links to their products? They are never going to pay for links as it destroys their entire business model.
The law is stupid and the only thing of interest was Google's rapid change of viewpoint (from removing all links to paying) after Microsoft decided it was worth paying Murdoch to try and purchase some users for Bing.
Facebook, like Google relies entirely upon public opinion for its survival. I am not certain they will lose this battle but it seems likely to me that they will eventually surrender. And in that surrender lies the danger. Because it is in accepting the principle that we allow Governments to exercise unwarranted control over what we can see on the internet.
Google provides the Go To index for the world - but it controls what it displays. Facebook provides the news of what your friends are doing - Facebook doesnt control what Facebook's users post.
I suspect Facebook can live without Australian news and will accept a lot of grieve because the other option is losing complete control over it's business model.
One interesting article I read about facebook not too long ago, stated that the company was worried about the decline in user-generated content.
So there's less sharing of personal photos/news and more sharing of memes and news articles.
The former is more valuable to facebook than the latter.
Do you have a link to the article.
The last conversation I had regarding Facebook is that their biggest problem is still far too much content (posts) from friends compared to the time people spend on the site reading posts.
but then with the people I follow it's either 100% posts or 100% memes and little in between.
I think it might have been this one. From three years ago. (How old am I that it would feel like not too long ago?!)
Surely the key question for Labour members isn't where politically is Starmer, but where politically are the millions of votes they need to recover? Most voters consider themselves in the centre ground - and that includes most Labour / Tory supporters who abhor the extremes at either end of the political spectrum.
I can understand the howls of anguish from Labour's left that "not enough was done by the Blair government" because its clearly true. However, the reality check has to be that you can't win an election by promising to go much further as the votes aren't there. Unless you are elected into office you can't actually do anything, regardless f how righteous you may believe your cause to be.
Whether Starmer is left or right is a distraction from the real question of "is he any good". I'm not sure the Labour Party is leadable at the moment, anyone would struggle in the job. Keith though seems to be missing any real political antennae, and that ultimately is why he will fail.
When people look back on this albeit extraordinary period of time there foggy memory might be "oh yes the bloke that agreed with the government about everything".
To then branch out with a differentiating policy platform (whether it actually is or not) will be seen in the context of them having voted with the government multiple times previously.
During an emergency. Sounds like a reasonable chap.
We shall see. Once the immediacy of this has passed, perhaps an enquiry or a narrative emerges of the govt f*cking it up, perhaps an almighty f*ck up is identified (care homes anyone?) then Lab will have been the Opposition that supported it all.
Sorry, but you really haven't been listening/reading. Labour has been highly critical of many aspects of government crisis policy and the ensuing high death rate. Locking down too late in March, November and January. Easing too many restrictions too quickly back in May. Poorly targeted financial support for self-employed. Not enough financial help for self-isolation. Lucrative contracts for mates. Poor controls at the border. Not enough localised track and trace. I could go on.
Where Labour hasn't been critical is over the broad thrust of policy: the way to reduce and then get rid of the virus is through severely restricting social interactions and then through vaccination. And that's because Labour (rightly) agrees with this approach to reducing Covid.
They are the opposition. They should oppose the government. On everything. Everything the Conservative government does could be done better by a Labour government. Should be their line. Even Jezza got this.
For some reason when I read the article on my phone it didn't show who the author was. Now I know it's yours Richard, it was an excellent article and I agree with you completely.
This is a very dangerous idea. Simply linking to a site should never be charged. If it was a charge for copying and pasting that would be fair enough but that's not the case.
It's bizarre because news sites should be wanting lots of links to their news articles. I don't even understand what the proposed charge is trying to achieve.
One thing that I notice about most news websites is that they understand the power of links and they minimise outbound links.
So, if you have a Guardian article about any ONS statistics you will very rarely, if ever, see a link to the statistical release on the ONS website. They know that they don't want to boost the ONS in the search rankings by linking to them.
