Jump to content

So the EU wants to destroy the internets


bernorange

Recommended Posts

Quote

The European Union (EU) is pressing ahead with efforts to ban online memes under new digital copyright laws, with the controversial rules – Article 11 and Article 13 – now having successfully passed through an EU committee.

In what might be the first justifiable reason to actually support Brexit, the EU’s JURI commission voted in favour of the Copyright Directive on June 20. This means they will now be put forward to the European Parliament with a view to being passed into law.

The pair of regulations stand to introduce new restrictions on remixes and other user-generated content, with Article 13 of the Directive compelling online platform providers to “take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rights-holders for the use of their works.”

That means popular memes inspired by copyrighted images, such as the timeless “One Does Not Simply…” from Lord of the Rings, could be deleted from the web under a “Robo-copyright regime” according to campaigners.
...

http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/eu-meme-ban-article-11-13-censorship-3483221

Quote

 On June 20, the EU's legislative committee will vote on the new Copyright directive, and decide whether it will include the controversial "Article 13" (automated censorship of anything an algorithm identifies as a copyright violation) and "Article 11" (no linking to news stories without paid permission from the site).

These proposals will make starting new internet companies effectively impossible -- Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and the other US giants will be able to negotiate favourable rates and build out the infrastructure to comply with these proposals, but no one else will. The EU's regional tech success stories -- say Seznam.cz, a successful Czech search competitor to Google -- don't have $60-100,000,000 lying around to build out their filters, and lack the leverage to extract favorable linking licenses from news sites.

If Articles 11 and 13 pass, American companies will be in charge of Europe's conversations, deciding which photos and tweets and videos can be seen by the public, and who may speak.
...

More:  https://boingboing.net/2018/06/18/asymmetric-information-war.html

Article 11 and 13 are some real bullshit and if the EU pushes forward with them, companies that go to the expense of complying with them aren't likely to limit the filtering or agreements to just the EU audience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, a little censorship or algorithmic tyranny?

If only the private sector platforms would crackdown on bad actors destroying western civilization.

Before I get flamed for being a e-fascist, I don’t agree with censorship at all but I see where they’re coming from.  

These proposals are horrible ideas though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Hmm, a little censorship or algorithmic tyranny?

If only the private sector platforms would crackdown on bad actors destroying western civilization.

Before I get flamed for being a e-fascist, I don’t agree with censorship at all but I see where they’re coming from.  

These proposals are horrible ideas though. 

tenor.gif

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know I don’t have a good solution other than increasing awareness (which I’ve been committed to personally as you well know) but there’s an ethical and social responsibility void in these big tech companies.

I have no problem calling them out.

Governments and elected officials should do the same.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Quote

The European Parliament voted Thursday to reject a sweeping reform of copyright rules for the internet age, reopening debate on a controversial bill that sets Big Tech against publishers and media companies.

The rejected bill, which aimed to beef up enforcement of copyright rules online, will now be sent back to Parliament for further discussion, and all 751 European lawmakers will be able to submit fresh amendments to the text.

After nearly two years of debate, the rare move to reject a bill already approved by a Parliament committee — usually enough to send the bill on — shows just how much is at stake.
...
In the end, the advantage tipped in the anti-copyright camp’s favor. Invoking a special Parliament procedure, opponents such as German Green MEP Julia Reda gathered 76 allies to call a vote on whether to approve the mandate of Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee, which had earlier approved the bill.

The procedure, known as 69c, rarely succeeds, as it requires a simple majority in Parliament to overturn the mandate. In this case, after feverish lobbying and some last-minute about-faces — notably among German conservatives — the attempt succeeded, sending the bill back to the drawing board.

The vote was close, with 278 in favor, 318 against and 31 abstentions.

