5 ms·

The number of anti-EU comments here surprises me, frankly. My understanding, as an Australian, is the EU is just enforcing rules regarding transparency and mode

The number of anti-EU comments here surprises me, frankly. My understanding, as an Australian, is the EU is just enforcing rules regarding transparency and moderation reporting - they’re not setting some speech-controlling agenda. Seems reasonable to me?

Nathanba 3y ago
Of course they control speech, that's absolutely on the EU agenda. Hate speech is not legal in the EU
- alkonaut 3y ago
  As far as I know there are no common laws surrounding that. There is a legal framework/agreement requiring states to have some kind of hate speech laws though, but they'll vary wildly. E.g. in Germany you can't be openly Nazi. In Denmark you can't burn a Quran etc. So there is no agreement of WHAT constitutes hate speech across the EU. The framework: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:l33178 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM... It's extremely vague. It's more an understanding that "hate speech is bad so bad you should all draw a line... somewhere".
  - g1a55er 3y ago
    The DSA itself imposes EU-wide requirements on the “mitigation” of “illegal hate speech”, although it does not define the term. Section 35, 1(c). My amateur guess for how this would end up is that large European wide platforms will be expected to take down hate speech that is illegal anywhere in Europe, but I don’t think we have seen an example for certain. It’s possible this enforcement action will bring more certainty. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32022R2065 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A... I think this is going to inevitably create more and more tension between EU and American contexts, because hate speech is affirmatively legal in the U.S., most recently ruled under Snyder v Phelps.
wand3r 3y ago
> The DSA imposes new rules on content moderation, user privacy and transparency. Any firm found in breach faces a fine worth up to 6% of its global turnover. The EU has been rent seeking on FAANG and US tech for a decade. They want control and money. Thanks for USB-C but they can keep their fucking cookie banners. This will create huge problems for the whole world when an arbitrary agency can "impose rules on content moderation" and "privacy[1]" and levy a huge fine. The US tech companies should form a bloc and force them to be reasonable [1] Which I'm sure mean anti-privacy.
- dotandgtfo 3y ago
  Yes, and it creates huge problems for the whole world when an arbitrary multi-billion dollar organisation can "impose rules on content moderation" and "privacy" with zero accountability while skirting local laws. Non-american countries should form a bloc and force them to be reasonable.
  - throwawa14223 3y ago
    The US should start economic sanctions against the EU if they're going to act like a fascist police state.
    - xvector 3y ago
      We absolutely need to sanction this clusterfuck of an economic bloc. The EU contributes nothing to consumer technology (outside of ASML) and yet seeks rent on American companies.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    The tech companies are much more accountable than the EU. You can just not use Twitter. Nothing bad will happen to you. Good luck trying to just "not use" the EU if you happen to live there. That's much easier said than done.
    - dotandgtfo 3y ago
g1a55er 3y ago
I think the negative attitude towards the EU on Hacker News is the product of a couple things: - The EU has drastically scaled up regulatory requirements for tech businesses, starting with GDPR, running through the DSA, and probably eventually continuing through the AI Act and the proposed cybersecurity law. Because this is a community mostly centered around people who start or work at or invest in tech businesses, there’s a lot of frustration that the new regulations are making life harder. - In this case, part of what the EU alleges is that Twitter is not doing enough to actively combat disinformation. People are concerned that what the EU wants in terms of combatting disinformation IS a speech-controlling agenda. I’m not sure either argument is 100% correct, but I can understand why many are arguing that the EU regulations are going too far, both in terms of requiring too much work for too little gain, and in terms of jeopardizing Internet independence.
- hcfman 3y ago
  I think it's also because the people on hacker news in general are not stupid and they can see through the bullshit to the real agendas that are being passed. Let's have a test: What's wrong with the following: In 2020, the Netherlands passed a new law that stated that anyone that works in a job with an obligation to secrecy cannot be prosecuted for perjury for lawing in court under oath. The example given by the government was, "Consider a lawyer and his client". Forget for a moment that in this trivial example a lawyer could simply refuse to answer? Figure it out yet? Here's a hint, everyone in government has an obligation to secrecy, including prosecutors. See the problem here? I'm sure that lots of hacker news people would.
  - hcfman 3y ago
    Here's a link to a prosecutor that was caught lying: https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1039807/liegende-officieren-zaak-joep-j-vrijuit https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1039807/liegende-officieren-... He was lying in court again just before he retired. No consequences. Worse, he was never found out officially. The press were never even interested in the story. However, two years later the law was changed. Now there can never be consequences in such cases. The Netherlands officially only has a kangaroo court now.
seydor 3y ago
Actually i'm pro-EU but what we have in the past 15 years is brussels acting like a corporate, with careerist wannabes doing anything that sounds popular in order to climb up the corporate ladder. There is 0 politics in brussels these days, all lobbying. I think it's my duty to be critical of that
- qsdf38100 3y ago
  Yeah but be careful what you wish for. Constructive criticism is good, shitting on the EU and parroting "EU is a corrupt dictatorship!!" propaganda will make foreign-backed populists rise. Who will benefit from the downfall of th EU? Why are so many people seemingly happy about it?
  - Longhanks 3y ago
    The downfall of the EU could potentially allow for a successor framework that is more democratically backed. There are some that think the EU is corrupted beyond saving and it would be easier to start a new project instead of reforming the existing. Personally, the fact that the EU considers itself above the constitutions of its member states without having this "constitution level" approved by the actual people (there are two referendums that failed at the ballot, in France and in the Netherlands, that lead restructuring so that no more popular vote was necessary, those are the contracts which are now in place), is a major no go for me. If there ever is to be an European constitution, the people must absolutely be able to vote on it, and the vote must be binding - so rejection means no, and a not "bypass by restructuring" - and a new attempt must then furthermore be voted on.
    - Sammi 3y ago
      Either we reform the EU from within using our strong belief in the institution. Or we have a revolution and a world war to replace it. Millions dead. I'm sorry but these things don't tend to have a middle solution. That's what history teaches us.
      - 3y ago
mytailorisrich 3y ago
They do have a speech-controlling agenda (I am not commenting on whether this is positive or negative here) in that this also relates to "illegal content", which can be something factual but still illegal to publish. For instance videos of the 7th October attacks made by Hamas are likely illegal: ""Content circulating online that can be associated to Hamas qualifies as terrorist content, is illegal, and needs to be removed under both the Digital Services Act and Terrorist Content Online Regulation," a Commission spokesperson said." [1] Precedent in France is that this is understood to apply even if the content is published to denounce those facts. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67073956 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67073956