This demonstrates how important inbound links are. Why would you want to charge for them?
You're right about the lack of links. It can be quite annoying as it seems absurd not to link to say a government report if reporting on it, but they usually don't.
And that is (quite probably) how Facebook will address the problem.
AIs are getting quite good at particular tasks, and Facebook, like the rest of big tech, is spending quite a lot of money on them. It won't take all that long to train systems to browse the news sites, understand what the most interesting stories might be, track back to the original sources for the news, and rewrite the story, linking to the free to access original sources. Won't happen overnight, and it won't work for every news story, but I'm pretty sure it will happen (perhaps initially with some human editing of the stories).
Scott might attempt something similar for PB...
Whilst I understand your comment I think you misunderstand the nature of Facebook.
Facebook are not a news agglomeration service. They do not, as a company, provide news content for their users. In fact facebook put up almost no content - either of their own creation or created by someone else - at all.
They provide a platform on which the users post links and articles and make comments. As such, short of banning those links and articles, there is nothing Facebook can do about them. There is no way that AIs can modify or rewrite them. This is the crux of the problem. For all that they would like to frame it that way, these new laws are not an attack on Facebook as such but on the users who will no longer be able to link to articles or discussion.
In which case the AIs present the user who tries to link to a news site with an alternate link the the Facebook story...
Surely the problem there, as we well now, is context again. Rightly or wrongly I am more likely to trust an article researched and written by a journalist from the Times or the Guardian than one from the Express or Mirror. If you are saying that Facebook should rewrite these news stories then you are putting yourself at the mercy of their own bias.
This is what is so ludicrous about this. Facebook and Google drive readers to these outlets. In effect what your solution would do is set up a competitor to them and so further reduce their readership.
Indeed. The larger point is that regulation like this is a nuisance for the really big sites, but possibly existential for a lot of the rest.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
Looking at the answers with a significant gap between the two men, it seems people would like to go out for a night out with Boris while Sir Keir stays in and assembles their flat pack furniture
Yes, the phrasing was a shade clumsy - perhaps I should have said "GB News will always be friendly to the Conservative Party, whether in Government or Opposition"
Seriously, if all we're going to get from GB News is a Fox News style approach where the Conservatives are either praised or treated with kid gloves (apart from anyone openly disagreeing with the Prime Minister who will be vilified) while Labour is criticised and attacked for anything and everything (except for any Labour person who openly criticises the Labour leader who will be praised to the skies) I won't be surprised.
In an ideal world, I'd like any news organisation not to be opinion-free (that's unrealistic) but content consistent. Criticise and challenge all parties equally isn't a bad place to start - praise and support all parties equally isn't a bad maxim either depending on the tone you want to adopt (the latter, a "positive spin on everything" might be the real guarantee of commercial success in the current climate).
I'd pay (though I don't think I should have to) for an equally robust approach across the political spectrum. I'm not paying to stand in my own echo chamber or even someone else's.
I hope that's not what we get, I don't want a Fox News style approach.
But why does nobody object to the fact we already have that in this country with Channel 4? Why does nobody object to the fact Labour are either treated with kid gloves (or attacked from the left) while the Tories are always attacked from the left?
I think that is merely your interpretation of Channel 4 News, granted many on here will agree with you. C4 News seems pretty balanced to me, and it is relatively serious
I was always very fond of the BBC News, however over the last ten years they have become so reluctant to be seen to be biased against the party of the day in Westminster they pull stupid stunts like substituting the 2019 Cenotaph footage with that from 2016 for fear of antagonising the Prime Minister. I don't believe that to mean there is a Conservative bias at the BBC, it is just those editing the BBC News, have lost site of what impartiality means. All except Naga who is happy to give any Tory Minister a good hiding, but then she is balanced out by Emma Barnett who will give anyone outside the Conservative Party a good kicking!
"C4 News seems pretty balanced to me"
Houston, we have a problem.....
I did suggest Mr Thompson would not be alone. You do forget I am a raging heretic Communist, so it is certainly balanced for me.
