3 ms·
> platforms have been built on the knowledge that they're heavily used for content theft Yes, and most providers have usually done a good job at reducing conte
by DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago
> platforms have been built on the knowledge that they're heavily used for content theft
Yes, and most providers have usually done a good job at reducing content theft on their platforms, to the extent of their capabilities.
The only thing that has changed is that now they can be punished for not meeting someone elses subjective standard.
> I'm reasonably happy the EU is interested in shifting profits back away from big tech
If that's what you believe, then I understand your position. Sadly, you could very well be completely mistaken. Google, Facebook & Co. already have their filters; they can prove that they're trying their best.
It's only the smaller communities that will be affected, and they won't have the money for dozens of well-paid machine-learning specialists to build them content filters. We'll see how long it takes for google to sell access to their services.
Of course, if you think I'm mistaken, I'd love to hear your reasoning (I'd also really love to be proven wrong on this topic)
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoMachine learning based moderation has time and time again proven to be woefully inadequate. Human intervention is required, and Content ID does not meet the requirements of this new article. And I would argue the amount of cash Google and Facebook stockpile rather than hiring human moderators reflects that they are doing far from "their best". Platforms that have human reviewed content or where people self-host their own content will have no issues with this change, and platforms will be likely significantly less profitable if they truly move to comply with the law, as it will require armies of humans, or massive liability costs.