The anti-copyright camp won this round, but the war is not over. Lobbying is set to intensify once again, as debates resume on one of Europe’s most intensely watched legislative files.

https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-votes-to-block-copyright-reform/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Quote

The European Union’s chief executive on Wednesday proposed hefty fines on Google, Facebook, Twitter and other online platforms if they fail to remove extremist content within one hour.

Brussels gave internet firms three months in March to show they were acting faster to take down radical posts. Industry lobby groups said they have made great strides since then, but the Commission decided that progress had been insufficient.

If authorities flag it, the European Commission wants content inciting or advocating extremist offences, promoting extremist groups, or showing how to commit such acts to be removed from the web within a hour.

“One hour is the decisive time window in which the greatest damage takes place,” Jean-Claude Juncker said in his annual State of the Union address to the European Parliament.

In a proposal that will need backing from EU countries and the European Parliament, internet platforms will also be required to take proactive measures, such as developing new tools to weed out abuse and human oversight of content.

Service providers will have to provide annual transparency reports to show their efforts in tackling abuse.

Providers systematically failing to remove extremist content could face hefty fines of up to 4 percent of annual global turnover.

...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-internet-content/eu-pushes-internet-firms-to-remove-extremist-content-in-one-hour-idUSKCN1LS0BT?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=5b98a6bd04d3012341fce796&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

Quote

France's data regulator is seeking clarification on whether material removed under the "right to be forgotten" (RTBF) law should only be removed within France or if it should be de-listed on every Google domain.

RTBF was established in 2014 when a man called Mario Costeja complained that searching for his name on Google returned out-of-date material about an unsettled debt and didn't reveal that his debt was settled.

He won his case, and now the RTBF allows ordinary people to demand that Google amends its search results and de-lists links to "inadequate, irrelevant or [...] excessive" information. Although the material itself remains online, it can't be found through searches using the individual's name.

Now, France's data regulator, the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertes (CNIL), is seeking to extend this power to allow it to remove links from not just google.fr but all Google domains.

Google and a group of eight international free speech organisations are warning that such an extension could encourage authoritarian states such as China, Russia and Saudi Arabia to similarly attempt to control the global internet.

Media organisations have also filed a statement regarding the protracted battle between CNIL and Google, arguing that the global application of the RTBF is "incompatible with fundamental rights and freedoms and international law".

Thomas Hughes, the executive director of freedom of expression organisation Article 19, said: "This case could see the right to be forgotten threatening global free speech."

...

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/world/france-takes-google-to-court-to-control-conte/

Censorship is all the rage these days.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Censorship is all the rage these days.

Nah, it’s just getting more expensive to give a platform to racists online in Europe.  

Europe had a little incident about 80 years with hate speech going too far.

While I don’t agree with the policy of the EU, their concern is understandable and no one is forcing people in those countries to use Google, Facebook, Twitter. Moreover, those tech companies don’t and shouldn’t have the rights to do whatever the hell they want anywhere in the world.  

In case you haven’t noticed, those platforms have become weaponized.  If the companies are complicit in that weaponization, there are only two real responses:. 1. Regulation (not my preferred choice but most immediately effective) 2. Increase public awareness about the threat and how the platforms are being exploited by nefarious forces so the impact is mitigated (I’m all about this but it takes a lot of time, money, and energy)

26 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Google and a group of eight international free speech organisations are warning that such an extension could encourage authoritarian states such as China, Russia and Saudi Arabia to similarly attempt to control the global internet.

This is hilarious, as if those state actors aren’t already trying to control the global internet.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This is hilarious, as if those state actors aren’t already trying to control the global internet.

It isn't hilarious. The concern is a nation like China might have the legal means to censor outside of China. The French case could potentially lead to a situation where China would require all content related to Tiananmen Square be removed from all Google domains not just those in China.

China has been heavy handed with censoring Google for a long time and for the most part Western Democracies have pushed back against censorship. The West has been pretty good at not allowing internet censorship to be normalized. If the West goes down this path, even unintentionally, who will be able to take a stand against censorship.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Censorship is usually regarded as content-based, as in the meaning of the content.

