https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news...s-adopted-for-a-safer-open-online-environment
There’s a lot to unpack in this one, but I support more of it than I don’t.
There’s a lot to unpack in this one, but I support more of it than I don’t.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
The EU doing the stuff our regulators are too lazy to do
- Thread starter Lakados
- Start date
What exactly is there to unpack? It's just more draconian government censorship and control over the internet under the guise of "protecting the people". You should support none of it, because it is all trash.
Similar legislation is already being actively abused by the government and large corporations like Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. to censor, punish and cancel anyone that disagrees with them and uses "spreading misinformation" as a justification. There's no mystery why all of these power lusting entities have setup departments of misinformation, or the government's "Ministry of Truth". They can just reject reality and replace it with their own, then force everyone else to accept it.
That legislation is basically the EU turning into the DPRK or PRC.
Similar legislation is already being actively abused by the government and large corporations like Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. to censor, punish and cancel anyone that disagrees with them and uses "spreading misinformation" as a justification. There's no mystery why all of these power lusting entities have setup departments of misinformation, or the government's "Ministry of Truth". They can just reject reality and replace it with their own, then force everyone else to accept it.
That legislation is basically the EU turning into the DPRK or PRC.
pendragon1
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2000
- Messages
- 47,882
rules and restrictions do not equal "open online environment". shame on you for supporting this bs.
NightReaver
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2017
- Messages
- 3,460
Depends on your definition of "moderate" I suppose. But that's better left for the soapbox.
So you don't support the requirement that pre installed software be easy and intuitive to uninstall and can't be required fo the operation of the device?
You don't support the enforcement that search providers are unable to forcibly promote their services over alternatives that may be better?
You don't support the ban on game companies using psychological tricks and other methods to sell loot boxes and gatcha mechanics to children and the enfeebled?
You don't support a ban on companies selling personal data to 3'rd parties without the implicit say-so of the person, and they must allow the service to be still used if they choose that data can not be sold.
You don't support a ban on companies tracking customer usage and movements for the purposes of advertising and monetization unless the user implicitly gives them permission to do so and they have to default to off.
pendragon1
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2000
- Messages
- 47,882
lol if you think that is actually what they are going to do.
That's what they say it's for, what do you think they are doing with it?
Already been through the courts numerous times over the past 25+ years. Modern devices are benign compared to what was the norm 20 years ago.
Again, already been through the courts and companies in many jurisdictions (including the EU) are required to give customers multiple choices.
Ad Nauseum. Gambling mechanics are banned in many countries many times over, but rarely are enforced. More laws to say the same thing aren't going to change anything.
The GDPR and similar legislation around the world already covers this.
Again, the GDPR and other legislation covers this.
The new legislation you linked to doesn't need to exist. The sole purpose for it existing is censorship and giving the government and large corporations virtually unlimited power to do whatever they want on the internet.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 28,650
OP seems fairly trusting gullible (breaks out Nigerian scammer routine) 
.
.Thunderdolt
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2018
- Messages
- 950
Keep in mind that most of your audience here believes there's a network of alien reptiles from outer space who have infiltrated our corporations and our government and are now living amongst us wearing human meatsuit disguises while eating human babies as their only viable food source.
As if anyone would need additional proof that this is the case, Chrome's spellchecker even recognizes "meatsuit" in its dictionary.
I rest my case.
That part could be uneasy to do:
Gatekeepers can no longer:
Does that mean that for an Europeen users without a VPN, if you do a google search in no single way does Google Map, phone, etc... get a preference over Bing map and so on.
The prevent user from easily is an more obvious good, depanding how Rank their own services or products more favourably (self-preferencing), could be for a worst user experience.
The third point sound good, would see how it play out, if it transfers back ads money from facebook/google to the creator of content instead that does not have to reach giant viral status on non subscription content could be good, if it only destroy ads revenues and worst advertising experience for the users, that really meh...
Gatekeepers can no longer:
- Rank their own services or products more favourably (self-preferencing) than other third parties on their platforms;
- Prevent users from easily un-installing any pre-loaded software or apps, or using third-party applications and app stores;
- Process users’ personal data for targeted advertising, unless consent is explicitly granted.
Does that mean that for an Europeen users without a VPN, if you do a google search in no single way does Google Map, phone, etc... get a preference over Bing map and so on.
The prevent user from easily is an more obvious good, depanding how Rank their own services or products more favourably (self-preferencing), could be for a worst user experience.
The third point sound good, would see how it play out, if it transfers back ads money from facebook/google to the creator of content instead that does not have to reach giant viral status on non subscription content could be good, if it only destroy ads revenues and worst advertising experience for the users, that really meh...
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 38,822
I'm left-leaning, and I do not support this regulation package.
