20 ms·

> Mr Voss also rubbished claims of an "upload filter", saying the proposal would only affect 1%-5% of the internet. He also said the rules would apply to "only

by mabbo 8y ago

> Mr Voss also rubbished claims of an "upload filter", saying the proposal would only affect 1%-5% of the internet. He also said the rules would apply to "only those that actually publish copyright protected content" and earn money from it. The rubbish I see here is a man who doesn't understand the laws he's trying to push forward. All websites (for the most part) are trying to make at least enough money to keep running via advertising. Any website with a comments section (hey, this one included) would need to extensively monitor all posts by the public to ensure no one posts anything copyrighted. What it will effectively mean is that many websites won't bother allowing access from the EU anymore. Already, I have to screenshot and email my sister in Britain recipes from a Canadian website that doesn't want to deal with GDPR. Imagine how difficult it will be when there's copyright liabilities from content you didn't know you were 'publishing'.

new_guy 8y ago
>Already, I have to screenshot and email my sister in Britain recipes from a Canadian website that doesn't want to deal with GDPR. Have her install this https://anonymox.net/en https://anonymox.net/en it's a free Firefox addon that'll let her access the sites by making them think she's in the US
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  To be clear its not just hiding your IP you are proxying all your potentially sensitive data via their servers. Also bandwidth may be cheap but its not free. It mentions a paid option for a bout 5 euros a month that is 10x faster with unlimited bandwidth. I interpret this to mean that the free option has a finite supply of bandwidth and is slow which is logical because otherwise people that want to watch 4k netflix over it would put them out of business. I also see that they offer a browser plugin but don't seem to provide say an openvpn connection which seems inferior as that protects all forms of data rather than just browsing data.
- timrichard 8y ago
  Just to mention another option, Opera installs with a free VPN built-in.
  - Deukhoofd 8y ago
    A free VPN on a browser owned by a random group of Chinese investors? Probably not the safest idea.
    - 794CD01 8y ago
      Really? Chinese investors sound like exactly the people who would most want a secure private VPN.
      - throwaway37585 8y ago
        It depends on their relationship with the Party. Ultrasurf, for instance, was developed by Chinese dissidents.
sgift 8y ago
> The rubbish I see here is a man who doesn't understand the laws he's trying to push forward. He fully understands what he wants, but he is a member of CDU, so he couldn't care less. This whole shit happened because German publishers got their beloved "Leistungsschutzrecht" kicked into the bin by the constitutional court. So, instead of accepting defeat they and their cronies started lobbying in the EU, so they can reintroduce it and say "Oh, we are so sorry, we didn't want to do this, but they FORCED US!" ... its an age old strategy.
- pjc50 8y ago
  This is one of the real problems with EU policymaking: "policy laundering". National governments are often in on it as well. Because the process is slow, somewhat opaque, and badly covered in national press, lobbyists can get things passed without adequate public debate. (It's not precisely a "democratic/undemocratic" thing either, because it can happen equally well at the national level.)
  - cordite 8y ago
    Isn’t this in concept what contributed to Brexit?
    - pjc50 8y ago
      Perhaps, but if anything the UK's own government and press were major offenders in this regard. A lot of incidents where the UK government could have done something within the EU framework but chose not to are blamed on the EU by the press. As we are now seeing on trade, immigration, agriculture, etc, having the UK government try to take responsibility for those areas means the controversy immediately blows up in their face as suddenly they can no longer say different things to different audiences.
      - Nursie 8y ago
        "Oh, but it wasn't us, it was that terrible EU just forcing us to do this!" (Please don't think about it too hard, or look at who introduced the legislation to the EU, or anything else, because it really was us pushing it hard...) Yeah it irritates me. I'm a bit in-between on the whole Brexit question, I've enjoyed the political chaos that ensues, and things like this just show up the brokenness of the current situation. The EU is very flawed. I voted to remain, but I was under no illusion that we'd get sensible reform to the way the countries engage and participate in the whole thing.
teamhappy 8y ago
> Any website with a comments section (hey, this one included) would need to extensively monitor all posts That's not true. The law only applies to "content sharing service providers" (sites like YouTube, SoundCloud, Instagram, Megaupload and so on).
- mabbo 8y ago
  Right, so since YouTube, SoundCloud and Instagram will all have the extensive legal and development teams needed to build these automated censorship systems, how will anyone ever be able to oppose them? Do you want to try to build a startup today taking on YouTube knowing that the legal system is a complex mess and if you make any mistake, you'll be sued out of a company? Will any VC want to fund you in those conditions? And what makes this website not a "content sharing service provider"? All the site does is share links to content. And since linking to content will now obligate paying the person you link to, hackernews will have to start finding a way to monetize just to pay for all of the linking it does.
  - teamhappy 8y ago
