Switch Theme:

EU Article 13  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle






I haven't been on this forum for a while, but I remember that when Net Neutrality was reversed it was a topic of interest on the OT board here. I have been hearing about Article 13 which the EU is in the process of passing, and I had to check and see if anyone is talking about it. I am very surprised that no one is, considering that there are a good many people from Europe who post here, and this will impact the way they use the internet on a daily basis.

Apparently the EU wants to apply something like YouTube's content id algorithms to the entire internet, so that when you post anything (really, anything) it's checked to see if it violates any copyrights, and denied if it does. Article 13, along with its companion Article 11, would make it illegal to even quote or link to an article or source without obtaining licensing. That is INSANE! What if you had to license any content you wanted to share on the internet? Because of how vaguely the law is written, I honestly have to question how journalists are supposed to cite each other or quote people.

Is this something you guys have heard of and just aren't discussing? Do you care? It sounds bad to me!

Edit: for example, the way I understand it you wouldn't even be able to post this link to an article about the law in question and provide a quote without obtaining a license...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/21 04:51:39


 
   
Made in si
Charging Dragon Prince





I've read the summary on the national news site. It got moved into the archives rather quickly. If this is passed it'll likely be nothing short of a disaster. The news article I read was rather vague on the how, what and what is the core of the problem that prompted the suggestion of the Article in the first place.

With all other problems that EU and European countries are facing, I guess I can't really be surprised that this issue hasn't gained a lot of traction.
   
Made in ie
Calculating Commissar




Frostgrave

A11 makes sense I think - news skimmers/aggregators are really hurting the content creators. So it's requiring google, for instance, to pay something towards the content it's scraped off a new website and shown to the users.

A13 makes sense in an abstract way but it's unworkable. The cost for maintaining a system will be too much for some websites, and it's unlikely to solve something. I'm also not sure if it can be avoided by hosting the site outside the EU, or if it's required for any site that can be accessed in the EU (which means a lot of sites will just refuse to allow EU visitors).
   
Made in fr
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot





France

As a french man I'm not really interested in electronic stuff. Migrations, western europe being continually unfairly bullied by France and germany and who keep getting bitterer and bitterer, the lack of a federal constitution, the lack of a common army, the fight between Merkel and Macron to know who is they leader and who gets the most benefit from the EU, our far too shy attempt to break free from USA dependency, are all way more serious.

As far as internet stuff... they'd better prevent China from hacking us, since although sheer anti russianism in western countries makes their journalist make a fuss about russia, the number one threat to us as of now is by far China.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/21 09:01:24


40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.

"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably.  
   
Made in gb
Keeper of the Holy Orb of Antioch





avoiding the lorax on Crion

So.

Brexit.

Italy.

Migration crisis.

And more besides, so there focus turns to some Internet issues that sound about as unworkable as hell and pretty hard to mantin or enforce.

Much as not sole focus, but while there working out all this, and making countries act for it etc. Massive problems go on, huge issues that could end the EU are distracted by minor gak..

Personally I'd say fix the immigration crisis that has countries at complete odds and causing instability first.


Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.

"May the odds be ever in your favour"

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.

FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.  
   
Made in at
Second Story Man





Austria

Herzlos wrote:
A11 makes sense I think - news skimmers/aggregators are really hurting the content creators. So it's requiring google, for instance, to pay something towards the content it's scraped off a new website and shown to the users.


Germany already has such a law for this reason
The result was that the news creators lost visitors and money and gave Google the exclusive rights to add them to their news feed.
So Google pays nothing for acting as a news skimmer, while it has a monopol position and the news creators are in a worse position than before (except for the very big ones)

German media companies tried it in Germany and failed, now they want to have it in the whole EU

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in fr
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot





France

 kodos wrote:
Herzlos wrote:
A11 makes sense I think - news skimmers/aggregators are really hurting the content creators. So it's requiring google, for instance, to pay something towards the content it's scraped off a new website and shown to the users.


Germany already has such a law for this reason
The result was that the news creators lost visitors and money and gave Google the exclusive rights to add them to their news feed.
So Google pays nothing for acting as a news skimmer, while it has a monopol position and the news creators are in a worse position than before (except for the very big ones)

German media companies tried it in Germany and failed, now they want to have it in the whole EU


I read in the Deutsche Welle that Merkel aimed at eventually tax datas, maybe that's what this law tries to set a context for.