To be honest you should be more outraged that there were virtually no punctuation marks in my post. On reflection, surely that is worse than my being Stalin and liking C4 News.
So thinking this through a little more suppose that I set up a site that links to all the kitten stories on the internet. I don't have any content myself, just links, but I become the go to place for anyone who wants kitten stories.
BigKitten.com are not going to be happy about this. Firstly, they might argue that my site is parasitical and would not exist but for the content makers. Secondly, they might be annoyed that they lose their default place as the go to place for kitten stories reducing their footfall and thirdly, it makes it easier for littlekitten.com to compete with BigKitten.com's advertising budget because their links can get equal prominence on my site.
That seems to be where Newscorp are. If they are right about points 2 and 3 they may be content not to get the links from my site because they make it much more difficult for the others to compete.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56110232
https://twitter.com/AlphaTauriF1/status/1362674500505116674
What they want currently though is a payment just for linking to it. So not just a payment per exhibit but if I tell you about an exhibit then me simply telling you about the exhibit is charged, as opposed to (or more likely as well as) you paying entry.
Campaigners or politicians expecting nobody to change behaviour as a result is a longstanding reason why policies and taxes fail to work as intended.
The preview shots of the car look nicer without them anyway!
I've been following this with a certain amount of bemusement. Maybe it's because I'm old and stuck in my ways, but I don't get my news of the world (!) from Facebook; I read the Guardian and the BBC News pages online regularly and other newspapers sites, and on-line news sites, such as Huffington from time to time.
I agree with Mr Eek about local news though; local newspapers, coming out weekly cannot compete with local FacebookGroups; I'd never think of going to our local newspaper for anything, unless, as for example yesterday, there was a direct reference.
And I'd never think of putting a classified ad in a local newspaper, although I occasionally look at the free sheets if I want any jobs done around my property; fencing, I think was the last time. I'm more likely to go on-line, ask for local recommendations, although the last time I did that I wasn't best pleased, or go to a site such as Checkatrade.
If I was still employing people, and wanted someone. I don't think I put an ad in the local paper, either again I'd use one of the on-line sites.
Yes, the phrasing was a shade clumsy - perhaps I should have said "GB News will always be friendly to the Conservative Party, whether in Government or Opposition"
Seriously, if all we're going to get from GB News is a Fox News style approach where the Conservatives are either praised or treated with kid gloves (apart from anyone openly disagreeing with the Prime Minister who will be vilified) while Labour is criticised and attacked for anything and everything (except for any Labour person who openly criticises the Labour leader who will be praised to the skies) I won't be surprised.
In an ideal world, I'd like any news organisation not to be opinion-free (that's unrealistic) but content consistent. Criticise and challenge all parties equally isn't a bad place to start - praise and support all parties equally isn't a bad maxim either depending on the tone you want to adopt (the latter, a "positive spin on everything" might be the real guarantee of commercial success in the current climate).
I'd pay (though I don't think I should have to) for an equally robust approach across the political spectrum. I'm not paying to stand in my own echo chamber or even someone else's.
Sorting it out would provide a model for the world to follow.
According to a coalition of Internet pioneers " "Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the Internet from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users."
And again, debating how left wing the guy is misses the point. How left wing the leader, the MPs, the activists are doesn't matter as much as how left wing the potential voters are. The mission isn't to persuade hard left tossers that their strike action inside the party* is serious and should be respected, its to persuade voters that they should vote Labour.
*Some CLP officials are on strike from their duties (e.g. Secretary, Treasurer) protesting about some faux right wing outrage the party has done.
I think Starlink are on a collision course with governments in several jurisdictions who will not be amped on Starlink's direct to the customer unregulated model.