    > how will anyone ever be able to oppose them? The law clearly states that the size of the company and the costs of the "measures" should be taken into account, so that shouldn't be an issue. > if you make any mistake, you'll be sued out of a company? If you can prove that you've tried that you're not liable anymore and therefore can't be sued. > what makes this website not a "content sharing service provider"? All the site does is share links to content. You kind of answered your own question there. > And since linking to content will now obligate paying the person you link to No idea where this linking myth comes from. Commercial websites now have to pay a license fee when they publish substantial portions of press publications. Source: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/35373/st09134-en18.pdf http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/35373/st09134-en18.pdf
    - samdoidge 8y ago
      >The law clearly states that the size of the company and the costs of the "measures" should be taken into account, so that shouldn't be an issue. Umm, no. It doesn't stop it being an issue. The wording is ambiguous and this is risk that needs consideration when embarking on a venture. This law has definitely added at least friction to competing startups, and a barrier to entry at worst.
adventured 8y ago
> What it will effectively mean is that many websites won't bother allowing access from the EU anymore. The ideal approach is to disregard the EU's laws if you aren't governed by them (or don't have a very good reason to comply with them). What Web sites should do instead, is to not comply or censor, unless they are legally forced to under the jurisdiction of the EU. There is nothing the EU can do to me, as an American Internet business owner, to force me to comply with their GDPR or this new filter law. They would stand no chance in an American court. The sole means to cut off EU users from my services is to put up a Chinese firewall in the EU and 1984 the people there behind it. Sites & operators in Canada, or Brazil, or Australia, or Mexico, or Singapore etc are no more required to comply with EU privacy rules, as they are to obey the US Bill of Rights (or, the new California privacy law). Every site outside the US doesn't have to suddenly comply with California's privacy laws, or the privacy laws of Rhode Island. Acting from a practical basis, it strictly depends on whether you need to do business there. No average site can comply with every law in every town, city, state, province, country, zone, region, union around the world. You can freely take on / allow access to EU users and entirely disregard the wishes of bureacrats in the EU, so long as you don't hold assets in the EU or do business in the EU. They largely have no means to enforce their policies outside of the EU, exactly as it should be.
- yulaow 8y ago
  They can stop you from having business in EU. A EU court can just order a whole-EU dns block for your site and any related urls and you would be incapable of serving any person from EU. If you have a big share of profits from them you will lose everything. Maybe for you it's ok, but for many business it would be a total disaster with a fine on top of it (if they want to get back the right of serving eu users) very big considering your "malicious intentions" would be evident
  - adventured 8y ago
    > They can stop you from having business in EU. ... Maybe for you it's ok, but for many business it would be a total disaster I already covered that in my post. I very clearly said that you should only comply if you have business interests in the EU. A Canadian recipe site is unlikely to have to be concerned with such a thing; that's similarly true for the majority of all sites on the planet. They can freely disregard EU laws, so long as they have no business interests in the EU. The majority of all sites will never comply with GDPR, they will never concern themselves with it at all: because it does not apply to them if they're strictly operating outside of the EU. If 18 US states decide to implement their own unique privacy laws, you know what isn't going to happen? Every site on earth outside of the US is not going to rush out and try to comply with every aspect of those 18 unique privacy laws. Because that would be insane. > A EU court can just order a whole-EU dns block for your site and any related urls and you would be incapable of serving any person from EU. I also covered that in my post. The sole means for the EU to practically enforce its policies globally, is to put up a Chinese firewall and very aggressively censor everything that people in the EU can see. If the people of the EU want to live like that, that's their problem. If you're a big service, of course they can specifically target you for DNS blocking, and that still only matters if you're doing business in the EU.
glenstein 8y ago
>Any website with a comments section (hey, this one included) would need to extensively monitor all posts by the public to ensure no one posts anything copyrighted. Even this concedes too much. Suppose machine learning gets really good and it became effortless to monitor posts for infringing content? We'd still be deploying tools that control, constrain, and chill internet activity in haunting ways, and that's not a direction we should go. To me, that is the problem, not the practical difficulty of implementing the rule, which implicitly admits that it's right.
- tdb7893 8y ago
  I'm a little confused, are you saying that there should be no copyright? It's a little hard to discern your position because if you are for copyright it would seem like you are against policing it.
  - noirbot 8y ago
    I'm not the GP here, but I think the idea is that there shouldn't be a de facto prior restraint on speech for the sake of copyright. By telling the hosts of user content that they're liable if their users do anything that violates copyright, it would mostly force sites to assume that all content infringes until checked to be otherwise. Even if you own the copyright to whatever you posted, it's not in most site's interest to certify that to enough of a degree of confidence to allow it. I think back to issues Youtube has had in its own attempts to police Copyright, which has led to widespread abuse, and absurd situations like composers being hit with strikes for uploading music that they composed.
    - tdb7893 8y ago