The Général de Gaulle had a word about what is currently going on in the EU: "We can only do politics based on realities. Of course, we can jump on our chair like a goat yelling "Europe Europe Europe" but that leads nowhere." It's pretty much the current situation: look at the italian government. If the EU was served by good willed, intelligent poeple they would say, well, if populist get to the top, that means poeple are fed up, if they are fed up there are problems and we should look into it and do for the better: that would be basing one's policy on facts. Now, what we do is go shake italia as if they were bandits and unworthy, while shouting Europe and a whole bunch of "values" that bring nothing to shore up a european unification (that unfortunatly turns to be impossible whatsoever) nor to solve the current problems. Instead they pray poeple stop having theur saying by simpy being to tired to moan on, and never reform anything useful or make any useful step since Schengen, although it opened some issues it is on the whole a success, nor to avoid the european entrepreneurs, agriculturrals fields, heavy industry to be sold to the USA, China and so on because they'd rather go on full liberalism, abandon poeple to their fate and saw the branch their sitting on.

The UE is the very best idea of the past century, and at the beginning it promised a common land for all european nations who united would be spared military conflicts or economic conflicts with one another, and be able to withstand the other powers in the world that which we otherwise fall prey. Didn't work, for many reasons. Instead we have a bunch of people totally living in another world, and keeping the union in a pathetic state between a constitution that feels like an infringment rather than unity, no defence, no respect of each poeple's opinion. The UE needs through reforms to either get rid of any interference with the members and simply be a free trade zone, or must build an army, because having a common defence leads industry, politics, and resources to be necessarely shared no matter what.

40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.

"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably.  
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





Listening to populists is pretty damn bad. They are populists because they say what\s popular to hear. They say easy marketing speech that speaks to emotions but as far as actual fact based contents? Zero.

You read what populists say, you can be sure they are uttering lies.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in fr
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot





France

tneva82 wrote:
Listening to populists is pretty damn bad. They are populists because they say what\s popular to hear. They say easy marketing speech that speaks to emotions but as far as actual fact based contents? Zero.

You read what populists say, you can be sure they are uttering lies.


Much likely they will be over exagerated, but the speeches themselves are not the prevailing element in all that and I don't know countries as Italia enough to make a particular analysis of what they tell and how it actually looks like, so I won't try, but poeple most probably wouldn't listen in the first place if absolutly nothing happened, hence why it is not what they say that means you need to investigate and think about, but the mere fact that people turn towards them, which is precisely what is not done. The behaviour that most poeple have got consists in digging one's head in the sand and pretend everything will go well if we just wait. Which is rarely the case.

The question of populism in the EU union is another one that will never be solved by simply sitting around.

40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.

"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably.  
   
Made in es
Inspiring Icon Bearer




 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:


The question of populism in the EU union is another one that will never be solved by simply sitting around.


It won't be solved by caving in to populist demands either because it won't solve the structural issues that Italy has been facing for decades and that have been eroding Italy's economic standing and competitiveness.

Italian politics and economy is out of the scope of this thread, though. Some very bright, extremely qualified minds have written extensive papers on the issue.

   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

Article 13 will be challenging to implement. It views content as something that can be clearly identified and tracked, when the reality is something different.

The moment you make a copy of content and modify it, there's a derivative work. Whether or not it's incorporating enough of the original to be considered a duplicate is very subjective, and I doubt even the most advanced AI can do so fairly and accurately.

Consider memes for a moment, where there's often an image and a phrase that changes. Is each meme it's own piece of content, is it a collection of pieces of content (i.e. the image and the phrase), or is it something else? Unfortunately, the same challenges exist for video, photos, articles, etc. It's not easy to solve in a remix culture.

Article 11 would be great if the law forced platforms to pay content producers. But it's a tax. Platforms and Governments are receiving value from the content being pushed through aggregators and platforms, but not the people creating the content. Instead, they must rely on clicks and ad revenue, often using ad networks and recommendation algorithms controlled by the platforms themselves.

I have a hard time seeing these bills as part of a net neutrality scheme. It feels like they are simply reinforcing the role of platforms in the Internet and providing a means for governments to tax the economy of ideas.