 

Copyright is not censorship, it is not concerned with the meaning of the content, but rather its origin and originality.

 

One thing that this points out, as far as memes are concerned, is that the US notion of Fair Use, which probably protects memes, stems directly from the First Amendment.  There is no First Amendment anywhere in Europe.  There are notions of freedom of speech, but they are not the virtually unqualified ones of the First Amendment.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, F250 said:

It isn't hilarious. The concern is a nation like China might have the legal means to censor outside of China. The French case could potentially lead to a situation where China would require all content related to Tiananmen Square be removed from all Google domains not just those in China.

China has been heavy handed with censoring Google for a long time and for the most part Western Democracies have pushed back against censorship. The West has been pretty good at not allowing internet censorship to be normalized. If the West goes down this path, even unintentionally, who will be able to take a stand against censorship.

 

Not really.  The EU has no control over what Google or other companies allow to remain up in other countries.  Even in the French case, extending it to other Google domains wouldn't prevent Google from making the restricted data completely available in other countries.  Google often makes widespread changes across Western countries because it is easier to maintain, however it is possible for them to restrict searches based on IP which would allow them to comply with French law only in France.  I suppose France could restrict Google from doing business in France at all if Google makes content that France wants restricted available to American users, but I really don't see that happening.

And the China example is a good one for the opposite side of your argument.  China's restrictions don't extend outside their border.  They could already ban companies who don't comply worldwide from doing business in China, but they don't.   They'll let Google in if Google complies within China even while here in America, we can still search for Xi Jinping Winnie the Pooh comparisons and Taiwan independence.

It is true that small competitors will have to comply with the strictest laws in order to go global because they don't have the manpower or capital to tailor their site for each country, but that isn't different than any other industry.  If you want to do business in France, you have to follow French law in France.  If you're making and selling lead based toys in Somalia, you're gonna have to change it up if you want to sell them in France.  You can either make two toy lines or make them all comply with French regulations.  Otherwise, they can and should turn your ship around at the border.  I'm not sure why a company like Seznam.cz thinks it should be able to just enter France, or any other country, and do business that violates that country's law just because they don't use that country's top level domain.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Today, in a vote that split almost every major EU party, Members of the European Parliament adopted every terrible proposal in the new Copyright Directive and rejected every good one, setting the stage for mass, automated surveillance and arbitrary censorship of the internet: text messages like tweets and Facebook updates; photos; videos; audio; software code -- any and all media that can be copyrighted.

Three proposals passed the European Parliament, each of them catastrophic for free expression, privacy, and the arts:

1. Article 13: the Copyright Filters. All but the smallest platforms will have to defensively adopt copyright filters that examine everything you post and censor anything judged to be a copyright infringement.

2. Article 11: Linking to the news using more than one word from the article is prohibited unless you're using a service that bought a license from the news site you want to link to. News sites can charge anything they want for the right to quote them or refuse to sell altogether, effectively giving them the right to choose who can criticise them. Member states are permitted, but not required, to create exceptions and limitations to reduce the harm done by this new right.

3. Article 12a: No posting your own photos or videos of sports matches. Only the "organisers" of sports matches will have the right to publicly post any kind of record of the match. No posting your selfies, or short videos of exciting plays. You are the audience, your job is to sit where you're told, passively watch the game and go home.

At the same time, the EU rejected even the most modest proposals to make copyright suited to the twenty-first century:

1. No "freedom of panorama." When we take photos or videos in public spaces, we're apt to incidentally capture copyrighted works: from stock art in ads on the sides of buses to t-shirts worn by protestors, to building facades claimed by architects as their copyright. The EU rejected a proposal that would make it legal Europe-wide to photograph street scenes without worrying about infringing the copyright of objects in the background.

2. No "user-generated content" exemption, which would have made EU states carve out an exception to copyright for using excerpts from works for "criticism, review, illustration, caricature, parody or pastiche."
...
So what is to be done?

