5 ms·

Requiring "trusted flaggers" should clash with freedom of press so i don't see this passing through parliaments. Transparency of algorithms is unenforceable to

• Jensson 4y ago
  [flagged]
• pjc50 4y ago
  The "trusted flaggers": https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0045b1bf-165b-4ee9-93a9-011cf8b796d4 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0045b1bf-165b... It's not that different from existing ad-hoc systems for dealing with CSAM, like the IWF in the UK. And it will be within the exemptions of Article 10 ECHR. The only country that might object is Germany.
  • seydor 4y ago
    But they allow a government to directly remove content. This is potentially evil, no matter how trusted a state (thinks) it is. The status of ‘trusted flagger’ under this Regulation shall be awarded, upon application by any entity, by the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State in which the applicant is established, to an applicant that has demonstrated that it meets all of the following conditions: (a) it has particular expertise and competence for the purposes of detecting, identifying and notifying illegal content; (b) it is independent from any provider of online platforms; (c) it carries out its activities for the purposes of submitting notices diligently, accurately and objectively.
    • Jensson 4y ago
      You do know that the government can already remove whatever they want? Why is this evil at all compared to what we already have? All it does is give us more due process and clearer rules than before when it was up to private actors to do it. For example, do you think it is more evil that Google can ban you for any reason without telling you why, or the government being able to ban you while stating exactly why and you having legal rights? I think the first is worse than the second, so moving from the first to the second is a positive development.
      • seydor 4y ago
        Which government does that? They can sue and arrest people who publish, not play ducking big brother
        • Jensson 4y ago
          If they tell Google that you have illegal content then Google will remove it, that is how it works today everywhere. What kind of world do you think we live in?
          • seydor 4y ago
            Which is crucial, that google has the chance to challenge the request , in court where it belongs Removing content by government insiders has only been done in authoritarian countries
            • Jensson 4y ago
              Google can challenge the content flagging as well. These trusted flaggers can only flag content for Google to review, they can't remove it themselves, as far I understand it. So it is exactly the same as before, just that it is formalized. Edit: Think the Twitter files, with how the American government flags content on Twitter and then Twitter bans it. USA already has that trusted flagging system, but under the hood so you don't see it. I don't see why moving that to the open would be any worse.
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
  A few days go, in the front page thread "Opted out, yet tracked: Are regulations enough to protect privacy?", the top comment contained this common dismissal: "Until that happens, just passing more and more laws is going to be meaningless." Yet Big Tech makes significant effort to try to delay and thwart the passage of these laws. https://corporateeurope.org/en/2020/12/big-tech-brings-out-big-guns-fight-future-eu-tech-regulation https://corporateeurope.org/en/2020/12/big-tech-brings-out-b... How do we reconcile this with the common HN commenter dismissal something like, "No one cares. Things will never change." This is perhaps a nice fantasy for people who have bet their futures on "tech" companies, but how long does this fantasy last. Current reality indicates Big Tech cares. The lobbyists and lawyers hired to help Big Tech fend off governments can confirm it. Why should Big Tech care, if the language in proposed regulations is, to borrow the top comment's term, "laughable". Has any country besides Sweden expressed reservations about "free speech".1 https://www.brusselsreport.eu/2022/04/25/the-eus-digital-services-act-is-undermining-free-speech/ https://www.brusselsreport.eu/2022/04/25/the-eus-digital-ser... A country like Estonia might oppose regulating "tech" companies but it seems to be an outlier. 1. She thinks that courts should be the sole arbiters of what should be taken down. It is funny to contrast this with Kagan's comments in the US Supreme Court's recent hearing on Section 230 in the Gonzalez case. When petitioner's counsel mentioned regulation in Europe, Kagan was quick to point out that was not the work of courts. According to Kagan, courts lack the expertise. Several justices seemed to think that requiring compaints about content be reviewed by courts, e.g., on a motion to dismiss, was too burdensome on defendants, nevermind the courts. No doubt Big Tech loves it when legislatures and courts go around in circles on how to grapple with the novel problems "tech" companies have created. The question is how long can this delay be relied on. HN comments often take a fatalistic tact, more or less advocating "Just give up." Personally, I would bet against anyone "giving up" on regulating "tech" companies. It's a slow, ugly process, thanks in no small part to the work of Big Tech to make it a mess. We are just getting started. I would be more willing to take a bet that many "tech" companies will "give up" when faced with having to comply with the quantum of regulation that legitimate businesses do.
  • cbb330 4y ago
    Giving up is a great strategy, then we can let the market self regulate -- keep in mind that Tik Tok has to compete viciously with Facebook on who can design a more trusted platform :) In the end, we all win if we just let things play out.
• williamtrask 4y ago
  Transparency of algorithms is more enforceable than one might think. Check out “Structured Transparency” tooling.