Not understanding US politics very much, I couldn't understand why the US Government seem so intent on shoving this difficult-to-digest invasive censorship and control legislation down the public's collective throat. Why mst it be done?
Well, now I think I understand, after reading this post: Revolving Door Between The MPAA And The Federal Government
The post uses this informative image:If this is true, then the Music/Media Industry apparently is the Government, and vice versa.
Good, at least that seems to be clear now.
Now though, what I don't understand is: How can this situation occur - apparently in full public view - without it being regarded as potentially corrupt practice, or at least brimful of rigging with conflict of interest?
I am genuinely mystified by this. Is it quite legal?
Washington D.C. seems to feed off of conflict of interest. It's simply appauling that it hasn't been made illegal.
Meanwhile, Google co-founder Brin is worried about internet freedoms
This is a public statement by Brin. I think he is probably genuinely concerned, and probably for good reason too.
Not so sure about that... If you dig a bit deeper there, Brin has some financial motives for all of that. He's just playing the, "Oh~! Think of the children," card there.
Perhaps I'm a tad cynical about his motives, but seriously... how can anyone not be? Google does what is good for Google. Playing the "nice boy" is one of the things that is good for them. After all, they're at least "not as evil as Apple" or whoever.
In short, there's a conflict of interest there for Brin. Yeah, sure it's somewhat not totally on the dark side, but still...
I would like to direct people to Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative:http://en.wikipedia....tegorical_imperative
I think Kant is bang on, and that failure to understand it is failure to understand morality.
Here's a very short summary:
Do what you could will to be a univeral law.
Doing good things because they benefit you isn't morally praise-worthy.
Doing good things for no other reason than because they are good is praise-worthy.
Treat people as an end.
That is by no means complete, but it's close enough to "get the jist".
When I see that Brin (or whoever) actually does anything simply because it's "right" (inline with the categorical imperative), then I'll have a bit more faith. For now, I just don't see any of that happening out there in the corporate/business/political/finance world.
One of the biggest problem that I see is that "treat people as an end" has been perverted to "treat money as THE end".