I probably need to go back and review both bills again, but, honestly, does anyone believe they will actually pass? What problems do they actually solve?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/21 14:49:04


   
Made in gb
Drop Trooper with Demo Charge





 techsoldaten wrote:
I have a hard time seeing these bills as part of a net neutrality scheme. It feels like they are simply reinforcing the role of platforms in the Internet and providing a means for governments to tax the economy of ideas.

I probably need to go back and review both bills again, but, honestly, does anyone believe they will actually pass? What problems do they actually solve?


Lol I think you may have answered one of your own questions here. Because if they do think they can "tax the economy of ideas." Then yeah it absolutely will pass!

But as a real answer to that question. It has been heavily lobbied for, and if reports are to be believed with threats (denial of reports and parlimentary positions) being leveled at some opposing MEP's to get them to tow the line.

At the moment it seems to have the majority and looks likely to pass unless enough people can persuade there MEP's how damaging this bill could really be.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

 Sasquatch wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
I have a hard time seeing these bills as part of a net neutrality scheme. It feels like they are simply reinforcing the role of platforms in the Internet and providing a means for governments to tax the economy of ideas.

I probably need to go back and review both bills again, but, honestly, does anyone believe they will actually pass? What problems do they actually solve?


Lol I think you may have answered one of your own questions here. Because if they do think they can "tax the economy of ideas." Then yeah it absolutely will pass!

But as a real answer to that question. It has been heavily lobbied for, and if reports are to be believed with threats (denial of reports and parlimentary positions) being leveled at some opposing MEP's to get them to tow the line.

At the moment it seems to have the majority and looks likely to pass unless enough people can persuade there MEP's how damaging this bill could really be.


Heh. He who pays the piper picks the tune.

It feels like a really progressive approach to Article 11 would be to force platforms to pay content providers for their work and put a tax on that. That's something a lot of people could get behind, no?

I remember reading a couple papers about Spain 2014 and how Google shut down Google News in response to a tax. The recommendations were to do exactly this, platforms and providers would both benefit. Honestly, I thought Article 11 was trying to do exactly that until I read it a few times, but it sounds like that money goes to the govt without requiring it to be distributed in any way.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 techsoldaten wrote:
 Sasquatch wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
I have a hard time seeing these bills as part of a net neutrality scheme. It feels like they are simply reinforcing the role of platforms in the Internet and providing a means for governments to tax the economy of ideas.

I probably need to go back and review both bills again, but, honestly, does anyone believe they will actually pass? What problems do they actually solve?


Lol I think you may have answered one of your own questions here. Because if they do think they can "tax the economy of ideas." Then yeah it absolutely will pass!

But as a real answer to that question. It has been heavily lobbied for, and if reports are to be believed with threats (denial of reports and parlimentary positions) being leveled at some opposing MEP's to get them to tow the line.

At the moment it seems to have the majority and looks likely to pass unless enough people can persuade there MEP's how damaging this bill could really be.


Heh. He who pays the piper picks the tune.

It feels like a really progressive approach to Article 11 would be to force platforms to pay content providers for their work and put a tax on that. That's something a lot of people could get behind, no?

I remember reading a couple papers about Spain 2014 and how Google shut down Google News in response to a tax. The recommendations were to do exactly this, platforms and providers would both benefit. Honestly, I thought Article 11 was trying to do exactly that until I read it a few times, but it sounds like that money goes to the govt without requiring it to be distributed in any way.


It's likely that the proposed legislation is in favor of taxing the platforms directly instead of establishing a system of payments from the platforms to the creators and taxing those because the platforms, Google et al, have much more money to lobby with and are much better at that game than the content creators that aren't getting paid a fair amount for their content.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

Prestor Jon wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
It feels like a really progressive approach to Article 11 would be to force platforms to pay content providers for their work and put a tax on that. That's something a lot of people could get behind, no?

I remember reading a couple papers about Spain 2014 and how Google shut down Google News in response to a tax. The recommendations were to do exactly this, platforms and providers would both benefit. Honestly, I thought Article 11 was trying to do exactly that until I read it a few times, but it sounds like that money goes to the govt without requiring it to be distributed in any way.


It's likely that the proposed legislation is in favor of taxing the platforms directly instead of establishing a system of payments from the platforms to the creators and taxing those because the platforms, Google et al, have much more money to lobby with and are much better at that game than the content creators that aren't getting paid a fair amount for their content.