For some reason I'm having a hard time finding the text of the acts voted on. Below is the DSA language from 2020 that I was able to find:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52020PC0825&from=en
Chapter II, Article 8 states that service providers must remove illegal content. You know what is currently illegal in Germany? Criticism of politicians. They literally raided the homes of dozens of people and dragged them away for calling out politicians.
Chapter II, Article 9 states that the service provider must provide recipient information when requested. Recipient is informed of the information requested, but cannot redress their concerns until the authorities already have their information. Guilty until proven innocent.
Chapter III, Section 3, Article 18 enshrines the binding arbitration agreement, providing another "out" to protect the wealthy corporations.
Chapter III, Section 3, Article 19 enshrines the "trust & safety committee," allowing a select few individuals to get priority on any of the content they report as problematic. They call them "trusted flaggers" in this act.
Chapter III, Section 3, Article 20 demands that service providers take down and/or suspend provisions of their own service if they show a non-defined "pattern of misuse."
Chapter III, Section 3, Article 22 allows service providers to deny trader use of the service if the identity information provided is "unreliable," not just false or misleading. "Unreliable" is ill-defined.
Chapter III, Section 4, Article 31 lays out a process in which the government can get access to recipient data at any time, for any reason, and the service provider cannot deny the request.
Chapter III, Section 5, Article 37 states that the EU commission setup "crisis protocols" to handle non-defined issues that affect "public security" or "public health." Better to quell those organized protests than let the uppity peasants storm the ivory tower.
Chapter IV, Section 1, Article 41 allows Digital Service Coordinators of member states to conduct unannounced on-site "inspections" of anybody participating in an online service to ensure compliance with the act, and authorizes them to seize anything they need to investigate compliance or non-compliance.
Chapter IV, Section 1, Article 45 allows Digital Service Coordinators of member states to rat out service providers in other member states.
Chapter IV, Section 3 establishes yet another layer of bureaucracy on top of the 3 layers already established. With the same exact powers.
I'll go through the Digital Markets Act later.
This is why you need to read laws for yourself instead of reading summaries.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 13,619
Google and other corporations doing the censoring under the table without disclosing it is much worse than a transparent law, where you at least know what's going on.
I still trust the government more than alphabet, meta, or twitter.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 28,650
Great summary. Thank you!
That right there is a high quality post. Thank you for doing some research.
You do know than quite a bit of censorship that Google, alphabet, meta, etc. does is them being told by the government to do it via secret courts where they have no say in the matter.
You're even more gullible than the OP if you trust the government that blindly.
KazeoHin
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 8,890
I'm left leaning. But giving any government more power over the internet is a bad idea. Remember, the only thing governments want to accomplish is to fatten their own. They do that by getting votes and then by abusing the system once elected.
Censorship. What is "illegal Content"? Who do YOU want deciding what is and is not suitable for YOU to know? Who is the pure, sinless person who gets to make that decision with no selfish intent whatsoever? what are the possibilities of someone abusing this to limit what you can and cannot know? Remember, China has some real progressive thoughts on "illegal Content".
This is literal 1984 shit here. They say "Strengthened traceability" like it's a good thing. Remember, this is almost entirely for tracking down victimless crimes like drugs and banned substances.
I don't see anything potentially wrong here, but this is also incredibly vague. I'm 100% behind transparency on data collected, But that transparency directly harms the profits of the people who pay the government, so I bet this is just a load of fluff that will amount to nothing.
This has been seen on Youtube, and is NOT a good thing. Essentially if your content has colour, or has humour, or involves imagination it's considered "targeted at children" and then becomes subject to TONS of extra requirements and restrictions, which requires creators to create a highly specific, google-happy type of content in order to get paid. This is a corporate echo-chamber, and limits expression. Whenever ANYONE uses "For the Children!" as a call to action: its to directly remove your rights with no upside. This is because if it had any other upside or benefit, "for the children!" wouldn't be needed.
Remember that these "misleading practices" are used by the people who pay the government: they can't stop these practices or else they'll make slightly less money. So their "misleading practices" won't be stopped. So who's "misleading practices" will actually be stopped? what counts as "misleading practices"? how can this be abused?
Question E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G any government tells you: from your favourite puppet to the puppet of the opposite colour who you get angry at. Live in an abusive, dominating and self-centered relationship with your government where you demand it explains every decision, and make sure that EVERY decision it makes is for you and has NO possibility to end up to your detriment.
Also applies to big corps and 1%ers, but they don't have militaries and armed will-enforcement yet. Once they have armed enforcement, they are basically a government as well.
Nobu
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 9,230
That's exactly what it is. What good does knowing how they decided to recommend you something, or being able to challenge something do when you aren't able to disable those recommendations and your challenge can be ignored (or results in litigation against you)?