Nathanba 3y ago

Of course they control speech, that's absolutely on the EU agenda. Hate speech is not legal in the EU

alkonaut 3y ago
As far as I know there are no common laws surrounding that. There is a legal framework/agreement requiring states to have some kind of hate speech laws though, but they'll vary wildly. E.g. in Germany you can't be openly Nazi. In Denmark you can't burn a Quran etc. So there is no agreement of WHAT constitutes hate speech across the EU. The framework: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:l33178 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM... It's extremely vague. It's more an understanding that "hate speech is bad so bad you should all draw a line... somewhere".
- g1a55er 3y ago
  The DSA itself imposes EU-wide requirements on the “mitigation” of “illegal hate speech”, although it does not define the term. Section 35, 1(c). My amateur guess for how this would end up is that large European wide platforms will be expected to take down hate speech that is illegal anywhere in Europe, but I don’t think we have seen an example for certain. It’s possible this enforcement action will bring more certainty. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32022R2065 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A... I think this is going to inevitably create more and more tension between EU and American contexts, because hate speech is affirmatively legal in the U.S., most recently ruled under Snyder v Phelps.

wand3r 3y ago

> The DSA imposes new rules on content moderation, user privacy and transparency. Any firm found in breach faces a fine worth up to 6% of its global turnover. The EU has been rent seeking on FAANG and US tech for a decade. They want control and money. Thanks for USB-C but they can keep their fucking cookie banners. This will create huge problems for the whole world when an arbitrary agency can "impose rules on content moderation" and "privacy[1]" and levy a huge fine. The US tech companies should form a bloc and force them to be reasonable [1] Which I'm sure mean anti-privacy.