Pretty all encompassing:
...The EU has weighed in on to whom the directive will apply, only the biggest of websites need to be worried as a result of the talks that preceded the final Parliament vote. The directive will apply to every website unless it meets all of the following three conditions:
A startup that has been active for less than three years
A Website with an annual turnover below 10 million
A website with less than 5 million monthly unique visitors
Upload filters will have to be applied for every website that fails to meet the narrow exclusions above which are many of the mainstream sites and apps used today. If the notoriously erroneous upload filters were to became mandatory, sites such as YouTube have said that they will cease to allow uploads completely from the EU.
Punishment for breaching the rules as set out in the copyright directive is unknown as of yet. Copyright breaches in the UK typically result in the handing of a three-to-six-month prison sentence and/or a 5,000 fine, so staying original has never been more important...
1) pay what was demand without argument.
2) create a system to track what links appeared so you could work out who got what
3) add a few sites to the system that blocks links to blocked sites.
Option 3 was always going to be the implemented solution as that both protected their current business model and was the least work.
But why does nobody object to the fact we already have that in this country with Channel 4? Why does nobody object to the fact Labour are either treated with kid gloves (or attacked from the left) while the Tories are always attacked from the left?
To then branch out with a differentiating policy platform (whether it actually is or not) will be seen in the context of them having voted with the government multiple times previously.
RT's right of course. I'm glad the big companies are not paying up. They could and in some ways it would be easier for them, but if this works then it'll do doubt start to apply everywhere and Scott and Carlotta will bankrupt Mike
Just because you disagree with the questions being asked does not disabuse it from being news reporting. If "news" only speaks to your existing prejudices and perspectives then it serves no useful purpose other than to propagandise and weaponise. My objections to Shitebox and Novara isn't that they are biased, its that they are crap. Right wing "news" sources do such a better job, mainly because their reporters and editors don't bleat on about how biased everyone is apart from themselves. They know they are biased, that is their purpose.
Its a free press in a free country - we should be allowed to choose openly partisan "news" sources if we want to. Otherwise the news is one-sided partisan as dictated by the government...
the closest I've ever seen to working is Apple News yet while I could use it paying for the New York Times and the Times is my preferred approach.
Thinking about each of the following characteristics some people may say about politicians, do you think they apply to each of these?
Charismatic
Boris Johnson 25%
Keir Starmer 11%
Man, it's making me angry just thinking about it. Perhaps I should complain to my MP.
This isn't Communist China, the party is not the be all and end all. In your case the party is to the left as a whole, indeed right now it is very far off to the left.
The choice in Labour at the minute isn't left or right, there is no right in Labour. It is centre-left, solidly left and extremely far left. Starmer is solidly left, but he's not extremely far left.
Why you have to add the weasel phrase "of the party" its clear you're not wanting to represent the country. Fine, let other parties lead the country then.
So if you connect to Starlink in the UK, the connection to the internet goes to the satellite and then back to the UK. Where it plugs in to the rest of the Internet.
It is designed this way because, otherwise it would be a way to get around national controls. Which as @Dura_Ace says, would upset a large range of governments. And they have the right to control Starlink, by allowing or disallowing transmissions from the terminals in their territory,
The possibility of using laser sidelines on the satellites to route traffic internationally hasn't been implemented yet. When it is, it will *have* to abide by the practise and agreements that those running underseas cables already abide by.
Significant numbers of people get their news through links on Facebook.
Those links are either to "free" sites or to pay walled sites.
If it is the former then users of facebook can access the news for free increasing the traffic on that site. If it is the latter than they can't unless they subscribe. Surely the issue here is the business model of the news media, not facebook?
If facebook use the content to put up stories on their site (as opposed to just links) they should pay for it. Otherwise...no, not really getting it.
The problem the news media have is that not enough people go to their sites direct so they lose out on advertising revenue. Facebook gets the advertising revenue because people use their site. Isn't that just tough?
The underlying problem is that the creation of news content costs money. How is that to be funded in the internet age? I suppose a tax on facebook links is one way but I am not sure it is a good one.
They seem weird and old fashioned compared to IndyCars.
I realise most here won't personally care too much about that, but lots of people make a living that way and have significant followings.