KazeoHin
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 8,890
Well, I think a LOT of good can come from knowing exactly how your mobile device is listening to your conversations, parsing speech, detecting your age, gender, current mood, living conditions, etc. from the tone of your voice, Using the camera to check your race, gender and age, surroundings, sending every single input (including your idle touches and swipes to detect handedness and nonverbal behaviour) from your device and connecting every account you log into on that device to every other account on every other device that account has ever logged into, performing multi-device analytics and sending all of that into a database performing AI psychological analytics algorithms to recommend URLs based on predicted insecurities and likelihood of impulse purchases.
Trust me, Knowing exactly how they use that data is a genuine asset to a free people. Which is why they'll protect the right to keep it secret.
Nobu
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 9,230
Again, what good does that do if you can't tell them not to do that, or if you tell them not to and they still do? Is there a law yet which says if I tell them not to collect X data from my device, and they still do, that they will receive Y punishment? Is Y something meaningful like "cease all (related) business until unauthorized data collection is stopped and an investigation into why it occured takes place" or just "pay a fine and don't do it again?"
KazeoHin
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 8,890
I see where you're coming from. But knowledge is the mother of all action, and you and I have a good idea on what data is being collected, but mom doesn't. Nor does John and sue from normieville. Not that they don't care, they just simply don't have the technical understanding to even know what to ask. If they could see the petabytes of data that is being collected from their lives in-real-time, chances are they would change a few of their habits, and those changes would affect the profits of data corps.
There's a reason data is worth more than diamond-crusted opium. And there is absolutely a reason those who profit from it want to hide it.
I don't like the government telling anyone what to do, but if data transparency becomes an enforceable requirement I'll shed literally no tears for corps who'll have a hard time navigating that requirement.
It seems to be proportionately significant.
Commission can impose fines of up to 10% of its total worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year, or up to 20% in case of repeated non-compliance.
Twisted Kidney
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Messages
- 3,958
Laws should only apply to people, especially poor people. Never companies or the politicians I worship in place of gods.
Two things about that. A.) I'm actually pretty moderate outside of the Second Amendment. I'll admit I'm pretty hard right with that one. Otherwise, I'm generally a centrist on many topics. As far as there not being many left leaning people here, I've learned that most people that are into computers tend to be more analytical and logical in their thinking. In my experience, that rarely seems to align with the left leaning viewpoints.
Furious_Styles
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 4,153
With that comment I have my doubts that you are much of a centrist.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 13,619
1. That's conspiracy theory territory, everything that thus far have been revealed shows that these companies push their censorship of their own volition, and they often get on the bad side of the EU where there are strict data protection laws.
2. Don't twist words, I said I trust the government more than these corporations, not that I trust the government blindly.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 13,619
Being analytical and logical results in left leaning positions on almost everything that matters. The exception being this social justice nonsense and pc culture and all of their offshoot ideologies.
It will be hard to distinguish own volition and fear for the governement to interven would they not do it by themselve, specially that when they do it they will usually do it in a way that favor the big company would everyone follow through.
Did the MPAA put in place an age rating of their own volition or feared that the US government would get involved again in movie morality laws like they do in airwave without it ? Did massive movie theater chain started to follow the guideline by own volition or fear that the government would enforce MPAA rating on them ?
Many of those company feel they are mostly if not fully possible because of the governement protection offered by the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (which make them fully at the mercy of the government and make them wanting to be liked or at least seen has acceptable by them), which both of the main party of the United states has faction actively speaking publicaly against it and wanting to change/remove and call them to speech in televised show and scorn them about the content on their platform from time to time, in that context it become impossible to know do they push for themselve, for their clients (ads buyer) or for keeping an acceptable status in the eyes of government that could shut them down, will often be a mix of all of those.
The legislation is good overall, and I don’t think the paranoia from social conservatives holds much water here (though it’s always important to be on the watch for overreaching laws). When they moan about “censorship,” it usually means they’re upset they can’t peddle known misinformation… or violate free speech rights by forcing private companies to carry content they don’t want to offer.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 28,650
Not nowadays, it doesn't.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 28,650
Misinformation according to who? Lol if you really believe that it's that cut and dry. Most things aren't like flat earther silliness. Don't trick yourself into that kind of absurd view because a politician or bought/paid news network claims it is.
Also, companies are required to either allow all free speech by law or become "editors" in which case they lose section 230 protection and become liable for anything illegal. Learn the law and some logic.
Last edited:
That exactly the opposite of what section 230 say in my understanding
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider
CDA 230 also offers its legal shield to bloggers who act as intermediaries by hosting comments on their blogs. Under the law, bloggers are not liable for comments left by readers, the work of guest bloggers, tips sent via email, or information received through RSS feeds. This legal protection can still hold even if a blogger is aware of the objectionable content or makes editorial judgments.
