7 ms·

Do you have any evidence to support your claims of corruption or are you just loud mouthing based on what you feel is true? I ask because the EU already has th

Do you have any evidence to support your claims of corruption or are you just loud mouthing based on what you feel is true? I ask because the EU already has the ability to block sites infringe on copyrights. To me this law is one of the reactions taken to the fact that foreign powers are using completely faked news papers and social media pages to influence out elections. Right now consumers have very little ammunition against companies like Facebook. In the EU we have the right to everything they’ve gathered on us and to demand they delete it, but if they went full retard we couldn’t legally block them. Now we can.

pawy 9y ago
Do you realise what Chaos you are bringing up on us ? Internet has always been full of shit. It's up to us to educate and teach people who are weak to this kind of behaviour. Black List websites = Censorship. Internet is not a product, it's our freedom. To all people who try to "regulate" this, piss off.
- arghwhat 9y ago
  Amen.
- simias 9y ago
  I'm torn on this issue. On one hand american-style free speech where you can basically say anything you want as long as you don't target a specific individual is tempting. On the other hand you don't have to look very far online to find groups of people online who get in too deep into a web of lies, disinformation and confirmation bias that leads to some extremism with real world consequences. This is especially a problem since it's very hard to limit access for the underage population who's a lot more prone to being influenced by extremist ideologies. But of course the counterpoint is that this would create an infrastructure which could be abused to manipulate the population. I think there's a compromise to be found here but I don't know where to start.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- eksemplar 9y ago
  As opposed to the orderly wold we live in now? I'm honestly done protecting the right to flat out lie and manipulate on the internet. You may see that as an infringement on your free speech, but your approach to "freedom" is rapidly ending democracy in the free world. Keep in mind that the totalitarian voices you're using free speech to defend, won't show you the same curtesy, once they take over.
arghwhat 9y ago
As a European, I find both the ability to force others to not distribute information, and the ability for others to restrict my access certain types of sites to be a disgusting violation of free speech. I would expect this in a certain country in Asia, not in bloody Europe. Not only does it violate free speech, the new ability to perform website takedowns bypass proper law and order, by not leaving any ability to defend oneself in a proper court of law. A copyright infringement claim may be false, for example. The ability to block content country-wide won't help reduce misinformation, which will always have ways to spread. What are we going to do, make it illegal to be uneducated, have unpopular opinions or be a bad person? Instead, this new power can easily be abused to stop the spread of real information, and unpopular (for example, government-opposing or religious) opinions. The original ability to delete information is absurd in a similar way, but more limited, as only the subject can request it. Yet it still bypasses a proper trial, leaving it up to you and the service provider to conclude if the information was useful to the "general public". That's definitely going to result in deletion of valuable information. If you want to give people a way to defend themselves against harmful information, give them the right to amend it instead. Deleting it is wrong. If you want to avoid fake news like you state, educate. Controlling people by removing information is wrong.
- zaarn 9y ago
  >Not only does it violate free speech, the new ability to perform website takedowns bypass proper law and order, by not leaving any ability to defend oneself in a proper court of law. The law explicitly states itself to be a last measure when a court of law is not an option (ie, overseas or anonymous parties) It is a last resort by consumer protection agencies when they can't use a court or the other party is unwilling to cooperate with their jurisdiction. That is not equivalent to "bypass proper law and order". It's enforcing it. That is the job of the CPA's. >disgusting violation of free speech. Yes but in some parts of Europe there is no Free Speech. Germany for example has Free Opinions, which is a narrower field of speech.
- Trombone12 9y ago
  Wait, you advocate for a law that would grant citizens the right to rewrite server responses on the wire? Because the context here is action against sites where no physical or legal person associated with the site can be found within the EU, so its either blocking server responses or rewriting them in flight...
dingaling 9y ago
> To me this law is one of the reactions taken to the fact that foreign powers are using completely faked news papers and social media pages to influence out elections. Then why not phrase it explicitly? For example: For protection of citizens against online interfaces which either: 1. Consistently promote determinably false information with the intent to deceive on a mass scale; OR 2. Attempt to profit through deception by false advertisement of goods or services. Instead they create some vague, weasly language that can be used to basically block any service for any reason, so long as a group of EU citizens looked at it.