Practically speaking, there are several more junctures where Europeans can influence their elected leaders on this issue.

* Immediately: the Directive will now go into "trilogues" -- secretive, closed-door meetings between representatives from national governments and the European Union; these will be hard to influence, but they will determine the final language put before the Parliament for the next vote (Difficulty: 10/10)

* Next spring: The European Parliament will vote on the language that comes out of the trilogues. It's unlikely that they'll be able to revise the text any further, so this will probably come to a vote on whether to pass the Directive itself. It's very difficult to defeat the Directive at this stage. = (Difficulty: 8/10)

* After that: 28 member states will have to debate and enact their own versions of the legislation. In many ways, it's going to be harder to influence 28 individual parliaments than it was to fix this at the EU level, but on the other hand, the parliamentarians in member states will be more responsive to individual Internet users, and victories in one country can be leveraged for others ("See, they got it right in Luxembourg, let's do the same”) (Difficulty: 7/10)

* Somewhere around there: Court challenges. Given the far-reaching nature of these proposals, the vested interests involved, and the unresolved questions about how to balance all the rights implicated, we can expect this to rise — eventually — to the European Court of Justice. Unfortunately, court challenges are slow and expensive. (Difficulty: 7/10)

In the meantime, there are upcoming EU elections, in which EU politicians will have to fight for their jobs. There aren't many places where a prospective Member of the European Parliament can win an election by boasting about expansions of copyright, but there are lots of potential electoral opponents who will be too happy to campaign on "Vote for me, my opponent just broke the Internet."

As we've seen with Net Neutrality in the USA, the movement to protect the free and open Internet has widespread popular support and can turn into a potential third rail for politicians.
...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/today-europe-lost-internet-now-we-fight-back

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

Not really.  The EU has no control over what Google or other companies allow to remain up in other countries.  Even in the French case, extending it to other Google domains wouldn't prevent Google from making the restricted data completely available in other countries.  Google often makes widespread changes across Western countries because it is easier to maintain, however it is possible for them to restrict searches based on IP which would allow them to comply with French law only in France.  I suppose France could restrict Google from doing business in France at all if Google makes content that France wants restricted available to American users, but I really don't see that happening.

And the China example is a good one for the opposite side of your argument.  China's restrictions don't extend outside their border.  They could already ban companies who don't comply worldwide from doing business in China, but they don't.   They'll let Google in if Google complies within China even while here in America, we can still search for Xi Jinping Winnie the Pooh comparisons and Taiwan independence.

 

There is already is a precedent for EU nations restricting what European data is available outside of the E.U. The transition from Safe Harbor to GDPR raised the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Regarding China, the point was that some are concerned that China could follow in the EU's footsteps and begin mandating requirements beyond their borders.

Personally, I believe the European regulations have good intentions. If these things were coming out of Moscow, Beijing or other nations known for human rights violations, I would be highly skeptical. The concern regarding the Europeans isn't there intentions but the unintended consequences of their regulations reaching beyond their borders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Democratically elected officials, representatives, and governments? 

If Democratically elected officials, representatives, and governments normalize censorship they will also be the ones to stand up against it??

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, F250 said:

There is already is a precedent for EU nations restricting what European data is available outside of the E.U. The transition from Safe Harbor to GDPR raised the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

.......

Personally, I believe the European regulations have good intentions. If these things were coming out of Moscow, Beijing or other nations known for human rights violations, I would be highly skeptical. The concern regarding the Europeans isn't there intentions but the unintended consequences of their regulations reaching beyond their borders.

A lot of what is being done in European legislation is thanks to social media exploding in popularity, combined with companies building up massive databases on their users, and then selling or manipulating that data.  Basically we/companies brought it on ourselves.