For an example of a case testing it:
https://www.eff.org/files/barrett-v-rosenthal.pdf
The immunity has been applied regardless of the traditional distinction between “publishers” and “distributors.”
We also requested briefing on whether the immunity analysis is affected if a user engages in active rather than passive conduct.
We further hold that section 230(c)(1) immunizes individual “users” of interactive computer services, and that no practical or principled distinction can be drawn between active and passive use.
We acknowledge that recognizing broad immunity for defamatory republications on the Internet has some troubling consequences. Until Congress chooses to revise the settled law in this area, however, plaintiffs who contend they were defamed in an Internet posting may only seek recovery from the original source of the statement.
That what make facebook/twitter/youtube possible, by making those companies by neither a publisher nor a editor legally, which make it possible for them to both curate the content (which make high ads revenues possible) while not being liable for every diffamatory or other illegal content possible to find on them.
It will be case by case but many things that carry content are not and should not be perceived to offer the actual content just the ability for you to receive/access/seek it, clear example if your internet provider and email server company, no one receiving an email think AT&T is offering me that ridiculous text inside that email ?
Then you reach some grayer
Google search result, app store, a social media platform
And go back to not gray again New York time website, Netflix or twitter account.
I think many would agree to force an Internet provider to carry content they do not like (including ads and competitor website even) some even want to force some Net Neutrality on those private entities and that really not a left or right wing things.
On the gray area it would obviously be free speech violation but it is less obvious if it would be legal one (and if it would be lesser violation that the one the company is making on the citizen), California for example for private Commercial center as town square that cannot remove legal content on their billboard of ads or people making revendication inside:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins
In American constitutional law, this case established two important rules:
- under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers
- under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights
It’s not clear-cut, but it’s also not some horrible conspiracy, either. And the boring reality is that most pulled content is either demonstrably false or hate/threats. Conservative politicians love pretending it’s a sinister plot, as they can rile up their voter bases without having to support their claims.
As Luke said, you don’t really understand the CDA’s Section 230… or the First Amendment, for that matter. The 1A prevents the government from limiting what you can say, provided it’s not otherwise illegal; it doesn’t mean you have the right to use any private platform as your soapbox.
While I largely agree with your first paragraph, social conservatives do not have a monopoly on misinformation, and you can’t deny that sites like Twitter scrutinized their content a lot more than others. They proved that when Trump was banned, but the Ayotollah of Iran’s account remained open. The moderation is very clearly at the mercy of the opinion of the moderator, most of whom are distinctly left-wing, and those who are given the authority to decide what’s appropriate and not appropriate have a lot of power when it comes to controlling what the public can see, learn, and ultimately believe, which is why so many of them threw a fit when Musk said he was going to buy Twitter. They worked long and hard to dominate the discussion and didn’t want that power taken away. This role can’t be taken lightly.
Regarding paragraph two, Twitter and Facebook might be private companies, but if the government is worried about geopolitical enemies exploiting them to take control of the political discourse in the United States, then it’s clear they recognize the power they hold, and you can’t treat these companies the same way as you would a local bake shop or neighbourhood private golf course. It’s the same reason why net neutrality should be considered sacrosanct in a liberal democracy, because AT&T should not be granted the power to control what millions of people are able to see and not see. It’s dangerous to concentrate that kind of power in the hands of a few.
Last edited:
The Mad Atheist
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2018
- Messages
- 1,642
Killahurtz
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2004
- Messages
- 671
hasn't got a thing to do with left or right...the issue is liberty
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,863
There in lies the rub, it's a package, much like in the US there are great sounding bills but a bunch of useless or downright "destructive" crap gets added and poof shit bill incoming
HUE, that's cute you believe that isn't the case.
I used to think like you until I started working and contracting for tech companies and started seeing the secret government closets full of network gear only accessible by government minders, which use it to have unlimited access to all internal company networks and servers. And no, these companies didn't willingly put these installations in, they were forced by the secret FISA courts and the NSA to have them, and have no say in what they do. Some of these installs are VERY involved in censorship of things that the government doesn't want people talking about, as well as illegal surveillance.
While corporate entities like Google and Bookface do engage in censorship, not all of it is their own doing.
Trusting government more than corporations is blind trust.
DukenukemX
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 7,287
Well done. Saved me the trouble of doing it myself.
Liberty is funny because it's never 100%. Who do we give liberty, the companies to operate as they please and do as they want, which will work against the customers freedom, or give liberty to the customer which can and will take profits away from corporations because we limit what they can do? There's no such thing as 100% liberty because someone has to lose for someone to gain liberty. I guess I can hack all the machines in the world because Liberty. I guess corporations can limit what I can do with my device because they have liberty.
A lot of what is proposed makes a lot of sense, but some of it looks like it can be abused. Like the ability to remove illegal content online which just sounds very broad and can be abused. The rest sounds really good.