3 ms·

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

by 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.
        seydor 4y ago
        > Think the Twitter files, with how the American government flags content on Twitter and then Twitter bans it Yes this is pretty much what it is, and now it is a legal requirement, and the request by the government have to be prioritized and processed 'without delay'. And if the government abuses the requests, then the website can complain to ... the government. I don't understand why you think this is normal. it is not. This "government unable to stop itself" is precisely the reason why press freedom was written into constitutions Much of EU doesn't rank low in corruption. What this means is, every 4 years the new government will be re-staffing the "national censorship service" (Digital Services Coordinator ) with its cronies. The countries which need free press the most will be affected for the worse
        Jensson 4y ago
        > Much of EU doesn't rank very low in corruption. What this means is, every 4 years the new government will be re-staffing the "national censorship service" with its cronies. But Google could challenge that to the EU court, and the EU court isn't full of Bulgarian cronies. Or do you think that the EU court would take the side of Bulgarian cronies, really? If Bulgaria wanted to censor the internet they would already have their own laws to do it. As you said, only extremely authoritarian countries censors the way you describe here, I doubt Bulgaria would get away with it, they would get kicked out of EU if they start to create a CCP style big brother state. (I used Bulgaria as an example since it is ranked the most corrupt country in EU)
- krono 4y ago
  Expanding and institutionalising the current situation will only serve to entrench it even further and make it practically impossible to move away from. I would not call this a positive development. Not even in the slightest.
  - lovich 4y ago
    For some reason governments tend not to be proponent's of anarchy. Couldn't imagine why.
    - krono 4y ago
      That is not at all what I'm proposing and I'm honestly baffled as to how you ever came to that conclusion. Surely you can imagine the possibility of us coming up with systems and processes that are both non-anarchic as well as different from what we have today.
      - lovich 4y ago
        I took your comments to be against the government being involved in this process at all, and I cannot imagine a way that system would work. If you have an alternative system that is not sans government I would be interested in hearing it.
        JPKab 4y ago
        Considering you wanted the government to confine people to their homes a year ago for not receiving the covid vaccine (even if they had natural immunity), I'm not at all surprised that you want the government to be more involved. Some people are just wired to want to have a parental figure that tells everyone else what to do.
      - JPKab 4y ago
        The user you are replying to has an authoritarian nature. See this thread where he extolled the virtues of confining people who didn't get the covid vaccine to their homes, and insisted that natural immunity wasn't a thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30120181 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30120181
oblio 4y ago
> But they allow a government to directly remove content. > This is potentially evil, no matter how trusted a state (thinks) it is. Is this worse than a company doing it? Right now there is practically 0 accountability and 0 recourse for corporate internet moderation.
- seydor 4y ago
  yes it is in fact worse. you can choose another company, you can't choose another government, and it can imprison you
  - kaba0 4y ago
    How can a business survive for example if it is banned by google? What do you “choose” then? This is just capitalist utopia, capitalism tends toward monopolies/duopolies by itself - it is precisely the governments job to create an order in which fair competition can continue. Having a more or less democratically elected body help with the tyranny of these few megacorps is absolutely essential.
    - dsabanin 4y ago
      Interesting use of the word tyranny. It's defined as cruel and oppressive government or rule.
- slowmovintarget 4y ago
  It is also worse in that it creates a framework for special interest groups to act with special status for "detecting" and removing content without due process. Any group with an ideological bent, or an agenda can set themselves up as agents for monitoring "dangerous" content. They may even do that job for the stuff we want actually policed, but they'll also do things like remove all negative mentions of Xi Jinping, or any rumblings against the new Soma product... A company does it on their own service. You go to another. A government sanctioned agent can do it to all services.

by seydor 4y ago

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.
      - seydor 4y ago
        > Think the Twitter files, with how the American government flags content on Twitter and then Twitter bans it Yes this is pretty much what it is, and now it is a legal requirement, and the request by the government have to be prioritized and processed 'without delay'. And if the government abuses the requests, then the website can complain to ... the government. I don't understand why you think this is normal. it is not. This "government unable to stop itself" is precisely the reason why press freedom was written into constitutions Much of EU doesn't rank low in corruption. What this means is, every 4 years the new government will be re-staffing the "national censorship service" (Digital Services Coordinator ) with its cronies. The countries which need free press the most will be affected for the worse
        Jensson 4y ago
        > Much of EU doesn't rank very low in corruption. What this means is, every 4 years the new government will be re-staffing the "national censorship service" with its cronies. But Google could challenge that to the EU court, and the EU court isn't full of Bulgarian cronies. Or do you think that the EU court would take the side of Bulgarian cronies, really? If Bulgaria wanted to censor the internet they would already have their own laws to do it. As you said, only extremely authoritarian countries censors the way you describe here, I doubt Bulgaria would get away with it, they would get kicked out of EU if they start to create a CCP style big brother state. (I used Bulgaria as an example since it is ranked the most corrupt country in EU)
krono 4y ago
Expanding and institutionalising the current situation will only serve to entrench it even further and make it practically impossible to move away from. I would not call this a positive development. Not even in the slightest.
- lovich 4y ago
  For some reason governments tend not to be proponent's of anarchy. Couldn't imagine why.
  - krono 4y ago
    That is not at all what I'm proposing and I'm honestly baffled as to how you ever came to that conclusion. Surely you can imagine the possibility of us coming up with systems and processes that are both non-anarchic as well as different from what we have today.
    - lovich 4y ago
      I took your comments to be against the government being involved in this process at all, and I cannot imagine a way that system would work. If you have an alternative system that is not sans government I would be interested in hearing it.
      - JPKab 4y ago
        Considering you wanted the government to confine people to their homes a year ago for not receiving the covid vaccine (even if they had natural immunity), I'm not at all surprised that you want the government to be more involved. Some people are just wired to want to have a parental figure that tells everyone else what to do.
    - JPKab 4y ago
      The user you are replying to has an authoritarian nature. See this thread where he extolled the virtues of confining people who didn't get the covid vaccine to their homes, and insisted that natural immunity wasn't a thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30120181 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30120181

oblio 4y ago

> But they allow a government to directly remove content. > This is potentially evil, no matter how trusted a state (thinks) it is. Is this worse than a company doing it? Right now there is practically 0 accountability and 0 recourse for corporate internet moderation.

seydor 4y ago
yes it is in fact worse. you can choose another company, you can't choose another government, and it can imprison you
- kaba0 4y ago
  How can a business survive for example if it is banned by google? What do you “choose” then? This is just capitalist utopia, capitalism tends toward monopolies/duopolies by itself - it is precisely the governments job to create an order in which fair competition can continue. Having a more or less democratically elected body help with the tyranny of these few megacorps is absolutely essential.
  - dsabanin 4y ago
    Interesting use of the word tyranny. It's defined as cruel and oppressive government or rule.
slowmovintarget 4y ago
It is also worse in that it creates a framework for special interest groups to act with special status for "detecting" and removing content without due process. Any group with an ideological bent, or an agenda can set themselves up as agents for monitoring "dangerous" content. They may even do that job for the stuff we want actually policed, but they'll also do things like remove all negative mentions of Xi Jinping, or any rumblings against the new Soma product... A company does it on their own service. You go to another. A government sanctioned agent can do it to all services.