Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:

As for the OP, it's a stupid idea, it blatantly violates every principle of freedom of speech, and the best-case scenario is that everyone involved realizes that it is impossible to implement and quietly forgets the whole thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 techsoldaten wrote:
If publishers in the US see it working in Europe, they are going to want it in the US.

The US constitution says " no" to that.

Peregrine nailed it.

Furthermore, implementing something like this really doesn't seem feasible.

Freedom of speech is enshrined in virtually every European constitution as well. If they manage to pass it here, then I highly doubt the US constitution will stop the US government from doing the same thing if it wants to.
I do doubt the feasibility of the law though. It seems kinda impossible to enforce without basically shutting down the entire internet for Europe.

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

As for the OP, it's a stupid idea, it blatantly violates every principle of freedom of speech, and the best-case scenario is that everyone involved realizes that it is impossible to implement and quietly forgets the whole thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 techsoldaten wrote:
If publishers in the US see it working in Europe, they are going to want it in the US.

The US constitution says " no" to that.

Peregrine nailed it.

Furthermore, implementing something like this really doesn't seem feasible.

Actually, the Constitution isn't where I would look for guidelines on how platforms get regulated. It's anti-trust law.

Google and Facebook have an enormous influence on what people see and hear. I've read several studies that suggest as much as 70% of news consumption in America originates from Google and Facebook right now. Their search and recommendation algorithms heavily favor advertisers and often dictate what is seen and heard.

There are many people who would call that monopoly power over media, and the government absolutely has the right to regulate it. If you want a constitutional argument for why, I would probably look to the commerce clause. But I don't think there's a reason to go there. Antitrust has been used in situations where companies had a lesser influence over a market and forced companies to adhere to changes in the market or break up.

Faced with the prospect of serious regulation, a lot of changes could be brought into these platforms to make them more fair for content creators. I have a feeling the ones who would benefit are the larger media outlets and not the smaller blogs and simple publications. This is just for economic reasons, there's no lack of appetite for news no matter what the source.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Actually, the Constitution isn't where I would look for guidelines on how platforms get regulated. It's anti-trust law.

All of which is trumped by the constitution. The constitution guarantees a right to freedom of speech, period, not a right to freedom of speech as long as you don't think the speaker has too much influence. Anti-trust law may be used to break up Google/Facebook/etc (though there's no real plausible way to do that in the case of Facebook), but the state can not restrict what those companies say.

Faced with the prospect of serious regulation, a lot of changes could be brought into these platforms to make them more fair for content creators.

How exactly is it not fair for content creators? "I don't get equal prominence on Facebook even though I don't pay for it like the people whose content is favored" isn't unfair.

I have a feeling the ones who would benefit are the larger media outlets and not the smaller blogs and simple publications.

Then why would this make sense as an anti-trust action? It's hardly breaking the monopoly when it benefits the larger and more established media outlets over their competition.

Oh look, a conversation about an EU regulation immediately turned into a tedious conversation about the US constitution. How surprising.

Congratulations to the EU. Just when I think I couldn't hold them in any more contempt, they spring something else.

I wonder how it will interact with the Great British Firewall?

The proposal has been rejected. Sanity has prevailed, it would seem.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Congratulations to the EU. Just when I think I couldn't hold them in any more contempt, they spring something else.

I assume this is a ratchet, and now that the proposal has been voted against you won't be returning to your previous level of contempt?

Voted against?! But wait, surely this is the Undemocratic EU?! How are votes allowed?

Interesting as always to see who votes for these things. Often centre-right "eurosceptics" are happy for their parties to push through things in the EU parliament where they think no one is paying attention.

Turns out who you elect as an MEP matters, eh lads?

Credit where credit is due. Congrats on reaching the right decision. Just as long as it stays that way.

They mostliekly had a guy with an abacus explain them slowly that it ain't gonna work out like that and would be simply not feasible.

 Da Boss wrote:
Voted against?! But wait, surely this is the Undemocratic EU?! How are votes allowed?

Interesting as always to see who votes for these things. Often centre-right "eurosceptics" are happy for their parties to push through things in the EU parliament where they think no one is paying attention.

Turns out who you elect as an MEP matters, eh lads?

Exactly. Several (most?) Tory MEPs voted for this, the proposed law had two British MEPs in the commission that wrote it (one Tory, one Labour).

This talk of EU laws as if somehow elected British politicians weren't in the thick of it is either disingenuous or cynical.

 Peregrine wrote:
The constitution guarantees a right to freedom of speech, period

Does that right extend to free speech which is itself another crime or civil matter like incitement to hatred, or copyright violation?

This bill didn't do anything to deliberately curb free speech, or any freedoms beyond the freedom to share copyright content against the creators will.

It'd still be impossible to do, and needless cost for everyone, but a restriction on freedom of speech it ain't.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Credit where credit is due. Congrats on reaching the right decision. Just as long as it stays that way.

They're going to look at it again in September.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Voted against?! But wait, surely this is the Undemocratic EU?! How are votes allowed?

Interesting as always to see who votes for these things. Often centre-right "eurosceptics" are happy for their parties to push through things in the EU parliament where they think no one is paying attention.

Turns out who you elect as an MEP matters, eh lads?

Exactly. Several (most?) Tory MEPs voted for this, the proposed law had two British MEPs in the commission that wrote it (one Tory, one Labour).

This talk of EU laws as if somehow elected British politicians weren't in the thick of it is either disingenuous or cynical.

In this instance, it's not surprising that red and blue British parties were up to their necks in it. For the last 20 years in Britain, both parties have been enthusiastic supporters of more surveillance of the population, and more internet control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
Voted against?! But wait, surely this is the Undemocratic EU?! How are votes allowed?

Interesting as always to see who votes for these things. Often centre-right "eurosceptics" are happy for their parties to push through things in the EU parliament where they think no one is paying attention.

Turns out who you elect as an MEP matters, eh lads?

It does. My MEP rejected this horsegak, so I'm happy.

Yeah, it was a close vote, and countries like France... wow... Props to Poland and Sweden for being the only two countries who had zero votes cast in favor of it.