4 ms·
With this proposal they want to impede freedom of information while at the same time get some of that sweet tax money in the pockets of their allies. This soun
by sykh 9y ago
With this proposal they want to impede freedom of information while at the same time get some of that sweet tax money in the pockets of their allies.
This sounds plausible but do you have evidence that it is actually true?
An equally plausible reason for the proposed change is that European leaders see what media consolidation leads too. Too many people relying on too few sources for information. Perhaps this legislation is an ill thought out way to try to counteract the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica controversy.
Newspapers, and magazines are dying. They are no longer able to do the sort of investigative journalism like in the past. Consolidation has led to a degradation of quality and has caused too few people to control too much information. Witness the shenanigans of Sinclair Broadcasting recently.
I don't know the merits of the legislation in question but without evidence it's a hard sell to ascribe its passing to what you claim.
- nannePOPI 9y agoThese kind of laws make it much more difficult to spread content and therefore they consolidate informations in few player, often loved by the governments and their puppeteers. We used to be able to put a website online, gather emails to send newsletters, offer services to our users, etc without any help from the government. Now, every time I put a new website online I have to fill pages of pages with stupid policies and I know I'm not even fully compliant because honestly it's impossible to really be since it's all about how it's interpreted by the current bureaucrat. These kind of laws don't deserve a place in Europe. You need people to be able to be naturally compliant, so that they can promote their stuff wihout being scared of persecution if they say something the government doesn't like. Today you don't make a website and say controversial stuff, otherwise you know that when the government will notice it will uses the broad interpretations that stupid laws like the cookie law or GPDR give them to drag you into court and destroy you. By government of course I mean bureaucrats, political figures and your bigger competitors. These kind of laws, like the GDPR, where they say "we will use them for good, don't worry, we will ony use them on big companies" are those that freedom-minded people should be mostly scared about. Of course the proposal in OP is much worse and makes no sense.
- sykh 9y agoThat may be a consequence of such laws but do you have evidence that this is the consequence that the people making this law want? What evidence do you have for the motivations for the people making this law.
- short_sells_poo 9y agoIt's almost irrelevant whether the people proposing this law have good or bad intentions. The current establishment may mean well, but the road to hell us paved with good intentions. There is no guarantee that a regime in 30 years won't abuse these regulations.
- unilynx 9y agoWhat's stopping a regime to enact these regulations in 30 years, if it feels it needs them? That argument works against things like data retention laws (the new regime may find 'new uses' for data already retained) but if anything, GDPR discourages data retention