      Yeah I agree with all that for the current situation but how I interpreted the other person was that even if checking was absurdly trivial he would still be against it (obviously it can't happen in real life but it's just a hypothetical). That means that they wouldn't have to "assume content infringes" and the whole YouTube problem is a moot point. It requires a different argument than the norm (as your post shows) so I was curious if that was what he was arguing and what that argument would be.
smoe 8y ago
> a man who doesn't understand the laws he's trying to push forward. I think we should stop giving politicians the benefit of the doubt, that they do not understand the laws they are lobbying for. It is their freaking job to do so. And if it's above their head technically, no matter whether it is about internet, nuclear power or farming, it is up to them to either catch up or back off.
- LaurentS 8y ago
  From my limited experience with calling MEPs, they don't always get the entire picture. Who could blame them for not being experts in web, nuclear energy, agricultural policies and more all at the same time? One way to help them is by calling them up and explaining our views on topics we care about. Mass emailing doesn't seem to do more than clog their spam filters, but a phone call actually seems to at least be listened to, if not acted on.
  - smoe 8y ago
    That is the other side of the coin. People and especially journalists expect any politician to have a short, quotable statement ready on any topic at any point in time and don't accept "I don't know" as an answer. Which is just a silly expectation. I'd rather have a politician not having strong opinions on social issues (and doesn't vote on them) if they have proven expertise and focus on lets say agriculture. But lots of people would disqualify that person on the latter because they don't align with them politically on the former. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I have my doubts that calling them really changes their mind, or if they just count the number of calls and when it reaches the threshold to endanger their reelection, they act on it. That kind of coercion is perfectly fine by me, if the system doesn't provide other tools to the public like more direct democracy in Switzerland, but it is not ideal.
- pessimizer 8y ago
  Sorry, due to Hanlon's Razor, we have to accept that every politician who feigns ignorance while collecting massive checks is operating in good faith. We still have to accept that good faith after we've loudly, painstakingly and publicly explained the details to them, because they may be deaf or have memory issues.
akerro 8y ago
>(hey, this one included) would need to extensively monitor all posts by the public This is really huge simplification. This "law" is a directive, which means that every country in EU will have to implement it on its own. I heard that both articles 11 and 13 are incompatible with Polish constitution, which is one problem. Another problem is that German implementation of each article might be not compatible with Italian or Norwegian version. Each county will have slightly different versions, wordings and holes. It would be enough for websites that get multimedia and text to just simply ban everyone from EU from posting, as it will be impossible to write a filter or API service that is compatible with every regulation in every country, or create a very restrictive filter, that rejects content if there is only 5% chance of it being copyrighted.
13of40 8y ago
I'm vacationing in Germany right now, and as a news aggregator junkie I'm amazed at how much content is just blocked, with nearly everything else having dark patterned UI that either inconveniences or punishes you if you don't accept their tracking. It was really sad to see NPR's options: Either consent to everything or view plain HTML that would render correctly on Mozilla 1.0, with no images.
- intrasight 8y ago
  >view plain HTML Which is perfect, right?
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    No more pesky switching to Lynx!
  - isostatic 8y ago
    Pretty much, other than they break the deep link. Follow https://www.npr.org/2018/07/03/625544265/pentagon-questioned-over-war-zone-numbers-blackout https://www.npr.org/2018/07/03/625544265/pentagon-questioned... Redirect to https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org/2018/07/03/625544265/pentagon-questioned-over-war-zone-numbers-blackout https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org... Reject the sell-your-soul option and get dumped to https://text.npr.org/ https://text.npr.org/ You should instead be sent to https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=625544265 https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=625544265 There is no technical reason for these sites to not work without accepting cookies -- this is easily proven with curl. The sId is right there in the URL. (of course there's no technical reason the full featured site can't be served either without setting hundereds of external cookies to nameless numbers of companies)
    - bscphil 8y ago
      > You should instead be sent to https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=625544265 https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=625544265 My god that site's beautiful. Add a little CSS to limit the line width and it's perfect.
vt100 8y ago
He understands that the laws are what publishing companies are paying him to support.
iKSv2 8y ago
"Already, I have to screenshot and email my sister in Britain recipes from a Canadian website that doesn't want to deal with GDPR." I had a friend telling me almost similar thing I thought he was joking. This is actually happening?
kapad 8y ago
>> The rubbish I see here is a man who doesn't understand the laws he's trying to push forward. I think this almost universally holds true for most law makers. Atleast if you only consider their public statements. That being said, I think becoming a law maker is incredibly hard, and a person elected to office is generally quite smart and would understand, or atleast be able to find someone to explain to them, the entire ramifications of any proposed legislation. But they push it forward in any case, for reasons that aren't, and will possibly never be, made public.

