[rickncliff]

If it got to that and it's not some sort of WSJ attempt to advocate for this sort of thing, facebook must fight it tooth and nail, and stop these attempts at governmental micromanagement once and for all.

It's suspect that they are going after tech companies which are national treasures but are enemies to corporate media, it's strange that this sort of action isn't being considered against actual malicious monopolists that the press isn't constantly attacking. No one is suggesting going after disney for instance even though they have that market cornered.

[scarface74]

What market exactly does Disney have “cornered”?

But it should give anyone pause when the government takes upon itself the power to decide how a private company architects its solutions.

[giancarlostoro]

Entertainment. I guarantee anybody in your average household is a fan of something Disney outright bought the rights to. Whether its Marvel (if I hear about another reboot of X-Men or another Avengers movie imma pull my hair, OTOH I did like Guardians... Yikes even I am falling for it!) then theres Star Wars which has a huge following of people from all ages. The typical Disney public domain rip offs as well. The insane amount of music they own the rights to.

Here in Florida its scary how much power Disney has. They also own the media to a point and you find it hard to see anybody speak badly of them within the media. The amount of things I see covered up that never winds up in the media genuinely scares me. How is it possible the media keeps specific things quiet for Disney.

[scarface74]

There are still five major movie studios in the US and the minor studios like Blumhouse and Tyler Perry Studios routinely put out movies that have a higher ROI than the major ones.

As far as TV, there are plenty of TV studios and streaming services.

[giancarlostoro]

> and streaming services.

And now they're removing their content from those. They also own several of those streaming services (ESPN, D+, and significant enough parts of Hulu). By contrast their streaming competitors own one single serve (with maybe the exception of Google and Apple who own music streaming services and video streaming).

If nobody sets up a roadblock I fear where it ends, if it does.

I forgot to add a disclaimer: long before I was a developer I worked for Disney. I'm somewhat biased, but I also attempt to not be blind. It's a monopoly on your children to a significant scale. If they stop buying out companies, it still feels like they've bought out some of the more major fandom franchises.

I just went to check, and after their last major buyout they own all of the Narnia movie rights.

[scarface74]

The entire idea of the internet was suppose to be “disintermediation”. Why are we now wanting middle men?

[dboreham]

Princesses? (Typing this in Disneyland)

[scarface74]

Nah, you still have Fiona that isn't controlled by Disney.

[wavefunction]

Facebook is a danger to my country and my own civil rights and democracy. I don't care what happens to them.

[stickfigure]

Funny, that's exactly what the dictators of Tunisa, Libya, and Egypt said during the Arab Spring of 2011.

[dessant]

Equating the concerns of a citizen over their perceived loss of civil rights with the concerns of dictators isn't really a productive approach.

If anything, it dismisses and further polarizes people.

[dragonwriter]

If you replace “civil rights and democracy” with “arbitrary power” (and, as far as what both those cheering and those complaining mostly said, “Facebook” with “Twitter”), sure.

What's your point?

[egdod]

“National treasures” lol. And Disney isn’t quite as consumer-hostile as FB.

[rickncliff]

How is FB "consumer-hostile"? You'll have to pay a lot more to watch all that Disney IP soon enough.

[dessant]

Facebook has been doing everything in their power to gradually erode people's privacy, so their business model is strongly consumer-hostile, unless contributing to the erosion of civil liberties and human rights isn't considered hostile towards people.

Disney's attack on culture through the lobbying of copyright extensions is not an excuse for what Facebook is doing. Both companies need to be dealt with, and we can do our part by not defending them when there's an opportunity to call them out.

[tzs]

> Disney's attack on culture through the lobbying of copyright extensions

Nitpick: that should be "a copyright extension", not "copyright extensions". There have only been two copyright extensions that have affected Disney: the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.

I haven't been able to find any evidence that they lobbied for the 1976 Act. Probably because there would have been no need for lobbying, as the 1976 Act had near universal support.

That's because it was a major overhaul of US copyright law, which went a long way toward making US copyright law compatible with the Berne Convention. (There was still a lot to do to actually allow the US to join the Berne Convention--those final changes were in the Berne Implementation Act of 1988).

I'm not sure how the popular notion that Disney is constantly getting copyright terms extended arose.

[OnlineGladiator]

> I'm not sure how the popular notion that Disney is constantly getting copyright terms extended arose.

They've earned this reputation by lobbying successfully for copyright extensions more than any other company in history. They absolutely deserve harsh criticism for it.

https://priceonomics.com/how-mickey-mouse-evades-the-public-...

[tzs]

> They've earned this reputation by lobbying successfully for copyright extensions more than any other company in history

As far as I can tell, they've lobbied once for a copyright extension (the 1998 Act).

Their copyright was also extended by the 1976 Act, but as previously noted, I can't find anything suggesting that they had any influence over that. The 1976 Act was the result of a revision effort that was started by Congress in 1955 to address the widely perceived problems of the 1909 Act. That effort included 35 separate studies into the problems with the 1909 Act.

That took about 5 or 6 years. Then there were 15 years of negotiation and compromise and drafting involving pretty much all interested parties. As far as I've been able to find, the only thing in the result of that which did not have widespread was the provisions involving cable television. Those stayed controversial all the way.

The narrative that Disney and/or other big corporate interests somehow pushed the 1976 Act through is just not at all supported by the historical record.

[Shivetya]

you have no privacy, it is an illusion. your civil liberties are already stomped flat by government yet people want to hand them even more authority and control over their lives.

get the priorities straight, government is first and foremost the issue when it comes to privacy and civil liberties. corporations are beholden to what politicians threaten them with in lieu of campaign donations and favors so take offense and aim at the right group.

it isn't corporations doing their best to end privacy in communications and once that is gone through encryption back doors and bans nothing else much matters.

put it this way, the politicians and their sycophants sure have done their job in getting people to look behind the wrong curtain. give them more power they say, trust them they say, fbi I say, nsa I say..

[scarface74]

Facebook isn’t eroding people’s privacy. People knowingly share information with FB. On the other hand, how many people know about all of the information that Google collects - especially on Android phones?