Yes, that's definitely a factor.

Not to hijack the thread, but there was a major Supreme Court decision here in the US today. States can now tax online purchases, even if they are made out-of-state. So a purchase from California made by someone in South Dakota can be taxed in South Dakota.

While I'm certain the US is about to see the magnificent flurry of a 50-state lobbying campaign, this is a pretty big milestone. Many of the legal / economic concessions made to big tech were premised with the idea they were necessary to grow the market. Now that it's grown and had it's impact on the economy, I wonder what concessions they can actually preserve.

While it might not be possible to force platforms to pay content creators today, I can see a future where this becomes a necessity. It's the one solution to fake news that no one ever talks about. My gut tells me the winds are blowing.

   
Made in us
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle






 techsoldaten wrote:


While it might not be possible to force platforms to pay content creators today, I can see a future where this becomes a necessity. It's the one solution to fake news that no one ever talks about. My gut tells me the winds are blowing.


Its efficacy would be totally dependent on how it's implemented. It could possibly increase the spread of fake news, if unscrupulous content creators provide their content for free or cheap when compared to more respectable ones. The only way to avoid that problem would be to force everyone to charge for the aggregation or linking of their content and set a price instead of letting people compete, which would result in a massive consolidation not only of news sources but of content aggregators and commentators as well. They would all have to get into bed together and work out licensing agreements, which would give them all financial interests in each other, and it would be basically impossible for smaller services and companies to compete against the only organizations which already have the power and resources to even implement these laws such as Google and Facebook.

I think the problem with Articles 11 & 13 specifically is the way they are written. They just establish this mandate for link taxing and content scanning to happen, but they don't address any of the details. What about fair use? Is that just dead now? What about sites that are headquartered outside the EU? Will Dakka have to change its operations to comply with the law, and if so will it basically be like taking permissions away from only EU based users? There are so many ways it could go wrong and so far they're not taking any steps at all to reign in the possible negative consequences.

 
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






How are they ever going to enforce this? Will they just shut off access of EU citizens to sites that refuse to comply?

Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in us
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle






 Iron_Captain wrote:
How are they ever going to enforce this? Will they just shut off access of EU citizens to sites that refuse to comply?

One of the many, many questions surrounding this legislation. Unfortunately no one has the answer, yet the laws are going to plenary vote in July. There are so many ways it could turn out based on how open-ended it is, one of them being a walled-garden version of the internet specifically for the EU.

 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

 Luciferian wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:


While it might not be possible to force platforms to pay content creators today, I can see a future where this becomes a necessity. It's the one solution to fake news that no one ever talks about. My gut tells me the winds are blowing.


Its efficacy would be totally dependent on how it's implemented. It could possibly increase the spread of fake news, if unscrupulous content creators provide their content for free or cheap when compared to more respectable ones. The only way to avoid that problem would be to force everyone to charge for the aggregation or linking of their content and set a price instead of letting people compete, which would result in a massive consolidation not only of news sources but of content aggregators and commentators as well. They would all have to get into bed together and work out licensing agreements, which would give them all financial interests in each other, and it would be basically impossible for smaller services and companies to compete against the only organizations which already have the power and resources to even implement these laws such as Google and Facebook.

I think the problem with Articles 11 & 13 specifically is the way they are written. They just establish this mandate for link taxing and content scanning to happen, but they don't address any of the details. What about fair use? Is that just dead now? What about sites that are headquartered outside the EU? Will Dakka have to change its operations to comply with the law, and if so will it basically be like taking permissions away from only EU based users? There are so many ways it could go wrong and so far they're not taking any steps at all to reign in the possible negative consequences.


Fake news doesn't spread on a platform where it's not allowed.

I really doubt Facebook et al are going to want relationships with everyone on the planet who owns a web address. Under a model where they are paying for content, they are only going to allow in the sites that have a business model and some semblance of journalistic standards. You would have to get a license to get paid, and no one is going to publish content that threatens that license.

If publishers in the US see it working in Europe, they are going to want it in the US. The first time the BBC gets more online traffic than CNN, it becomes an item of national importance. Zuckerberg will have someone throwing a shoe at him within 24 hours.

And no one who uses Facebook is going to care that only the top 100 sites can be reposted. People want convenience more than substance. The ones who want something more will find another outlet, that's how the world works.

