18 ms·
The NO FAKES act has changed, and it's worse
- mschuster91 1y ago> The new version of NO FAKES requires almost every internet gatekeeper to create a system that will a) take down speech upon receipt of a notice; b) keep down any recurring instance—meaning, adopt inevitably overbroad replica filters on top of the already deeply flawed copyright filters; c) take down and filter tools that might have been used to make the image; and d) unmask the user who uploaded the material based on nothing more than the say so of person who was allegedly “replicated.” You already need point a) to be in place to comply with EU laws and directives (DSA, anti-terrorism [1]) anyway, and I think the UK has anti-terrorism laws with similar wording, and the US with CSAM laws. Point b) is required if you operate in Germany, there have been a number of court rulings that platforms have to take down repetitive uploads of banned content [2]. Point c) is something that makes sense, it's time to crack down hard on "nudifiers" and similar apps. Point d) is the one I have the most issues with, although that's nothing new either, unmasking users via a barely fleshed out subpoena or dragnet orders has been a thing for many many years now. This thing impacts gatekeepers, so not your small mom-and-pop startup but billion dollar companies. They can afford to hire proper moderation staff to handle such complaints, they just don't want to because it impacts their bottom line - at the cost of everyone affected by AI slop. [1] https://eucrim.eu/news/rules-on-removing-terrorist-content-online-now-applicable/ https://eucrim.eu/news/rules-on-removing-terrorist-content-o... [2] https://www.lto.de/recht/nachrichten/n/vizr6424-bgh-renate-kuenast-meme-facebook-meta https://www.lto.de/recht/nachrichten/n/vizr6424-bgh-renate-k...
- privatelypublic 1y agoSlippery slope. See how far we've fallen.
- JKCalhoun 1y agoAnd yet, why are we here? It would seem some bad actors have lead us to the now familiar, "That's why we can't have nice things." (It's as though permissiveness and anonymity have a slippery slope as well.) You can hate the legislation, but it would be nice to hear some alternative ideas that go beyond, "We just have to accept all the horrific stuff that the bad actors out there want to throw onto the internet.
- johngladtj 1y agoNone of which is acceptable
- mschuster91 1y ago[flagged]
- johngladtj 1y ago[flagged]
- mschuster91 1y agoIs it? Why should the big tech giants be exempted from the laws and regulations that apply for everyone else?
- ricardobeat 1y agoWe don’t punish telecoms, ISPs or the mail company for “facilitating terrorism”. Where do you draw the line? These rules have serious consequences for privacy, potential for abuse, and also raise the barriers immensely for new companies to start up. The problem is quite obvious when you consider that Trump supporters label anything they dislike as fake news, even when the facts are known and available to everyone. These rules would allow any opposition to be easily silenced. Restricting the measures to terrorism, illegal pornography, and other serious crimes would be more acceptable. Your question is like asking “why don’t we have metal detectors and body scanners on every school and public building”. Just because you can, and it would absolutely increase safety, does not mean it’s a good idea. IMO legislation should focus on how individuals can be made responsible, and prosecuted when they break the law – not mandating tech companies to become arms of a nanny state.
- ryandrake 1y ago> We don’t punish telecoms, ISPs or the mail company for “facilitating terrorism”. Where do you draw the line? None of those attempt to curate, moderate, or pass judgment on the content they carry. They are essentially pipes that pass content through. Social Media (and forums like HN) act more as publishers: they decide what is and is not allowed, and through that moderation, they are more responsible for what user content they choose to make available. I’m not in favor of this law, but we should not pretend that Social Media is blameless when naughty people use it to publish their stuff.
- pjc50 1y agoThis is one of those cases where the need to "do something" is strong, but that doesn't excuse terrible implementations. Especially at a time when the US is becoming increasingly authoritarian.
- anon0502 1y agoAs I understood, it propose for broad filter so more content which should fall under "fair use" will now be take down faster. > not your small mom-and-pop startup not sure why you said this, it's the artists / content makers that suffer.
- marcus_holmes 1y agoThe EU has a different approach to this kind of regulation than the USA [0]. EU regulations are more about principles and outcomes, while US regulation is more about strict rules and compliance with procedures. The EU tends to only impose fines if the regulations are deliberately being ignored, while the US imposes fines for any non-compliance with the regs. So while you can compare the two, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. You need to squint a bit. The DMCA has proven to be way too broad, but there's no appetite to change that because it's very useful for copyright holders, and only hurts small content producers/owners. This looks like it's heading the same way. > This thing impacts gatekeepers, so not your small mom-and-pop startup but billion dollar companies. I don't see any exemptions for small businesses, so how do you conclude this? [0] https://www.grcworldforums.com/risk/bridging-global-business-strategies-how-eu-and-us-regulatory-approaches-shape-corporate-success/10122.article https://www.grcworldforums.com/risk/bridging-global-business... mentions this but I couldn't find a better article specifically addressing the differences in approach.
- noirscape 1y agoYeah one thing the EU as well as most local European courts care about is showing good faith, not just to the court but also to the other party. (Due to how US law works, this isn't quite the case in the US: respect for the court is enforced, respect for the other party isn't required.) One of the big reasons why CJEU is handing out massive fines to the big tech companies is because of the blatant non-compliance to orders from local courts and DPAs by constantly demanding appeals to them and refusing to even attempt to do anything until CJEU affirms the local courts (and usually ramping up the fines a bit more at that). It's a deliberate perversion of the judicial process so that GAFAM can keep violating the law by delaying the proper final judgement. They'd not have gotten higher fines if they just complied with the local courts while the appeal was going on; that'd be a show of good faith, which European courts tend to value.