I support the Tories. I recognise both Boris Johnson and David Cameron as right wing.
I have no problems whatsoever with either Boris or Dave "kicking" the extreme far right. Indeed I welcome it.
Links every other paragraph....
"In September last year, Google announced that it would avoid signing license agreements with press publishers by only displaying a quantity of text necessary to meet baselines set out in the EU’s copyright directive, due to the fact that “very short extracts” are excluded from the scope of the directive.
At the time, the move provoked the ire of French policymakers, with France’s former Culture Minister Franck Riester calling Google’s decision “unacceptable”.
Digital Secretary Cédric O had also added that the tech giant’s move was “disrespectful of the spirit of the European directive and the French law”."
https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/after-google-copyright-win-french-publishers-set-sights-on-apple/
So lets say some blairite tossers are happy now they have power, stitch ups, stalinism faux left wing outrage etc. but the Labour right go back to getting worse results than Corbyn did in 2017 like they did before Corbyn 2017, would it be time to accept that even though it goes against the views on people of PB and left wing people are evil and immoral the electoral argument is with left Labour.
I mean if more people vote for left wing Labour than right wing Labour (because they are immoral and stupid) then surely the electoral argument moves to left wing Labour.
You can still make the argument for Blairite Labour on purity or preference grounds but when Starmer likely fails to match 2017 questions have to be asked if Labour should continue to appeal to the commentariat and PB or to actual normal voters?
And surely the latter is the answer...
AIs are getting quite good at particular tasks, and Facebook, like the rest of big tech, is spending quite a lot of money on them. It won't take all that long to train systems to browse the news sites, understand what the most interesting stories might be, track back to the original sources for the news, and rewrite the story, linking to the free to access original sources.
Won't happen overnight, and it won't work for every news story, but I'm pretty sure it will happen (perhaps initially with some human editing of the stories).
Scott might attempt something similar for PB...
In the end we don't have to use social media, and or we can use it as much / little as our concern over data or convenience lets us.
RT also highlights his concerns over Social media companies paying taxes, and coordination of digital advertising revenue taxes across the world would be a better move than this. In essence RT is saying that this will have a chilling effect on social media and sites such as PB. If you think this outcome is good then I am surprised.
And ignore both.
Good article.
People criticise facebook for all kinds of things - as I have mentioned, I have friends who were at Cambridge Analytica and they say that what they were doing differed little from what, say, the Graun does in terms of data analytics, albeit they would say that - but the reality, as the article notes, is that there is often a different agenda.
And being an oldie, I still use fb. I was going to get off it a couple of years ago and then, BLAM, a photo was posted from 25 years ago of a group I was in and those people all "got together" again so I do see the value.
What will do for it? A usurper, perhaps being conceived right now in someone's basement, as always with these kinds of things.
Or shoot it down...
Mr. Ace, yes and no. Even the simplified F1 wings are far more complex than those of the IndyCar you put up.
Mr. Tyndall, cheers. That was bloody stupid then and remains bloody stupid now.
Is it one more push or should there be an amended approach and if so what would that be?
The thinking goes.
- People do [this] x amount of times.
- We should tax [this] by y
- This will generate x.y of revenue
Almost nobody stops to think if you add tax y that will stop or reduce x so you will never get x.y revenueIt's the perfect example of the error checking the Times and New York Times does but made visible for all to see.
'White collar' style copyright infringement, copying too much on to a website or - in this case - unauthorised linking is much more likely to be a civil matter. Just as chilling, of course, but I don't see people ending up in prison over this.
(Source: I used to work in the UK Intellectual Property Office 'enforcement' division - although only in the sense that they decided, while I worked there, that they ought to have some kind of enforcement role, hired a couple of people - I've no idea what they actually did - and put them in my division, so we gained the "& enforcement" title. The Newport market traders quivered in fear!)
"Even if we had fixed the issues we found then, this winter is colder so it wouldn't have fixed all the issues" isn't quite the argument you may think it is.