On the issue of user data - that's GDPR, and I wish we had something similar here.   Still, I noticed that many American companies have started including GDPR procedures.  Even though my sites don't get that much European traffic, I include the procedures/info on them as well, because I like it as a website visitor.  I think visitors should know how their data is being handled.

On the issue of copyright, we are constantly seeing photos, articles, etc. being blasted out to hundreds of thousands of sites/people/whatever and the owners or whoever are not being paid, and it pisses them off to no end, and they will spend the money to chase legislation to rectify this.   

It's not as easy of an issue to solve, as say shutting down torrent sites or music-sharing services, and providing a cheap and easy way to acquire the music (iTunes, Amazon music, etc.) or music videos (VEVO/YouTube, Vimeo, etc.) where there is revenue being generated for the copyright holder.  Popular artists/companies who embraced iTunes, YouTube, etc. are generating massive amounts of money passively through those services.

It's harder to do for companies whose content (like photos, stories, books, magazines) gets blasted out there, and they watch as other sites take their content and profit from it.

I don't think this is quite the way to go about it though, but I'm not sure how you police that content where the creators are able to capture revenue from it.  Far too many news aggregation sites exist only to strip content from the creators and repackage it, complete with ads.

Edited by atomheartbevo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, F250 said:

There is already is a precedent for EU nations restricting what European data is available outside of the E.U. The transition from Safe Harbor to GDPR raised the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Regarding China, the point was that some are concerned that China could follow in the EU's footsteps and begin mandating requirements beyond their borders.

Personally, I believe the European regulations have good intentions. If these things were coming out of Moscow, Beijing or other nations known for human rights violations, I would be highly skeptical. The concern regarding the Europeans isn't there intentions but the unintended consequences of their regulations reaching beyond their borders.

Neither China nor the EU mandate requirements outside their borders. They mandate requirements for entities that pierce their virtual borders.

The GDPR introduced 1 actual issue for foreign based websites.  If you target persons in the EU and collect data on a person in/from the EU while that person is in the EU, you have to comply.  And again, this is doing business in the EU.  If you make your site available to someone in the EU, you target them as customers or fodder for advertising, you're doing business there.  But you do have to target them.  If, however, you own a local plumbing business in Houston, and you set up a website catering only to local residents, you don't have to comply even if someone in the EU happened to click on your site off a google search.

What the GDPR really does rather than creating an issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction is create an environment for voluntary compliance.  If I do e-commerce or collect data in both the EU and US, I comply in both places rather than try to create disparate databases or sift through data for location information.  It is often more cost effective for multinationals to comply with the strictest regulation globally rather than introduce various locally compliant products/websites.  Especially when the strictest regulation is from a large market like the EU or the US.  

Even within the USA, you see this.  Its why the majority of new model vehicles can be CA certified.  Its also why Brexit is stupid.  UK companies will be forced to comply with EU regulations in order to do business in the EU, and they'll follow EU regulations within their own borders in order to scale efficiently.  But now they won't have a say in those regulations.

Edited by FondrenRoad
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

Neither China nor the EU mandate requirements outside their borders. They mandate requirements for entities that pierce their virtual borders.

The GDPR introduced 1 actual issue for foreign based websites.  If you target persons in the EU and collect data on a person in/from the EU while that person is in the EU, you have to comply.  And again, this is doing business in the EU.  If you make your site available to someone in the EU, you target them as customers or fodder for advertising, you're doing business there.  But you do have to target them.  If, however, you own a local plumbing business in Houston, and you set up a website catering only to local residents, you don't have to comply even if someone in the EU happened to click on your site off a google search.

What the GDPR really does rather than creating an issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction is create an environment for voluntary compliance.  If I do e-commerce or collect data in both the EU and US, I comply in both places rather than try to create disparate databases or sift through data for location information.  It is often more cost effective for multinationals to comply with the strictest regulation globally rather than introduce various locally compliant products/websites.  Especially when the strictest regulation is from a large market like the EU or the US.  

