4 ms·

Or we could go back to the concept of content-agnostic neutral platforms, the best of which have self-moderation available to taste (e.g. subreddit subscription

Or we could go back to the concept of content-agnostic neutral platforms, the best of which have self-moderation available to taste (e.g. subreddit subscriptions). There seems to be a growing reluctance to accept that a person or a group being allowed to exist on a platform does not in any way serve as an endorsement of that person or group. I believe that the copyright legislation in Europe, for example, has very little to do with copyright, and very much to do with holding platforms accountable for the content that their users produce. The net result is the platforms necessarily invoke nuance-less strategies for sanitizing the content according to a narrow band of what is acceptable.

Ygg2 8y ago
> Or we could go back to the concept of content-agnostic neutral platforms Europe's Article 13 and its companion will make sure that NEVER happens.
- kermitismyhero 8y ago
  The EU is so frustratingly inconsistent on internet-freedom matters. On the one hand there's a tendency towards very strong privacy protections through the GDPR and similar legislation/regulations. And on the other there's blatant publisher-protectionist insanity like Article 13. It's a mess.
  - otvsh 8y ago
    How is that inconsistent? Both things are heavy-handed.
    - majewsky 8y ago
      By that same logic, > How is that inconsistent? Both things are a law.
      - otvsh 8y ago
        Which supports my comment, because if it's a law it's heavy-handed. I was comparing it to having no laws.
    - kermitismyhero 8y ago
      I find them inconsistent from an individual-liberty perspective. I see no contradiction between opposition to Article 13 and support for the GDPR. On the one hand, Article 13 compromises the online publishing capability of anyone (either individuals or businesses) who lack the ability to hire both large legal departments and large developer teams who can implement content filters. It entrenches the power of the 800lb media gorillas and kneecaps everyone else. It also enables censorship systems by crippling the capability of individuals and small hosting businesses to publish material at will. But on the other hand, the GDPR is a law with serious teeth that takes power back from those 800lb gorillas that rely on unethical bulk-surveillance business models. It empowers individuals to regain some privacy should they choose to exercise that power. Businesses with ethical user-fee business models have nothing to fear from the GDPR, because for them, the protection of customer data from advertisers isn't an undue hardship. It's a core feature of their service. And let's not forget that the GDPR actually has quite broad exceptions for news agencies. The GDPR can't be used as a censorship tool in the same way that Article 13 can.
- adventured 8y ago
  > Europe's Article 13 and its companion will make sure that NEVER happens. The EU audience merely has to be willing to tolerate the latency of being served content from outside of the EU. The only answer that the EU has to that approach, is to institute a Chinese style blockade and limit access to the Internet (it would become something else, the EUnet, with restricted access to the Internet). The question is whether EU citizens will tolerate that next, required step. Without an EU wall, they can't stop the trivial dodging of their laws by setting up services outside of their jurisdiction and serving to EU users. The US market is profitable enough to trivially support serving to EU users without any regard for making money there (Facebook could operate profitably with 2.2 billion global monthly actives with only monetizing the US market; Google could serve its search engine to a global audience profitably by only monetizing the US).
Chazprime 8y ago
I think those days are sadly long past. As long as the idea pervades that opinions we don't agree with are "dangerous", I can't see platform providers not being held to task to remove undesirables.
amanaplanacanal 7y ago
It appears that the people who pay the bills (advertisers) don't want that sort of platform. And the people who do want that sort of platform are unwilling to pay the bills.

Ygg2 8y ago

> Or we could go back to the concept of content-agnostic neutral platforms Europe's Article 13 and its companion will make sure that NEVER happens.

kermitismyhero 8y ago
The EU is so frustratingly inconsistent on internet-freedom matters. On the one hand there's a tendency towards very strong privacy protections through the GDPR and similar legislation/regulations. And on the other there's blatant publisher-protectionist insanity like Article 13. It's a mess.
- otvsh 8y ago
  How is that inconsistent? Both things are heavy-handed.
  - majewsky 8y ago
    By that same logic, > How is that inconsistent? Both things are a law.
    - otvsh 8y ago
      Which supports my comment, because if it's a law it's heavy-handed. I was comparing it to having no laws.
  - kermitismyhero 8y ago
    I find them inconsistent from an individual-liberty perspective. I see no contradiction between opposition to Article 13 and support for the GDPR. On the one hand, Article 13 compromises the online publishing capability of anyone (either individuals or businesses) who lack the ability to hire both large legal departments and large developer teams who can implement content filters. It entrenches the power of the 800lb media gorillas and kneecaps everyone else. It also enables censorship systems by crippling the capability of individuals and small hosting businesses to publish material at will. But on the other hand, the GDPR is a law with serious teeth that takes power back from those 800lb gorillas that rely on unethical bulk-surveillance business models. It empowers individuals to regain some privacy should they choose to exercise that power. Businesses with ethical user-fee business models have nothing to fear from the GDPR, because for them, the protection of customer data from advertisers isn't an undue hardship. It's a core feature of their service. And let's not forget that the GDPR actually has quite broad exceptions for news agencies. The GDPR can't be used as a censorship tool in the same way that Article 13 can.
adventured 8y ago
> Europe's Article 13 and its companion will make sure that NEVER happens. The EU audience merely has to be willing to tolerate the latency of being served content from outside of the EU. The only answer that the EU has to that approach, is to institute a Chinese style blockade and limit access to the Internet (it would become something else, the EUnet, with restricted access to the Internet). The question is whether EU citizens will tolerate that next, required step. Without an EU wall, they can't stop the trivial dodging of their laws by setting up services outside of their jurisdiction and serving to EU users. The US market is profitable enough to trivially support serving to EU users without any regard for making money there (Facebook could operate profitably with 2.2 billion global monthly actives with only monetizing the US market; Google could serve its search engine to a global audience profitably by only monetizing the US).

Chazprime 8y ago

I think those days are sadly long past. As long as the idea pervades that opinions we don't agree with are "dangerous", I can't see platform providers not being held to task to remove undesirables.

amanaplanacanal 7y ago

It appears that the people who pay the bills (advertisers) don't want that sort of platform. And the people who do want that sort of platform are unwilling to pay the bills.