dotandgtfo 3y ago
Yes, and it creates huge problems for the whole world when an arbitrary multi-billion dollar organisation can "impose rules on content moderation" and "privacy" with zero accountability while skirting local laws. Non-american countries should form a bloc and force them to be reasonable.
- throwawa14223 3y ago
  The US should start economic sanctions against the EU if they're going to act like a fascist police state.
  - xvector 3y ago
    We absolutely need to sanction this clusterfuck of an economic bloc. The EU contributes nothing to consumer technology (outside of ASML) and yet seeks rent on American companies.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  The tech companies are much more accountable than the EU. You can just not use Twitter. Nothing bad will happen to you. Good luck trying to just "not use" the EU if you happen to live there. That's much easier said than done.
  - dotandgtfo 3y ago

g1a55er 3y ago

I think the negative attitude towards the EU on Hacker News is the product of a couple things: - The EU has drastically scaled up regulatory requirements for tech businesses, starting with GDPR, running through the DSA, and probably eventually continuing through the AI Act and the proposed cybersecurity law. Because this is a community mostly centered around people who start or work at or invest in tech businesses, there’s a lot of frustration that the new regulations are making life harder. - In this case, part of what the EU alleges is that Twitter is not doing enough to actively combat disinformation. People are concerned that what the EU wants in terms of combatting disinformation IS a speech-controlling agenda. I’m not sure either argument is 100% correct, but I can understand why many are arguing that the EU regulations are going too far, both in terms of requiring too much work for too little gain, and in terms of jeopardizing Internet independence.

hcfman 3y ago
I think it's also because the people on hacker news in general are not stupid and they can see through the bullshit to the real agendas that are being passed. Let's have a test: What's wrong with the following: In 2020, the Netherlands passed a new law that stated that anyone that works in a job with an obligation to secrecy cannot be prosecuted for perjury for lawing in court under oath. The example given by the government was, "Consider a lawyer and his client". Forget for a moment that in this trivial example a lawyer could simply refuse to answer? Figure it out yet? Here's a hint, everyone in government has an obligation to secrecy, including prosecutors. See the problem here? I'm sure that lots of hacker news people would.
- hcfman 3y ago
  Here's a link to a prosecutor that was caught lying: https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1039807/liegende-officieren-zaak-joep-j-vrijuit https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1039807/liegende-officieren-... He was lying in court again just before he retired. No consequences. Worse, he was never found out officially. The press were never even interested in the story. However, two years later the law was changed. Now there can never be consequences in such cases. The Netherlands officially only has a kangaroo court now.

seydor 3y ago

Actually i'm pro-EU but what we have in the past 15 years is brussels acting like a corporate, with careerist wannabes doing anything that sounds popular in order to climb up the corporate ladder. There is 0 politics in brussels these days, all lobbying. I think it's my duty to be critical of that

qsdf38100 3y ago
Yeah but be careful what you wish for. Constructive criticism is good, shitting on the EU and parroting "EU is a corrupt dictatorship!!" propaganda will make foreign-backed populists rise. Who will benefit from the downfall of th EU? Why are so many people seemingly happy about it?
- Longhanks 3y ago
  The downfall of the EU could potentially allow for a successor framework that is more democratically backed. There are some that think the EU is corrupted beyond saving and it would be easier to start a new project instead of reforming the existing. Personally, the fact that the EU considers itself above the constitutions of its member states without having this "constitution level" approved by the actual people (there are two referendums that failed at the ballot, in France and in the Netherlands, that lead restructuring so that no more popular vote was necessary, those are the contracts which are now in place), is a major no go for me. If there ever is to be an European constitution, the people must absolutely be able to vote on it, and the vote must be binding - so rejection means no, and a not "bypass by restructuring" - and a new attempt must then furthermore be voted on.
  - Sammi 3y ago
    Either we reform the EU from within using our strong belief in the institution. Or we have a revolution and a world war to replace it. Millions dead. I'm sorry but these things don't tend to have a middle solution. That's what history teaches us.
    - 3y ago

mytailorisrich 3y ago

They do have a speech-controlling agenda (I am not commenting on whether this is positive or negative here) in that this also relates to "illegal content", which can be something factual but still illegal to publish. For instance videos of the 7th October attacks made by Hamas are likely illegal: ""Content circulating online that can be associated to Hamas qualifies as terrorist content, is illegal, and needs to be removed under both the Digital Services Act and Terrorist Content Online Regulation," a Commission spokesperson said." [1] Precedent in France is that this is understood to apply even if the content is published to denounce those facts. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67073956 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67073956