   
Made in gb
Legendary Dogfighter




england

Just carry on as normal and ignore stupid EU laws.
What they gonna do? Nothing is what.
   
Made in us
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle






 techsoldaten wrote:


Fake news doesn't spread on a platform where it's not allowed.

I really doubt Facebook et al are going to want relationships with everyone on the planet who owns a web address. Under a model where they are paying for content, they are only going to allow in the sites that have a business model and some semblance of journalistic standards. You would have to get a license to get paid, and no one is going to publish content that threatens that license.

If publishers in the US see it working in Europe, they are going to want it in the US. The first time the BBC gets more online traffic than CNN, it becomes an item of national importance. Zuckerberg will have someone throwing a shoe at him within 24 hours.

And no one who uses Facebook is going to care that only the top 100 sites can be reposted. People want convenience more than substance. The ones who want something more will find another outlet, that's how the world works.


Fortunately, in the US, we have this thing called the Constitution and its first amendment protects speech. This kind of scheme would be blatantly unconstitutional in the US so I doubt it would be something foisted on companies by the government. Maybe they would try something like this themselves for some reason, but I can't see why when they already have a huge amount of control over the content they allow on their platforms, and their only liability is in making a bare minimum effort not to allow copyright violations because ultimately the liability rests on the person who uploads or posts the content as far as US law is concerned.

You are in essence saying here that Facebook will become the arbiter of truth and journalistic standards on the internet, which is actually a likely outcome. The problem arises when people who want more information go looking for that "other outlet" you mentioned - because there won't be one, remember? If even writing an article about something and providing sources means that you have to license the information you're referring to through these major corporations, how is that not a problem for the free exchange of information? How is that not a problem for differing opinions and interpretations, or even for reporting on something that the network of tech and media companies which all get together and license with each other find distasteful? How will it stop the spread of fake news, when everyone but the "licensed media" might be unable to negotiate or pay for actual, sourced information and facts? It would be cheaper and more profitable to simply make stuff up entirely, and if you simply require that all content creators become part of some licensing network then you're basically saying that only established media and tech companies have the right to speech at all, at least when it comes to the internet. Want to start a blog or independent news organization? Good luck with that.

This kind of system could very possibly set up a powerful conglomeration of tech and media companies that have final say over what is and is not acceptable content not only for their own platforms, but for large swathes of the internet as a whole. Want to use information sourced from a report or study in order to write an article that is critical of Facebook in some way? Too bad, they can leverage their licensing agreements to make sure you don't get to use that information, and you won't even be able to post it if they are somehow able to implement a copyright filter on all content. I admit that this is only one possible way things could turn out, but as of right now there's no reason to believe it wouldn't because they simply haven't thought through the implications.


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 techsoldaten wrote:
Under a model where they are paying for content, they are only going to allow in the sites that have a business model and some semblance of journalistic standards.


This is a bad assumption. Facebook doesn't want journalistic integrity, they want profits. That means making a contract with the companies that provide the best clicks per dollar. In fact, this kind of scheme would almost certainly make clickbait/fake news/etc worse, not better. A clickbait story about A MOM FOUND TRUMP'S 10 SECRETS TO HEALTHY LIFE AND YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT will be cheap (since it can be generated with minimal effort, probably even by bots) and gets a lot of attention. A legitimate news story done with journalistic integrity will be much more expensive because the company selling it has much higher expenses, and may or may not generate more attention than the clickbait story. So why would Facebook pay more for less attention? You'd have a race to the bottom to see who could produce the best clickbait for the lowest cost, and anyone trying to produce legitimate content would be driven out of the market.

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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/21 20:23:37


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

I find myself in the Rod Serlingesque position of agreeing with Peregrine.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in gb
Legendary Dogfighter




england

I love how Americans think the constitution will save them. Yet if you use somebodies incorrect pronoun even by accident you can be slapped down hard. [edit by Kilkrazy.]

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/22 12:33:29


 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

A13 is insane. It's not somethig most platforms are equipped to comply with, the costs of complying would be ruinous for many, the potential places that could reach is literally infinite, and is overall chillingly 1984-esque. Not a good look for the EU.

Article 11 I'm not familiar enough with, though on the surface it sounds like some of the worst parts of the DCMA, but for news instead of music.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 Peregrine wrote:


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.