Would I read more Times stories if they were "free to air"? Undoubtedly. But the Times have made a business decision not to allow that in the hope I will subscribe. Which is fair enough. Trying to run a business off of advertising revenue seems pretty impossible, hence the begging messages from the Guardian.
I was always very fond of the BBC News, however over the last ten years they have become so reluctant to be seen to be biased against the party of the day in Westminster they pull stupid stunts like substituting the 2019 Cenotaph footage with that from 2016 for fear of antagonising the Prime Minister. I don't believe that to mean there is a Conservative bias at the BBC, it is just those editing the BBC News, have lost site of what impartiality means. All except Naga who is happy to give any Tory Minister a good hiding, but then she is balanced out by Emma Barnett who will give anyone outside the Conservative Party a good kicking!
It seems to me that the questions that need considering can begin with the pub.
Scenes:
We are in the pub and have a political conversation and Alf says he's read an article in his hard copy New Statesman and it's worth looking at. You go out and buy a copy/he lends you his copy.
Ditto and he summarises it verbally.
Ditto and you photocopy his NS
Ditto and you do 100 copies and give them to your friends
Ditto and you sell then copies.
Ditto but you copy the article from link on Facebook.
These examples can be multiplied for ever.
In the UK what is legal and what illegal among these examples is legislated for, and some industries (sheet music publishing for example) have been pretty good at enforcing it.
The current internet law has many problems. Among them are the scale and unenforceability of any provisions whatever and the fact that platforms which in the old days would be publishers (like hard copy New Statesman) are now subject to laws as if they were private phone calls, even though there is a potential audience of billions.
In Richard Tyndall's article he instances how governments are wanting to stop the equivalent of pub conversation. I'm not convinced. PB discussion as such is unaffected. I think they are struggling to find a way to prevent the appropriation of property the same as if I do thousands of copies of the NS and don't pay for them, while sometimes making money out of it myself.
Facebook are not a news agglomeration service. They do not, as a company, provide news content for their users. In fact facebook put up almost no content - either of their own creation or created by someone else - at all.
They provide a platform on which the users post links and articles and make comments. As such, short of banning those links and articles, there is nothing Facebook can do about them. There is no way that AIs can modify or rewrite them. This is the crux of the problem. For all that they would like to frame it that way, these new laws are not an attack on Facebook as such but on the users who will no longer be able to link to articles or discussion.
But you started this exchange telling me Starmer was left wing, now all of a sudden it is unknowable because a LOTO cannot do anything...
Is there some logical consistency in here or are we going to circle back around at some point because I can't find any logical point in here whatsoever.
So you started by disagreeing we me and saying Starmer is actually a left Labour leader.
I countered by pointing out all his actions since becoming Labour leader show him to be on the right of the party and if he was voted Labour leader today it would be votes from the Labour right with the Labour left voting somebody else.
You then claimed my metric actually showed Corbyn was really right wing because he didn't become prime minister.
I then pointed out that my metric was on their time as Labour leader as I had mentioned Labour leader in my post multiple times.
Now you have said LOTO can not to anything so Corbyn did not do anything left wing.
So why did you say 'Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact.' but now say 'My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. '
Either we can ascribe a political position to LOTO who hasn't been prime minister or not.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it here by both describing Starmer as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO but claim Corbyn cannot be described as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO.
In fact using your metric from this quote (you claim its mine but it never appeared in any of my posts)
'Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.'
Going by the metric you use above Starmer is actually quite right wing.
But what the hell is your point really, you argued with me that Starmer was actually on the left of the party and when I pointed out his actions since becoming leader and his support base make him part of the right of Labour you claimed Corbyn was actually right wing.... I mean If your point is Corbyn is bad and Starmer is good knock yourself out but just say that rather than making up some rubbish...
The conversation is jumping from left wing or right wing to left of the party or right of the party. Given Labour as a whole is left wing, its different shades of left wing being debated.
