4 ms·

> Court-like proceedings to confirm bans The EU's initial proposed version of the "Digital Services Act", requires that when a service takes down information t

> Court-like proceedings to confirm bans The EU's initial proposed version of the "Digital Services Act", requires that when a service takes down information that they think is "illegal" or incompatible with the terms of service, They are required to provide the "facts and circumstances" used to arrive at that decision, as well as reference to the specific term of service they think is violated, and why they feel the information violates that. Furthermore, they must provide an appeals mechanism for both information takedowns and any account suspensions/bans associated with them (and besides things like non-payment, I'd bet the majority of account suspensions/bans on online services are due to some posted content the company finds objectionable). Lastly, if the internal appeals process fails to satisfy the user, the user initiate a what is basically an electronic binding arbitration process with a certified " out-of-court dispute settlement body" of the user's choosing, with this body having the power to overturn the companies decision. That last part sound an awful lot like "Court-like proceedings to confirm bans". I suspect the final law may not be as pro-consumer in these areas as the initial draft is (many big companies will not be happy about this part of the law and will try to kill it off). If it does survive it would be much better then all too common: "We are banning you because we think you broke an unspecified part of the terms of service. We won't be more specific because we don't have to be, and are scared that people trying to break the rules could learn how they got caught. We won't even tell you that this was a fully automated process with no humans involved, that gets things wrong x% of the time. There is no appeal, unless you can get Twitter or the news media sufficiently riled up against us."

dalbasal 5y ago
Hmm. I didn't know that. I suppose we'll see how it works out, assuming it does become law. There is devil in the generalities here, but plenty of devil in the detail too. Detail-wise.... Compliance, currently, is the art of ticking boxes while not changing anything fundamental. Too often, politicians and advocates have their eyes on the spirit of (proposed) laws while corporations and their advocates put their eye on how "compliance" will actually work procedurally. The latter approach is more effective. That doesn't mean no goals are ever achieved, but it does dampen a lot. EU transparency laws, right to be forgotten and such are good examples. They might establish moral rights, but they don't affect really achieve big practical goals. Generality-wise... I think the problem for (eg) free expression is the platform oligopoly itself, not their corporate policies. That's not my main concern here though. My main concern is: These laws are only necessary because monopoly. The danger is that the laws entrench monopoly, by applying them unnecessarily to smaller platforms. That said, we'll see when/if it happens. Thanks for the info.

dalbasal 5y ago

Hmm. I didn't know that. I suppose we'll see how it works out, assuming it does become law. There is devil in the generalities here, but plenty of devil in the detail too. Detail-wise.... Compliance, currently, is the art of ticking boxes while not changing anything fundamental. Too often, politicians and advocates have their eyes on the spirit of (proposed) laws while corporations and their advocates put their eye on how "compliance" will actually work procedurally. The latter approach is more effective. That doesn't mean no goals are ever achieved, but it does dampen a lot. EU transparency laws, right to be forgotten and such are good examples. They might establish moral rights, but they don't affect really achieve big practical goals. Generality-wise... I think the problem for (eg) free expression is the platform oligopoly itself, not their corporate policies. That's not my main concern here though. My main concern is: These laws are only necessary because monopoly. The danger is that the laws entrench monopoly, by applying them unnecessarily to smaller platforms. That said, we'll see when/if it happens. Thanks for the info.