by mabbo 8y ago

new_guy 8y ago

>Already, I have to screenshot and email my sister in Britain recipes from a Canadian website that doesn't want to deal with GDPR. Have her install this https://anonymox.net/en https://anonymox.net/en it's a free Firefox addon that'll let her access the sites by making them think she's in the US

michaelmrose 8y ago
To be clear its not just hiding your IP you are proxying all your potentially sensitive data via their servers. Also bandwidth may be cheap but its not free. It mentions a paid option for a bout 5 euros a month that is 10x faster with unlimited bandwidth. I interpret this to mean that the free option has a finite supply of bandwidth and is slow which is logical because otherwise people that want to watch 4k netflix over it would put them out of business. I also see that they offer a browser plugin but don't seem to provide say an openvpn connection which seems inferior as that protects all forms of data rather than just browsing data.
timrichard 8y ago
Just to mention another option, Opera installs with a free VPN built-in.
- Deukhoofd 8y ago
  A free VPN on a browser owned by a random group of Chinese investors? Probably not the safest idea.
  - 794CD01 8y ago
    Really? Chinese investors sound like exactly the people who would most want a secure private VPN.
    - throwaway37585 8y ago
      It depends on their relationship with the Party. Ultrasurf, for instance, was developed by Chinese dissidents.

