|
|
After the deluge: disease. PHOTO: The Independent
|
|
- Mozambique reported a sharp spike in cholera cases
- Thailand's pro-junta party claimed election victory
- A U.S. jury found Monsanto liable in a Roundup cancer case
- The Madrid-North Korean embassy raid took another turn
- Bolsonaro ordered Brazil's army to commemorate a brutal coup
- Homosexuals, adulterers will be stoned to death under new Brunei laws
-
Air pollution was linked to youth paranoia, psychotic episodes
- The US-China trade war could harm Amazon rainforests
- An Al Jazeera sting shed light on the NRA's marketing strategy
- Several groups shunned Sackler family 'blood money' donations
|
|
|
|
It's not just tech giants targeting Article 13. PHOTO: Daniel Reinhardt / Picture Alliance
|
|
|
This week the European Parliament voted 348 to 274 in favour of the highly-controversial 'Copyright Directive'. At its heart this is a vote to fundamentally change how the internet works. The debate over articles 11 and 13 – the major components of the directive – has been a tempest. It's pitted Tim Berners-Lee against Paul McCartney and brought meme culture to the front of the free speech debate. A good place to start would be right in the middle of this kerfuffle.
Snippets, links and search engines
The first of the provisions in question is Article 11 (note: the article numbers changed in the final vote but we'll refer to them using the more commonly-known original ones). The article states that online intermediaries like search engines, social media platforms and content aggregators must pay license fees to content creators for the right to display links and snippets of their work. This won't affect inkl - we already do pay. But if, for instance, if you decided to use Google News to scan headlines, this provision would require that Google pay newspaper publishers for each of those headlines.
The central objective of Article 11 is to hand a measure of cash and control back to news publishers whose business models have been disrupted by tech platforms like Facebook and Google. And this is why it's such an intriguing fight - it pits the information gatekeepers of the internet age against those of the pre-internet era. Companies like Google argue that Article 11 places an unreasonable cost burden on them and that it undercuts the very idea of a free and open internet. This is not the first time Google has had to make this argument: Spain introduced a 'Google Tax' in 2014. In response, Google News simply stopped carrying news from Spanish publishers.
There are a vast number of news aggregators – aside from Google News. The overwhelming majority either 'scrape' content from publisher websites or use free RSS feeds. They now face extinction, unless of course they (like inkl) enter into licensing deals with the publishers.
Opponents argue that Article 11's implementation will likely lead to poorer outcomes for most people because it will make the news harder to find. It will also hurt the publishers it tries to help, because fewer readers will be directed their websites. But proponents say that this inconvenience and risk is of secondary importance when compared to the current travails of the news industry. What remains to be seen is whether publishers will actually use this law to bargain for advantage - many may simply not have the market power, resources, or will to take on behemoths like Google and Facebook despite the new law.
The meme tax that doesn't tax memes
Now for the really controversial one. Article 13 is a new policy that places the burden of copyright infringement on the platforms that carry user-generated content. It has been called the 'meme tax' because it was initially thought that this would kill meme culture, but we'll nip that in the bud: there are provisions within Article 13 that allow limited use of copyrighted material for both satire and commentary.
Here's how article Article 13 works: lets say your favourite YouTuber (and if you don't have one just search for "VanossGaming") regularly uploads videos that are overlaid with popular songs, or clips from films and video games. Until now YouTube has dealt with copyright violations in a reactive manner (i.e., by waiting for copyright complaints before it acts). The company says that it uses machine learning and AI to identify and take down copyrighted material, but even a cursory glance reveals that the site still has plenty of illegally uploaded material. Now the EU is requiring YouTube to filter out copyrighted material - as it is uploaded.
The copyright holders – artists and musicians among them – are elated. They feel that article 13 might finally put an end to the proliferation of illegally copied songs, films and images that have made it almost impossible for small-scale artists to make a living off their work. The platforms are incensed and it's not hard to see why. Continuing with our example, there are 300 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute. This means the resources required to scan for copyrighted material would be unbelievably expensive. And herein lies the rub - Article 13 might actually consolidate more power in the hands of the tech platforms because the EU's copyright requirements would be cost-prohibitive for smaller existing and would-be competitors.
Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V
Regardless of what one thinks about the Copyright Directive, we'd argue that there is an inescapable truth at the core of the legislation: the current balance of power (i.e. a handful of tech companies having all of it) is untenable. But, as with any sweeping piece of legislation, there is no doubt whatsoever that there will be significant collateral damage. As the EU tries to rebalance the scales we should pay close attention to what is being lost in this pursuit of fairness. It could be a few billion dollars from Silicon Valley bank accounts, but it also could be the very concept of the internet itself.
There's plenty more to come on this as the EU conducts a final vote in early April – if that passes, each member state will be required to formulate its own legislation under the EU's umbrella.
|
|
|
|
Theresa May is no longer welcome here. PHOTO: Barcroft Images
|
|
Indicators and blinkers
In Britain the government controls the parliamentary voting schedule with a standing order (#14 for those playing at home). On Monday the House of Commons voted to rescind it, effectively taking back control over the Brexit process from the Prime Minister. Notably, it was led by Oliver Letwin, a Conservative figurehead whose utter despair over Theresa May's handling of Brexit apparently led him to rebel. As has become a weekly occurrence: another three government ministers resigned. The PM then offered to fall on her sword if doing so would convince her colleagues to support her Brexit plan. This piqued the interest of arch-eurosceptic Jacob Rees-Mogg who offered his conditional support, saying he'd sign off on the plan if the DUP did too. Naturally, the DUP immediately refused.