Even within the USA, you see this.  Its why the majority of new model vehicles can be CA certified.  Its also why Brexit is stupid.  UK companies will be forced to comply with EU regulations in order to do business in the EU, and they'll follow EU regulations within their own borders in order to scale efficiently.  But now they won't have a say in those regulations.

I spent a good chunk of 2016-2017 prepping for GDPR compliance so I am fairly familiar with it and have the grey hair from that project to prove it. :) I was running a Risk Management organization for one of the big cloud providers at the time.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't take issue with GDPR. I was addressing the RTBF case in France regarding search results outside of France.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, F250 said:

I spent a good chunk of 2016-2017 prepping for GDPR compliance so I am fairly familiar with it and have the grey hair from that project to prove it. :) I was running a Risk Management organization for one of the big cloud providers at the time.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't take issue with GDPR. I was addressing the RTBF case in France regarding search results outside of France.

 

I like GDPR. Wish we had it. 

The RTBF case is largely the same issue though. Your sites are only required to hide that old info in France. That its often easier to scrub that data everywhere than yield to French law only in France isnt France's problem. Its yours. 😉

 I hate the EU copyright law, but again same thing. Youtube could block a meme in the EU under that law and allow it to be played here under Fair Use. They will continue to have a choice, but like most regulations, theyll likely just roll with the strictest ones, in this case again the EUs, worldwide. 

We take a wild west approach to our virtual borders. China and Russia have always closed theirs. Europe has tightened controls steadily over time. But they are borders so when we we talk about walls, we might have to talk about putting some up where we've actually had threats to our sovereignty. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

We take a wild west approach to our virtual borders. China and Russia have always closed theirs. Europe has tightened controls steadily over time. But they are borders so when we we talk about walls, we might have to talk about putting some up where we've actually had threats to our sovereignty. 

It's funny - we let everything go, because look at the companies behind these platforms - they are based here in the US.

Europe wants to tighten those virtual borders for financial reasons.

But China and Russia, they want those virtual borders for control and keeping the populace down and/or ignorant.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

We take a wild west approach to our virtual borders. China and Russia have always closed theirs. Europe has tightened controls steadily over time. But they are borders so when we we talk about walls, we might have to talk about putting some up where we've actually had threats to our sovereignty.  

As an old school computer geek and globalist that mourns the balkanization of the internet, I must say, this topic makes me ragey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

It's funny - we let everything go, because look at the companies behind these platforms - they are based here in the US.

Europe wants to tighten those virtual borders for financial reasons.

But China and Russia, they want those virtual borders for control and keeping the populace down and/or ignorant.

For EU, in this case, it's a little more than "financial reasons," although that's what it boils down to.  The EU and its member countries have a copyright law that is being flouted routinely online.  They identify a mechanism to halt that and implement it.  Same thing has happened here, we just have the First Amendment and fair use, which opens some chinks in the copyright wall that makes things a bit more permissive here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, F250 said:

As an old school computer geek and globalist that mourns the balkanization of the internet, I must say, this topic makes me ragey.

Well if you want to be a true globalist, the First Amendment yields, and the situation gets worse here.  Sovereignty and self-determination remain valid, worthwhile concepts and so does respect for different sovereign, territorial laws.

I don't have a systematic objection to "globalization," I honestly haven't thought it through sufficiently.  But I have a sense that obliterating sovereign borders and their meaning may have a lot of unintended consequences, until more of the world gets on the same page.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

For EU, in this case, it's a little more than "financial reasons," although that's what it boils down to.  The EU and its member countries have a copyright law that is being flouted routinely online.  They identify a mechanism to halt that and implement it.  Same thing has happened here, we just have the First Amendment and fair use, which opens some chinks in the copyright wall that makes things a bit more permissive here.

 

Very very very racist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well if you want to be a true globalist, the First Amendment yields, and the situation gets worse here.  Sovereignty and self-determination remain valid, worthwhile concepts and so does respect for different sovereign, territorial laws.

