I will come out and say I don't agree with this portrayal of EU legislation being absurd. Time and again we're discussing what's wrong with the current web land

I will come out and say I don't agree with this portrayal of EU legislation being absurd. Time and again we're discussing what's wrong with the current web landscape: commoditization of content, leading into an attention economy with tracking and surveillance, and concentration of ad spend and most money to be made in the hands of very few players. If creators don't get their share of profits made using their works, this won't sustain further content creation. YouTube and file sharing sites can not shrug and say "we're just running the platform" when they disproportionally benefit and leave content creators with a pittance if anything. Now that the EU actually wants to do something about it, the law is being denounced as lobbied by big media, but, to the contrary, the current status quo only serves Google et al. I have my reservations about the feasibility of content filtering, but "EU vs the Internet" is coming from an internet "mob" mindset having come to expect everything to be free (as in FREE of direct cost) immediately and without friction. "The Internet" is not consumers, but made by creators. In fact, I'm cautiously optimistic this (and the GDPR) legislation will benefit smaller publishers and diversity and bring back unproblematic syndication and end-user content aggregation via RSS or similar. The EU is first and foremost a common market and concerned with creating fair economical conditions. Obviously, the web is stuck (economically) in a quasi-monopolistic situation. The EU Commission/Parliament is attempting to do exactly what is necessary to re-establish desirable market conditions. If they'd do nothing, this would question their very reason for existence; they're not in for establishing state- or other monopolies. Along these lines, what the EU should consider next is to establish workable e-payment standards and legislation.