I don't want the extreme far right in my party. It is perfectly reasonable for Labour not to want the extreme far left in theirs.
I understand your point, but Facebook, if necessary, will try their best to modify their business in response. Going news blackout on various parts of the world is, for them, a problem to be solved. And perhaps a business opportunity.
The new American military Space Force likely spends quite a bit of their time war-gaming how China starting a war in space plays out.
In pub conversation terms its....there is a good article called x in the new statesmen you should read it
In IndyCar the speeds are much higher (they can average 230mph+ over a lap of the brickyard) and there is no regulated neutral section so they are optimising for low Cd at the expense of Cl.
"RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: No jab, no job - it's a no-brainer. We live in a relatively free country where vaccination against anything is not compulsory... but why would anyone object?"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9276259/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-No-jab-no-job-no-brainer.html
Supply, demand, maximum throughput speed, determined priority.
The UK is in the good position of having strong supply, strong demand and strong maximum throughput speed.
One of the limiters on throughput speed is eligibility checks for those receiving the vaccine, the JCVI might have looked at what has been happening with group 6 constantly being bumped up, perhaps administration has slowed it a little...
Checking who is or isn't a key worker. OK you start with teachers and police, but then you'll need bus drivers; and binmen. Do private plumbers count ? They're quite key... vets - well if you have an animal you'll want them - just adds complexity... it might be appropriate if you have weak supply and a low maximum throughput speed but if your rollout is going quickly then a simple (age) rather than complex (key worker) priority system is best.
Houston, we have a problem.....
Given so, I am amazed that so many would risk leaving him in charge of their home. That would be insane.
This is what is so ludicrous about this. Facebook and Google drive readers to these outlets. In effect what your solution would do is set up a competitor to them and so further reduce their readership.
Where Labour hasn't been critical is over the broad thrust of policy: the way to reduce and then get rid of the virus is through severely restricting social interactions and then through vaccination. And that's because Labour (rightly) agrees with this approach to reducing Covid.
Some people claim that the Beeb is balanced as its attacked by right and left. I'm not sure that's a fair measure of impartiality but if it is, then Channel 4 is not attacked by the left.
Okay extreme far left (a new one I think, bit of a mouthful though too many words) is pretty much just considered left in Labour circles, nationalising railways and opposing war and such pretty common place outside of Blairite circles in the party TBH, sorry if this comes as bad news but 'extreme far left' is pretty much just regular mainstream left...
There is lots of left (not great in population numbers) that wouldn't vote for Corbyn even as a compromise (whilst some communist party or another did advise voting Labour in 2015)
The terminals are geo-fenced. That is, since they require exact positioning to work, they use GPS to locate themselves. If they are outside their assigned location, they won't work. Movable terminals will come later apparently.
The law is quite clear. To transmit in the territory of a given country, you require a license (nearly everywhere). So Starlink is going through the list of countries in the UN, applying for licenses.
They have stated that they will use the geo-fencing to prevent usage, even of the future mobile terminals, in countries that refuse a license.
The idea that they are going to become sky pirates is entertaining, but not borne out by the facts.
And vice-versa.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/12/why-facebooks-news-feed-changing-how-will-affect-you
If the govt wants unanimity then assemble a GNU.
The larger point is that regulation like this is a nuisance for the really big sites, but possibly existential for a lot of the rest.
Boris? "Legend....."
To be honest you should be more outraged that there were virtually no punctuation marks in my post. On reflection, surely that is worse than my being Stalin and liking C4 News.
BigKitten.com are not going to be happy about this. Firstly, they might argue that my site is parasitical and would not exist but for the content makers. Secondly, they might be annoyed that they lose their default place as the go to place for kitten stories reducing their footfall and thirdly, it makes it easier for littlekitten.com to compete with BigKitten.com's advertising budget because their links can get equal prominence on my site.
That seems to be where Newscorp are. If they are right about points 2 and 3 they may be content not to get the links from my site because they make it much more difficult for the others to compete.