With the government adrift somewhere in the middle of the Irish sea it was up to parliament to act, and it did, putting forward eight distinct indicative votes. On Wednesday they voted as follows: No to no deal, no to Common Market 2.0, no to EEA/EFTA without the customs union, no to a customs union, no to Labour's plan, no to revoking Article 50, no to a second referendum, and no to contingent preferential arrangements.
But you shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers (unless of course you see it on inkl). The cheap-shot headlines about the MPs rejecting all eight options belie the fact that this is the way the process is meant to work. The indicative voting process is not designed to produce a winner, but rather to weed out the losers. It's a signal of everyone's 'least-worst' preferences. Surprisingly, the vote on a second referendum fared far better than expected, while the vaunted Norway+ motion faltered. The best of the worst will now be voted on again this coming Monday. The very fact that there seems to be a plan is a departure from recent history; unless of course one considers May's crash-or-crash-through approach a plan.
On Friday May will force a third vote on her deal (albeit a watered down version) in order to win an extension from the EU. Stay tuned or tune out – either option makes just as much sense these days.
|
|
|
|
Barr's summary is more ammunition for Trump's conspiracies. PHOTO: Washington Post
|
|
The Mueller report
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has handed in a 300-page report on President Donald Trump and the Trump campaign team's possible collusion (with Russia) and obstruction of justice. The report was summarised by Attorney General William Barr in a letter that said Mueller had found no evidence of collusion. He also said that the Special Counsel had declined to form a judgement one way or the other, on obstruction. Barr has so far refused to release the full report, causing much speculation and hyperventilation.
Having emerged practically unscathed from this affair the US president has gone on the offensive. At public rallies he has branded opponents as "sick people" and members of a "deep state" conspiracy. For their part the Democrats' shocked and awkward responses have corresponded to how deep in the Russia-Trump rabbit-hole each one had gone. The opposition leader, Nancy Pelosi, told reporters that while Trump isn't fit to be president, he's "just not worth" impeaching (a ludicrous position give Trump's continued unshakeable support).
|
|
|
|
No more straws strewn across beaches. PHOTO: Eric Gaillard / Reuters
|
|
Reuse it or lose it
Sick of reading about the European Union? Good, neither are we. While wrestling with the future of the internet with one arm, the bloc was creating history with the other. On Wednesday MEPs voted resoundingly – 560 to 35 – in favour of a ban of single-use plastics. This includes straws, cutlery, expanded polystyrene plates, and cotton buds. The law, which will come into effect in 2021, sets a new global standard in the fight against plastic pollution of our oceans and ecosystems. Good. Really good.
Old dog, new tricks
This is a story for our nonagenarian readers (that's right – we see you). The prevailing view on neuroregeneration is split between two opposing factions: those scientists who believe that humans can generate fresh braincells later in life, and those who argue that once you reach adulthood, you're done. There's now compelling new evidence that humans are indeed capable of creating new neurons well into their 90s!
|
|
|
|
Energy consumption rose strongly in 2018. PHOTO: John Giles / PA
|
|
Wrong way
Here's your weekly reminder that global emissions are rising when they need to be falling.
Keeping it in the family
This week Trump's Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos came under fire for proposing to gut the Special Olympics. As part of an eye-watering 10% cut to total education spending, DeVos sought to cancel the entirety of the federal government's contribution to the Special Olympics. Meanwhile, her brother Erik Prince (yes, that one, of Blackwater infamy) announced that his firm would build a training camp in Xinjiang (yes, that one, the province where the Chinese government is locking up hundreds of thousands of people because of their ethnic and religious identity). There's just something about this family.
|
|
Quote of the week
"He gave it a red-hot go. It's a bit unusual to try and get from Punsand Bay all the way to PNG. He stuck out like the proverbial."
– An Australian law enforcement officer was more impressed than disappointed that a 57-year-old Briton had tried to cross 150km of ocean between Australia and Papua New Guinea on a jetski armed with a crossbow. The individual in question made it most of the way before being arrested – he was fleeing drug charges.
Headline of the week
Trump says he's pleased America is not powered by wind 'because it only blows sometimes' .
– The Independent
Special mention
Uri Geller. The famed Israeli magician who can bend spoons with his mind (we're using the word 'can' quite liberally here). Uri revealed his greatest trick yet: convincing Theresa May to stop Brexit. Apparently the pair formed a psychic bond when Geller asked May to touch one of Winston Churchill's spoons. Now he is asking the long-suffering denizens of the U.K. to join him in telepathically forcing May to stop this mess. Look, why not?
Some choice long-reads
|
|
EDITOR'S NOTE: It's been a big week for history buffs. An electioneering Erdoğan reclaimed another piece of history for himself when he announced that Istanbul's Hagia Sophia Museum shall be a mosque again. Over it's 1500 lifetime the Hagia Sophia has been a Byzantine Eastern Orthodox cathedral, a crusader Catholic cathedral and an Ottoman mosque before settling as a decidedly sensible and secular museum.
Too old and dusty? Perhaps you prefer the crash and din of 20th century history – there's something for everyone. This week a South Korean court approved the seizure of assets from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries as compensation for the company's use of Korean slave-labour during the Second World War. Everything old is new again.
Tom Wharton
@trwinwriting
P.S. Don't forget to download the inkl app and check out our tailored news recommendations just for you. And definitely don't forget to log into the app by tapping on this link.
|
|
|
|