pawy 9y ago

Do you realise what Chaos you are bringing up on us ? Internet has always been full of shit. It's up to us to educate and teach people who are weak to this kind of behaviour. Black List websites = Censorship. Internet is not a product, it's our freedom. To all people who try to "regulate" this, piss off.

arghwhat 9y ago
Amen.
simias 9y ago
I'm torn on this issue. On one hand american-style free speech where you can basically say anything you want as long as you don't target a specific individual is tempting. On the other hand you don't have to look very far online to find groups of people online who get in too deep into a web of lies, disinformation and confirmation bias that leads to some extremism with real world consequences. This is especially a problem since it's very hard to limit access for the underage population who's a lot more prone to being influenced by extremist ideologies. But of course the counterpoint is that this would create an infrastructure which could be abused to manipulate the population. I think there's a compromise to be found here but I don't know where to start.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
eksemplar 9y ago
As opposed to the orderly wold we live in now? I'm honestly done protecting the right to flat out lie and manipulate on the internet. You may see that as an infringement on your free speech, but your approach to "freedom" is rapidly ending democracy in the free world. Keep in mind that the totalitarian voices you're using free speech to defend, won't show you the same curtesy, once they take over.

arghwhat 9y ago

As a European, I find both the ability to force others to not distribute information, and the ability for others to restrict my access certain types of sites to be a disgusting violation of free speech. I would expect this in a certain country in Asia, not in bloody Europe. Not only does it violate free speech, the new ability to perform website takedowns bypass proper law and order, by not leaving any ability to defend oneself in a proper court of law. A copyright infringement claim may be false, for example. The ability to block content country-wide won't help reduce misinformation, which will always have ways to spread. What are we going to do, make it illegal to be uneducated, have unpopular opinions or be a bad person? Instead, this new power can easily be abused to stop the spread of real information, and unpopular (for example, government-opposing or religious) opinions. The original ability to delete information is absurd in a similar way, but more limited, as only the subject can request it. Yet it still bypasses a proper trial, leaving it up to you and the service provider to conclude if the information was useful to the "general public". That's definitely going to result in deletion of valuable information. If you want to give people a way to defend themselves against harmful information, give them the right to amend it instead. Deleting it is wrong. If you want to avoid fake news like you state, educate. Controlling people by removing information is wrong.

zaarn 9y ago
>Not only does it violate free speech, the new ability to perform website takedowns bypass proper law and order, by not leaving any ability to defend oneself in a proper court of law. The law explicitly states itself to be a last measure when a court of law is not an option (ie, overseas or anonymous parties) It is a last resort by consumer protection agencies when they can't use a court or the other party is unwilling to cooperate with their jurisdiction. That is not equivalent to "bypass proper law and order". It's enforcing it. That is the job of the CPA's. >disgusting violation of free speech. Yes but in some parts of Europe there is no Free Speech. Germany for example has Free Opinions, which is a narrower field of speech.
Trombone12 9y ago
Wait, you advocate for a law that would grant citizens the right to rewrite server responses on the wire? Because the context here is action against sites where no physical or legal person associated with the site can be found within the EU, so its either blocking server responses or rewriting them in flight...

dingaling 9y ago

> To me this law is one of the reactions taken to the fact that foreign powers are using completely faked news papers and social media pages to influence out elections. Then why not phrase it explicitly? For example: For protection of citizens against online interfaces which either: 1. Consistently promote determinably false information with the intent to deceive on a mass scale; OR 2. Attempt to profit through deception by false advertisement of goods or services. Instead they create some vague, weasly language that can be used to basically block any service for any reason, so long as a group of EU citizens looked at it.