sgift 8y ago

> The rubbish I see here is a man who doesn't understand the laws he's trying to push forward. He fully understands what he wants, but he is a member of CDU, so he couldn't care less. This whole shit happened because German publishers got their beloved "Leistungsschutzrecht" kicked into the bin by the constitutional court. So, instead of accepting defeat they and their cronies started lobbying in the EU, so they can reintroduce it and say "Oh, we are so sorry, we didn't want to do this, but they FORCED US!" ... its an age old strategy.

pjc50 8y ago
This is one of the real problems with EU policymaking: "policy laundering". National governments are often in on it as well. Because the process is slow, somewhat opaque, and badly covered in national press, lobbyists can get things passed without adequate public debate. (It's not precisely a "democratic/undemocratic" thing either, because it can happen equally well at the national level.)
- cordite 8y ago
  Isn’t this in concept what contributed to Brexit?
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Perhaps, but if anything the UK's own government and press were major offenders in this regard. A lot of incidents where the UK government could have done something within the EU framework but chose not to are blamed on the EU by the press. As we are now seeing on trade, immigration, agriculture, etc, having the UK government try to take responsibility for those areas means the controversy immediately blows up in their face as suddenly they can no longer say different things to different audiences.
    - Nursie 8y ago
      "Oh, but it wasn't us, it was that terrible EU just forcing us to do this!" (Please don't think about it too hard, or look at who introduced the legislation to the EU, or anything else, because it really was us pushing it hard...) Yeah it irritates me. I'm a bit in-between on the whole Brexit question, I've enjoyed the political chaos that ensues, and things like this just show up the brokenness of the current situation. The EU is very flawed. I voted to remain, but I was under no illusion that we'd get sensible reform to the way the countries engage and participate in the whole thing.

teamhappy 8y ago

> Any website with a comments section (hey, this one included) would need to extensively monitor all posts That's not true. The law only applies to "content sharing service providers" (sites like YouTube, SoundCloud, Instagram, Megaupload and so on).

mabbo 8y ago
Right, so since YouTube, SoundCloud and Instagram will all have the extensive legal and development teams needed to build these automated censorship systems, how will anyone ever be able to oppose them? Do you want to try to build a startup today taking on YouTube knowing that the legal system is a complex mess and if you make any mistake, you'll be sued out of a company? Will any VC want to fund you in those conditions? And what makes this website not a "content sharing service provider"? All the site does is share links to content. And since linking to content will now obligate paying the person you link to, hackernews will have to start finding a way to monetize just to pay for all of the linking it does.
- teamhappy 8y ago
  > how will anyone ever be able to oppose them? The law clearly states that the size of the company and the costs of the "measures" should be taken into account, so that shouldn't be an issue. > if you make any mistake, you'll be sued out of a company? If you can prove that you've tried that you're not liable anymore and therefore can't be sued. > what makes this website not a "content sharing service provider"? All the site does is share links to content. You kind of answered your own question there. > And since linking to content will now obligate paying the person you link to No idea where this linking myth comes from. Commercial websites now have to pay a license fee when they publish substantial portions of press publications. Source: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/35373/st09134-en18.pdf http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/35373/st09134-en18.pdf
  - samdoidge 8y ago
    >The law clearly states that the size of the company and the costs of the "measures" should be taken into account, so that shouldn't be an issue. Umm, no. It doesn't stop it being an issue. The wording is ambiguous and this is risk that needs consideration when embarking on a venture. This law has definitely added at least friction to competing startups, and a barrier to entry at worst.

adventured 8y ago

> What it will effectively mean is that many websites won't bother allowing access from the EU anymore. The ideal approach is to disregard the EU's laws if you aren't governed by them (or don't have a very good reason to comply with them). What Web sites should do instead, is to not comply or censor, unless they are legally forced to under the jurisdiction of the EU. There is nothing the EU can do to me, as an American Internet business owner, to force me to comply with their GDPR or this new filter law. They would stand no chance in an American court. The sole means to cut off EU users from my services is to put up a Chinese firewall in the EU and 1984 the people there behind it. Sites & operators in Canada, or Brazil, or Australia, or Mexico, or Singapore etc are no more required to comply with EU privacy rules, as they are to obey the US Bill of Rights (or, the new California privacy law). Every site outside the US doesn't have to suddenly comply with California's privacy laws, or the privacy laws of Rhode Island. Acting from a practical basis, it strictly depends on whether you need to do business there. No average site can comply with every law in every town, city, state, province, country, zone, region, union around the world. You can freely take on / allow access to EU users and entirely disregard the wishes of bureacrats in the EU, so long as you don't hold assets in the EU or do business in the EU. They largely have no means to enforce their policies outside of the EU, exactly as it should be.