I don't have a systematic objection to "globalization," I honestly haven't thought it through sufficiently.  But I have a sense that obliterating sovereign borders and their meaning may have a lot of unintended consequences, until more of the world gets on the same page.

Good point. My ideas are rooted in an optimistic outlook that a Liberal Western Democratic hegemony will prevail at the "end of history", the Hegelian end not the apocalypse. It is very possible certain American rights may not be part of the legal framework that prevails even if its democratic.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, F250 said:

Good point. My ideas are rooted in an optimistic outlook that a Liberal Western Democratic hegemony will prevail at the "end of history", the Hegelian end not the apocalypse. It is very possible certain American rights may not be part of the legal framework that prevails even if its democratic.

 

 

 

There will never be an end of history as long as humans exist.  There are always going to be factions looking to disrupt even an actual utopia. 

If we were building a global framework now, freedom of speech would be much more restrictive than in America. Even an EU/USA agreement would require bans on Nazi imagery and other similar speech. If we are talking physical as well as virtual borders falling, it would also require the end of the 2nd amendment. And thats just 2 "Western" powers. Once we go global, we will end up with even more restrictive compromises. 

As it is, after an early open range period, internet companies have seemed to follow the tactics of other multinational industries in following whichever regulation among its top markets is the most restrictive.  So it ends up working out that the strongest law gets to be the global norm.

I also think the more important issues right now occur at the internet's physical boundaries. GDPR has begun to protect EU citizens.  We have allowed fucking Verizon to write our net neutrality and privacy rules so that we have neither neutrality or privacy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

There will never be an end of history as long as humans exist.  There are always going to be factions looking to disrupt even an actual utopia. 

If we were building a global framework now, freedom of speech would be much more restrictive than in America. Even an EU/USA agreement would require bans on Nazi imagery and other similar speech. If we are talking physical as well as virtual borders falling, it would also require the end of the 2nd amendment. And thats just 2 "Western" powers. Once we go global, we will end up with even more restrictive compromises. 

As it is, after an early open range period, internet companies have seemed to follow the tactics of other multinational industries in following whichever regulation among its top markets is the most restrictive.  So it ends up working out that the strongest law gets to be the global norm.

I also think the more important issues right now occur at the internet's physical boundaries. GDPR has begun to protect EU citizens.  We have allowed fucking Verizon to write our net neutrality and privacy rules so that we have neither neutrality or privacy. 

I should probably have been more specific regarding the end of history. It's not a utopian finality but just the concept that liberal democracy will be the what humanity chooses as a legal framework and disruptions are to be expected. This topic is an example of that transition. The E.U. is pushing regulations that impact businesses outside of their borders. As you alluded to previously, the E.U. is influencing global standards through a democratic process. Organizations will comply simply because it is good for business. The simple fact that the E.U. exists as a multi-national entity that is able to influence global standards is an example of the evolution towards the end of history.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the UK is getting ready to jump on the censorship train:

Quote

...

The study by regulator Ofcom ... questioned almost 2,000 Britons and found that 45% reported they had suffered some form of harm online.

...

The research has been released shortly before Ofcom boss Sharon White gives a speech at the Royal Television Society conference in which she is expected to say the harms have arisen because of a lack of regulation.

"While the regulation of online content has evolved in recent years, there are significant disparities in whether and how it is regulated," she said in a statement released alongside the research.

Ms White suggested that some of the principles underlying what the UK's broadcasters can show could help shape regulation for social media and other online platforms.

...

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45519507

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

http://www.alphr.com/politics/1009470/article-13-EU-what-is-it-copyright

https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17580694/google-android-eu-fine-antitrust

Quote

Google has been hit with a record-breaking €4.3 billion ($5 billion) fine by EU regulators for breaking antitrust laws. The European Commission says Google has abused its Android market dominance in three key areas. Google has been bundling its search engine and Chrome apps into the operating system. Google has also blocked phone makers from creating devices that run forked versions of Android, and it “made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators” to exclusively bundle the Google search app on handsets.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Quote

...