The constitution protects you from governmental censorship and thought crime prosecutions but it doesn't guarantee you the right to be on Facebook or have private companies host your content on the internet.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle






ValentineGames wrote:
I love how Americans think the constitution will save them. Yet if you use somebodies incorrect pronoun even by accident you can be buggered hard

Delusional much?


That's a fundamentally different issue. If you say something in public that doesn't mesh with the sensitivities of a large or vocal enough group of people, yes they are going to rake you over the coals for it. That's their right, as well. And since companies can freely associate with whomever they want, you can be fired for causing that kind of drama in the first place, even if it's totally irrational or unwarranted. Nothing wrong with that really; it leaves the door open for witch hunts and moral panics but the alternative is worse. At the end of the day, you can still legally go on the internet and voice your opinions as long as you're not legitimately inciting violence or libeling someone. Most importantly in this case, if you want to support your opinions you can freely refer to the work of others as long as you don't take credit for that work and try to make money off of it on your own.

If these articles are enacted the way they are written, you won't even be able to make that post in the first place because you're using copyrighted information without a license.


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






ValentineGames wrote:
Yet if you use somebodies incorrect pronoun even by accident you can be buggered hard


Nonsense. Accidentally using an incorrect pronoun is not a crime, and the state can not punish you for it. Private citizens may consider you a and choose to treat you differently, but freedom of speech as granted by the constitution is not and never has been about how private citizens choose to react to your speech. But what we are discussing in this thread is something entirely different: state-imposed regulations on speech. And for that the constitution is perfectly clear, nothing like this is acceptable.

(Now, deliberate use of incorrect pronouns may get you into harassment/abuse territory, depending on the situation, but that's a very different thing.)

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote:
The constitution protects you from governmental censorship and thought crime prosecutions but it doesn't guarantee you the right to be on Facebook or have private companies host your content on the internet.


It doesn't. But it guarantees Facebook the right to post content as they see fit, and prevents the government from imposing regulations on what content and/or content providers may be posted. If Facebook continues their current policy of allowing a very broad range of content then there is nothing the government can do to change this.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/21 20:58:00


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle






Prestor Jon wrote:

The constitution protects you from governmental censorship and thought crime prosecutions but it doesn't guarantee you the right to be on Facebook or have private companies host your content on the internet.


True, but these articles will in effect force Facebook and other private companies to censor speech on their platforms, while also making it illegal to start your own private company that chooses to deal with things differently.

I don't know if anyone here has a YouTube channel or knows about posting content to that service, but it would be a lot like YouTube's content moderation applied to the entire internet. YouTube is under a lot of flak from its content creators of all types because of its policies - since they have incentive to play nice with advertisers and avoid copyright litigation, they have started really cracking down and erring on the side of simply limiting their own liability. Which means anything can get taken down at any time for almost any reason, and there isn't an equal incentive to review it or put it back up even if it's not in violation of anything. Simply issuing a false copyright claim is enough to get a video or even an entire channel taken down permanently. Add to that the fact that algorithms can't tell the difference between fair use, transformative work and straight up plagiarism, and it sounds like an absolute nightmare even for large content creators and businesses. Hell, it sounds like a nightmare for YouTube, considering that even if most of their content moderation is done automatically they still have to have actual people review each case and make a decision that isn't going to harm the company financially, while still allowing the people who generate all of their content in the first place enough room to actually do anything. It's a huge fustercluck on YouTube, and it would be even worse if it were mandated by law across the entire internet.

 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




kodos wrote:Germany already has such a law for this reason
The result was that the news creators lost visitors and money and gave Google the exclusive rights to add them to their news feed.
So Google pays nothing for acting as a news skimmer, while it has a monopol position and the news creators are in a worse position than before (except for the very big ones)

German media companies tried it in Germany and failed, now they want to have it in the whole EU
Yup, exactly this. it's just a bad idea that already failed but they want to try it again as if it'll succeed this time. I remember how they whined about Google and their links (and whatever snipped they quoted), then they got their wish (from some court decision), and suddenly nearly nobody visited their sites. People were googling for news and were not that loyal to a certain brand when it comes to online searches. The publishers though all of their traditional customers would read the paper and then dutifully type the URL from the front page into the browser to see the exact same news again.

The older generations in Germany and most bigger companies are even now rather conservative when it comes to the internet: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/neuland
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: