4 ms·
That sounds possible for large players.
by wolco 8y ago
That sounds possible for large players.
- sparkling 8y agoThe EU usually makes little distinction between a 3 man startup and a multi national 5000 people company with their laws. They don't get that such laws only re-enforce and strengthen the position of the big dominant players (Facebook, Google, Twitter...) that have the legal capacity to deal with all this nonsense.
- pjmlp 8y agoThat is how proper laws are supposed to work, there is no rich and poor's court.
- sparkling 8y agoI agree. Thats why you should not pass this law.
- orbital-decay 8y agoIn theory. In practice, there are a lot of ways to abuse that, for example by establishing a high entry barrier. The reality is always much more nuanced than ideologies.
- arkades 8y agoThey’ve made it clear that they are not making exceptions for small players, specifically somas to preclude pushing extremists out into the fringes of the Internet. No small platform will ever be able to launch in the EU again.
- bufferoverflow 8y agoHow? Can you even define "extremist content" in general terms without also making religious texts illegal? Or scientific articles that go against the politically correct narrative?
- TheHeasman 8y ago>Or scientific articles that go against the politically correct narrative? Wut?
- bufferoverflow 8y agoJames Damore was fired for citing scientific articles, for example. You can also watch the swedish documentary Hjernevask which shows what happens when science goes against the PC system, it's fascinating.
- happytoexplain 8y agoDamore was fired for what he said, not what he cited while saying it (I'm not saying it was justified). Misrepresenting events as a rhetorical tactic is essentially propaganda - it will never do anything but hurt both sides of the argument.
- bufferoverflow 8y agoBut what he said we're citations. Nobody is misrepresenting anything.
- sampo 8y agoNorwegian documentary, actually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVaTc15plVs&list=PLaJtMuDnR5KLwrt4z1O8tKmHWmUm3nObV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVaTc15plVs&list=PLaJtMuDnR5... (The links in the Wikipedia article go to videos with a bit higher quality than the Youtube playlist.)
- alkonaut 8y agoAssuming there are already laws defining what you can say/publish, I'd assume that these laws are only relating to how material that is already illegal should be handled? What is legal is of course varying between EU member states, but e.g. hate speech or nazi propaganda usually falls under the same paragraph and is already illegal. I agree that this is a very difficult distinction, but the distinction isn't new in any place where there aren't already hate speech laws for example
- ekianjo 8y agoreally? On youtube there are more hours of videos uploaded every minute than actual human reviewers can ever hope to police, let alone under one hour...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- benologist 8y agoGoogle has $100,000,000,000+ in the bank and slightly more than that in revenue last year, so realistically if they need 100,000 more employees to handle this they will still be ridiculously profitable, especially when they call them contractors to avoid health care, and evade taxes on a global scale, and woo oppressive new markets like China.
- onion2k 8y agoCharging users to upload videos would solve the problem.
- ekianjo 8y agoI doubt ISIS and the like lacks funding. If this is really what you want to prevent money wont be a big barrier.
- onion2k 8y agoYou're not thinking laterally. The problem isn't extremist videos. The problem is that there are too many videos uploaded to reasonably check all of them. Charging would solve that problem, which in turn solves the problem of extremist content.