I'd definitely agree with that, however I don't think that is the case here. You still have a freedom to "print" whatever you want as long as it can be seen that you have gone to some lengths to prove it is true and retracted when it isn't. Plus you have to be able to show that you got the information in a legal way (with Whistleblower rights).

I'd argue that overly powerful media moguls pushing their political stance without regulation was less in the spirit of or advance the cause of democracy, wouldn't you say?

A YouGov poll from the end of last year asked:

And 79% said that they would like "an independent body, established by law, which deals with complaints and decides what sanctions there should be if journalists break agreed codes of conduct" (ie what we've got).

Albeit this is a poll and not a democratic process, but the democratic process is there (people vote for a Government, the Government enacts runs independent reviews, the recommendations are enacted upon). The only way this process could have been undemocratic is if an unelected body (like The Press) decided that it should be that way (like they did before).

Bloggers in the UK could face libel fines even if they are registered as Press. That's the whole point of the regulator - it is there to force a set of known penalties on a press organisation if they do anything libellous through a known set of processes. If you're outside the regulator the penalties are unknown and the process could be expensive. It's not really any different to the current situation if you are outside the regulator.

Personally I think it is a great day for democracy. The people wanted this. They voted in a Government that did an independent enquiry and then actioned those recommendations. You can't get much more democratic than that.

They're free in the sense that you don't have to pay (at the point of service) for your child to go to them. Not free as in they can choose what to teach whatever they want.

From TFA:

This isn't true. All these sites do a 301 redirect (well bit.ly certainly does) so you won't lose the referrer or the context. Really this doesn't do a lot for the analytics of a site, apart from it is going to help Twitter work out how many people have clicked on which type of link (and if you're logged, who you are). It's giving them some more ammunition for contextual advertising.

Really this is the problem with the whole privacy thing that has caused so much issue in the past. The problem isn't that the company collects the data, it is that they then sell it to third parties to make a profit.

Similarly if you look at the in depth report that the WSJ published then the real issue isn't the use of cookies or even the collection of the behavioural data - it is that they have then sold out to third parties by either selling the data or allowing them to collect it in the first place (which they can then do whatever they want with).

To be fair, I think he is more ranting about the fact that he noticed that Chocomize was trending (for whatever reason) and he had to plough through hundreds of spam sites before finding the real reason that it was trending (the CNN article). Why are the spam sites there? Because the CNN article caused people to search for the term, pushed it up on Google trends, automated tools caused some sites to create new pages that Google then index higher. Google could fix this by improving their news algorithm.

Is it Chocomise in the UK, just out of interest?

From TFA on The Times (that you may not have been able to see - or may be taken down in the near future because of the paywalls):

Hopefully you are right and there won't be anything that The Times can break that can't be reproduced on the BBC. I can't believe people are going to sign up and pay for The Times just for their commentaries - they're not that good. They'll have to come up with something else.

Well, apart from the fact that my post was a bit of a dig at the fact that we seem to upmod only large websites, you are right. James Murdoch has been very ouspoken about the BBC, so you might start finding in the future that stories broken in the mass media aren't immediately published on the BBC (if he gets his way).

The BBC Perspective
The Times perspective (for as long as it remains up on the site), just for both sides of the argument.

Not that I don't agree with the article, but it is worth pointing out for full disclosure that the New York Post is owned by News Corporation as is The Times and The Sunday Times.

It'll make it interesting when Slashdot has to start putting up stories from niche websites instead of mainstream if they all go behind paywalls.

A “copyright infringement report” is a report that— (a) states that there appears to have been an infringement of the owner’s copyright; (b) includes a description of the apparent infringement; (c) includes evidence of the apparent infringement that shows the subscriber’s IP address and the time at which the evidence was gathered; and (d) complies with any other requirement of the initial obligations code.

I think the section that says they need to provide evidence of the infringement will mean that your average ISP will throw out any report. Remember that the ISPs are commercial organisations who make money based on subscribers to their service, not from downloads and the last thing want to be doing is cutting off half their customer base because some infringement lawyer is bombarding them with notices.

If you want to think about it in another way, if someone thought you'd stolen a car, the police would laugh in their face if they pitched up and accused 400 people of being in the vicinity at the time. Even if they could pin point you specifically unless they could prove with evidence that it was you, the police would never make an arrest.

(Un)fortunately I suspect the people they will catch will be the ones who are doing the equivalent of standing over the dead body, bloody knife in their hand, 13 witnesses and shouting "I'm glad I killed the bastard."

Essentially, from what I read (correct me if something changed in the final bill), a copyright holder can accuse you of pirating anything without evidence, and your provider must throttle/disconnect you. If you want to counter, you have to take me to court, at your cost, with real evidence that you didn't.

I'm not convinced this is true. My understanding of it was that they would have to catch you actually doing it (although I'm sure you could claim entrapment on that) and give you a warning through your ISP. Then they would be able to tell your ISP to cut your internet connection off if they caught you doing it again.

Not that I want to get into a debate about whether it should or shouldn't be illegal or not. Given that it is, this seems to be a fairly sensible way of policing it. It may appear that they are being heavy handed with the threats (to satisfy those who think it is a problem), they can also get away with minimal policing and catching the biggest offenders.

Citation: Section 124A, section 3c of the bill

Facebook's privacy policy says:

“Everyone” Privacy Setting. Information set to “everyone” is publicly available information, may be accessed by everyone on the Internet (including people not logged into Facebook), is subject to indexing by third party search engines, may be associated with you outside of Facebook (such as when you visit other sites on the internet), and may be imported and exported by us and others without privacy limitations. The default privacy setting for certain types of information you post on Facebook is set to “everyone.” You can review and change the default settings in your privacy settings. If you delete “everyone” content that you posted on Facebook, we will remove it from your Facebook profile, but have no control over its use outside of Facebook.

I'd also like to point out in their terms:

When you publish content or information using the "everyone" setting, it means that everyone, including people off of Facebook, will have access to that information and we may not have control over what they do with it.