Members of the EU Parliament voted to advance the new Copyright Directive, even though it contained two extreme and unworkable clauses: Article 13 ("Censorship Machines") that would filter everything everyone posts to online platforms to see if matches a crowdsourced database of "copyrighted works" that anyone could add anything to; and Article 11 ("The Link Tax"), a ban on quote more than one word from an article when linking to them unless you are using a platform that has paid for a linking license. The link tax provision allows, but does not require, member states to create exceptions and limitations to protect online speech.

With the vote out of the way, the next step is the "trilogues." These closed-door meetings are held between representatives from European national governments, the European commission, and the European Parliament. This is the last time the language of the Directive can be substantially altered without a (rare) second Parliamentary debate.

Normally the trilogues are completely opaque. But Julia Reda, the German MEP who has led the principled opposition to Articles 11 and 13, has committed to publishing all of the negotiating documents from the Trilogues as they take place (Reda is relying on a recent European Court of Justice ruling that upheld the right of the public) to know what's going on in the trilogues).

This is an incredibly important moment. The trilogues are not held in secret because the negotiators are sure that you'll be delighted with the outcome and don't want to spoil the surprise. They're meetings where well-organised, powerful corporate lobbyists' voices are heard and the public is unable to speak. By making these documents public, Reda is changing the way European law is made, and not a moment too soon.

Articles 11 and 13 are so defective as to be unsalvageable; when they are challenged in the European Court of Justice, they may well be struck down. In the meantime, the trilogues — if they do their job right — must struggle to clarify their terms so that some of their potential for abuse and their unnavigable ambiguity is resolved.

...

More:  https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/10/whats-next-europes-internet-censorship-plan-0

Edited by bernorange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

YouTube CEO:

Quote

... the EU Parliament voted on Article 13, copyright legislation that could drastically change the internet that you see today.

Article 13 as written threatens to shut down the ability of millions of people -- from creators like you to everyday users -- to upload content to platforms like YouTube. And it threatens to block users in the EU from viewing content that is already live on the channels of creators everywhere. This includes YouTube’s incredible video library of educational content, such as language classes, physics tutorials and other how-to’s.

This legislation poses a threat to both your livelihood and your ability to share your voice with the world. And, if implemented as proposed, Article 13 threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs, European creators, businesses, artists and everyone they employ. The proposal could force platforms, like YouTube, to allow only content from a small number of large companies. It would be too risky for platforms to host content from smaller original content creators, because the platforms would now be directly liable for that content.  We realize the importance of all rights holders being fairly compensated, which is why we built Content ID and a platform to pay out all types of content owners. But the unintended consequences of article 13 will put this ecosystem at risk.  We are committed to working with the industry to find a better way.  This language could be finalized by the end of the year, so it’s important to speak up now.

Please take a moment to learn more about how it could affect your channel and take action immediately. Tell the world through social media (#SaveYourInternet) and your channel why the creator economy is important and how this legislation will impact you.

...

https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2018/10/a-final-update-on-our-priorities-for.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps all these legislative measures are intended to provoke these platforms to take more social responsibility. 

I’m not saying I agree with the tactic but if it succeeds without actually passing, I’m not going to lose much sleep over it. 

Kinda interesting seeing YouTube cry foul as if everyone on earth should be entitled to say whatever they want on their platform to any audience they want around the world. 

Of course it would be nice if their platforms weren’t constantly subverted by enemy foreign governments and terrorists organizations.

I realize it’s a very delicate subject and there are no easy answers.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Just checking in to see if the internet is destroyed yet.

High Plains Drifter © is a registered copyright of Universal Studios.  You must change your username immediately and pay a penalty to Universal Studios for each of your 904 posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...