ACLU of IL v. Alvarez (2012): "The act of making an audio or audiovisual recording is necessarily included within the First Amendment’s guarantee of speech and press rights as a corollary of the right to disseminate the resulting recording."
It's an option if you can articulate an injury under the bill. I suspect non-commercial "operating system providers" arguing infringement of speech would be best positioned to be plaintiffs. This is not legal advice.
There is an increasingly popular idea that all libertarianism, including civil libertianism, is inherently partisan and specifically right-wing. I think it has done a lot of damage to these organizations' ability to effectively fight this and other issues. I've shifted a lot of my support for ACLU/EFF towards IJ in recent years.
There certainly is a contradiction, but it's so deeply ingrained that using ad blockers is OK that people can't see it even when it's right in front of their faces.
If everyone used 100% effective ad blockers, Alphabet (minus GCP) and Meta would not exist, and nor would the very large number of free-as-in-beer services that make up a large part of what makes the internet useful to people.
For Meta specifically, what exactly would be so bad about all their stuff disappearing? I can't think of much. Messenger is the only thing of theirs that has any value as far as I can see, and there's many alternatives now.
I'd rather have five or ten smaller competing companies getting various deals from the glasses manufacturers than a couple huge companies getting them all.
Mostly because I don’t believe anything of value would actually be lost (note you provided no examples and I’m not sure any exist), that also sounds incredible. So again, how do we make this no-ads paradise happen?
You could be right, but I personally am much more comfortable paying with a few milliseconds of my attention for news/email/short comedy clips/timezone conversion/etc. than even a single cent of actual money. And it has to be one or the other -- right?
Registries have always had the ability to revoke number assignments; RPKI just makes this revocation slightly more forceful. You're going to have a bad time announcing prefixes that don't belong to you, even in the absence of RPKI.
We're all internetworking at the pleasure of IANA. Getting them out of the picture, and removing their ability to deplatform Internet participants, is a much larger task than just moving away from RPKI. We'd need to completely rethink how ASN and IP assignments are done.
Registries have tended to leave existing registration data alone in case of a situation like sanctions. They won't let you register more numbers, nor will they deregister them. If you just need the numbers, that's fine. If you also depend on the registry regularly taking data updates from you, that's a problem.
reply