yulaow 8y ago
They can stop you from having business in EU. A EU court can just order a whole-EU dns block for your site and any related urls and you would be incapable of serving any person from EU. If you have a big share of profits from them you will lose everything. Maybe for you it's ok, but for many business it would be a total disaster with a fine on top of it (if they want to get back the right of serving eu users) very big considering your "malicious intentions" would be evident
- adventured 8y ago
  > They can stop you from having business in EU. ... Maybe for you it's ok, but for many business it would be a total disaster I already covered that in my post. I very clearly said that you should only comply if you have business interests in the EU. A Canadian recipe site is unlikely to have to be concerned with such a thing; that's similarly true for the majority of all sites on the planet. They can freely disregard EU laws, so long as they have no business interests in the EU. The majority of all sites will never comply with GDPR, they will never concern themselves with it at all: because it does not apply to them if they're strictly operating outside of the EU. If 18 US states decide to implement their own unique privacy laws, you know what isn't going to happen? Every site on earth outside of the US is not going to rush out and try to comply with every aspect of those 18 unique privacy laws. Because that would be insane. > A EU court can just order a whole-EU dns block for your site and any related urls and you would be incapable of serving any person from EU. I also covered that in my post. The sole means for the EU to practically enforce its policies globally, is to put up a Chinese firewall and very aggressively censor everything that people in the EU can see. If the people of the EU want to live like that, that's their problem. If you're a big service, of course they can specifically target you for DNS blocking, and that still only matters if you're doing business in the EU.

glenstein 8y ago

>Any website with a comments section (hey, this one included) would need to extensively monitor all posts by the public to ensure no one posts anything copyrighted. Even this concedes too much. Suppose machine learning gets really good and it became effortless to monitor posts for infringing content? We'd still be deploying tools that control, constrain, and chill internet activity in haunting ways, and that's not a direction we should go. To me, that is the problem, not the practical difficulty of implementing the rule, which implicitly admits that it's right.

tdb7893 8y ago
I'm a little confused, are you saying that there should be no copyright? It's a little hard to discern your position because if you are for copyright it would seem like you are against policing it.
- noirbot 8y ago
  I'm not the GP here, but I think the idea is that there shouldn't be a de facto prior restraint on speech for the sake of copyright. By telling the hosts of user content that they're liable if their users do anything that violates copyright, it would mostly force sites to assume that all content infringes until checked to be otherwise. Even if you own the copyright to whatever you posted, it's not in most site's interest to certify that to enough of a degree of confidence to allow it. I think back to issues Youtube has had in its own attempts to police Copyright, which has led to widespread abuse, and absurd situations like composers being hit with strikes for uploading music that they composed.
  - tdb7893 8y ago
    Yeah I agree with all that for the current situation but how I interpreted the other person was that even if checking was absurdly trivial he would still be against it (obviously it can't happen in real life but it's just a hypothetical). That means that they wouldn't have to "assume content infringes" and the whole YouTube problem is a moot point. It requires a different argument than the norm (as your post shows) so I was curious if that was what he was arguing and what that argument would be.

smoe 8y ago

> a man who doesn't understand the laws he's trying to push forward. I think we should stop giving politicians the benefit of the doubt, that they do not understand the laws they are lobbying for. It is their freaking job to do so. And if it's above their head technically, no matter whether it is about internet, nuclear power or farming, it is up to them to either catch up or back off.

LaurentS 8y ago
From my limited experience with calling MEPs, they don't always get the entire picture. Who could blame them for not being experts in web, nuclear energy, agricultural policies and more all at the same time? One way to help them is by calling them up and explaining our views on topics we care about. Mass emailing doesn't seem to do more than clog their spam filters, but a phone call actually seems to at least be listened to, if not acted on.
- smoe 8y ago
  That is the other side of the coin. People and especially journalists expect any politician to have a short, quotable statement ready on any topic at any point in time and don't accept "I don't know" as an answer. Which is just a silly expectation. I'd rather have a politician not having strong opinions on social issues (and doesn't vote on them) if they have proven expertise and focus on lets say agriculture. But lots of people would disqualify that person on the latter because they don't align with them politically on the former. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I have my doubts that calling them really changes their mind, or if they just count the number of calls and when it reaches the threshold to endanger their reelection, they act on it. That kind of coercion is perfectly fine by me, if the system doesn't provide other tools to the public like more direct democracy in Switzerland, but it is not ideal.
pessimizer 8y ago
Sorry, due to Hanlon's Razor, we have to accept that every politician who feigns ignorance while collecting massive checks is operating in good faith. We still have to accept that good faith after we've loudly, painstakingly and publicly explained the details to them, because they may be deaf or have memory issues.

akerro 8y ago

>(hey, this one included) would need to extensively monitor all posts by the public This is really huge simplification. This "law" is a directive, which means that every country in EU will have to implement it on its own. I heard that both articles 11 and 13 are incompatible with Polish constitution, which is one problem. Another problem is that German implementation of each article might be not compatible with Italian or Norwegian version. Each county will have slightly different versions, wordings and holes. It would be enough for websites that get multimedia and text to just simply ban everyone from EU from posting, as it will be impossible to write a filter or API service that is compatible with every regulation in every country, or create a very restrictive filter, that rejects content if there is only 5% chance of it being copyrighted.

13of40 8y ago

I'm vacationing in Germany right now, and as a news aggregator junkie I'm amazed at how much content is just blocked, with nearly everything else having dark patterned UI that either inconveniences or punishes you if you don't accept their tracking. It was really sad to see NPR's options: Either consent to everything or view plain HTML that would render correctly on Mozilla 1.0, with no images.

intrasight 8y ago
>view plain HTML Which is perfect, right?
- reaperducer 8y ago
  No more pesky switching to Lynx!
- isostatic 8y ago
  Pretty much, other than they break the deep link. Follow https://www.npr.org/2018/07/03/625544265/pentagon-questioned-over-war-zone-numbers-blackout https://www.npr.org/2018/07/03/625544265/pentagon-questioned... Redirect to https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org/2018/07/03/625544265/pentagon-questioned-over-war-zone-numbers-blackout https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org... Reject the sell-your-soul option and get dumped to https://text.npr.org/ https://text.npr.org/ You should instead be sent to https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=625544265 https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=625544265 There is no technical reason for these sites to not work without accepting cookies -- this is easily proven with curl. The sId is right there in the URL. (of course there's no technical reason the full featured site can't be served either without setting hundereds of external cookies to nameless numbers of companies)
  - bscphil 8y ago
    > You should instead be sent to https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=625544265 https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=625544265 My god that site's beautiful. Add a little CSS to limit the line width and it's perfect.

vt100 8y ago

He understands that the laws are what publishing companies are paying him to support.

iKSv2 8y ago

"Already, I have to screenshot and email my sister in Britain recipes from a Canadian website that doesn't want to deal with GDPR." I had a friend telling me almost similar thing I thought he was joking. This is actually happening?

kapad 8y ago

>> The rubbish I see here is a man who doesn't understand the laws he's trying to push forward. I think this almost universally holds true for most law makers. Atleast if you only consider their public statements. That being said, I think becoming a law maker is incredibly hard, and a person elected to office is generally quite smart and would understand, or atleast be able to find someone to explain to them, the entire ramifications of any proposed legislation. But they push it forward in any case, for reasons that aren't, and will possibly never be, made public.