- mschuster91 1y agoDing ding ding. You are right on the money. Our entire legal system is based on first time offenders getting off with a slap on the wrist (if even that, you'll most likely get away with merely a warning if it's a new law or you were just incompetent or had bad luck) and only if you keep offending you'll get screwed eventually. Our aim is to have as much voluntary compliance as possible to the laws. In contrast, American jurisdiction is "come down hard from the get-go if it's warranted, but the richer you are the better your chances are at just lawyering yourself out of trouble", and the cultural attitude is "it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission". That fundamentally clashes with our attitude, and not just the general public but especially the courts don't like it when companies blatantly ignore our democratic decisions just to make short term money (e.g. Uber and AirBnB).
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ls612 1y agoUnfortunately this is the inevitable outcome of information and computation (and therefore control) becoming cheap. Liberal political systems can no longer survive in equilibrium. The 21st century will be a story either of ruling with an iron fist or being crushed beneath one :(
- rightbyte 1y agoInformation is as expensive as always it is just copying it that is cheap.
- Xelbair 1y agois it? it was always easier and faster to spew bullshit than to refute it, and now we can automate it.
- rootlocus 1y agoInformation, disinformation, what's the difference?
- anonym29 1y agoOne's the kind that affirms existing worldviews, the other asks questions that makes TPTB uncomfortable, like Copernicus's questions about geocentrism.
- jasonjayr 1y agoDisinformation is not grounded in any observable evidence, and often has no basis in reality or is just wild speculation. For example, anonym29, when did you stop beating up your partner?
- anonym29 1y agoThe term 'disinformation' is also used by TPTB to discredit information that is grounded in observable evidence that goes against narratives that TPTB prefer to maintain. Accordingly, every single declaration of "misinformation" must be critically evaluated according to available evidence, as the claim itself has been weaponized by bad-faith, self-serving interests of those in positions of power and authority. The "experts" are frequently wrong, and are not inherently trustworthy. Not every word that slips past their tongue is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They are humans, and like the rest of humans, they lie, they mislead, they are wrong, and some of them and can and do attempt to abuse social consensus mechanisms, including ostracization, to bend public discourse in their favor.
- stodor89 1y ago15 years ago that would've been outrageous. But at this point they're just kicking a dead horse.
- spacecadet 1y agoSurprised/not surprised. When surveillance capitalism is the MO for generations, it just becomes the norm. Personally, I find the world becoming more and more about fighting for survival while simultaneously fuck you I got mine...
- Uvix 1y agoMaybe 25 years ago. But that ship sailed with PATRIOT act and friends post-2001.
- coldtea 1y agoThey got the left cheering to support censorship in the guise of fighting "fake news" when it had the uppper hand, lest someone hurt someone's feelings. Now it will be used againt it, and against in right wing dissidents to the establisment fairy tales too.
- input_sh 1y agoThere's a giant difference between supporting changes to the law that allows further censorship and yelling at companies to be consistent about the enforcement of their own terms of service. One's a law that everyone has to follow, while the other one's a made-up piece of text that the company can change at any point in time if they wish to do so.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- rootlocus 1y ago> The new version of NO FAKES requires almost every internet gatekeeper to create a system that will a) take down speech upon receipt of a notice; b) keep down any recurring instance—meaning, adopt inevitably overbroad replica filters on top of the already deeply flawed copyright filters; c) take down and filter tools that might have been used to make the image; and d) unmask the user who uploaded the material based on nothing more than the say so of person who was allegedly “replicated.” Sounds like the kind of system small companies can't implement and large companies won't care to implement.
- dspillett 1y ago> Sounds like the kind of system small companies can't implement and large companies won't care to implement. Or the sort of thing bigger companies lobby for to make the entry barriers higher for small competition. Regulatory capture like this is why companies above a certain level of size/profit/other tend to swing in favour of regulation when they were not while initially “disrupting”.
- potato3732842 1y ago> Regulatory capture like this is why companies above a certain level of size/profit/other tend to swing in favour of regulation when they were not while initially “disrupting”. Exactly. This is the big boy version of "even your petty backyard patio needs a PE stamp" type crap.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- a4isms 1y agoTo adapt the words of composer Frank Wilhoit: "Crony capitalism consists of but one principle: In-corporations who are protected by regulation, but not bound by it, alongside out-corporations who are bound by regulation, but not protected by it."
- deleted 1y ago
- bsenftner 1y agoDoesn't all this assume that any such media is being "social media" shared? The language of this strikes me as moot within private communities. Could this be the unrealized "thing we want" and that is the killing of social media?
- zulban 1y agoGood luck defining social media in legislation.
- bsenftner 1y agoThat's my point, this legislation does not define social media at all, but it sure as hell makes being a social media site harder.
- steveselzer 1y agoThing is we understand at an academic level that this is a platform design issue not some abstract problem about free speech or personal responsibility. The solution is to demand governments force social media companies to implement algorithmic friction coefficients. It’s simply that the economic incentives involved mean there is no political will to make it happen. The ruling class benefits from the chaos, division and confusion as perpetuated by social media in its current form. They like it just fine the way it is now. Some Research: Aral & Eckles (MIT, 2019): Introducing friction reduces misinformation spread without limiting freedom of expression. • Mozilla & Stanford Studies (2020–2022): Friction (such as unsharing prompts) reduces fake news virality by up to 50%. • Twitter’s 2021 experiments: Users changed or deleted tweets 25% of the time when shown fact-check prompts before posting.
- jekwoooooe 1y ago[flagged]
- Spivak 1y agoIt would also mean the end of HN.
- devwastaken 1y agothats also good. online services need to be held responsible for what they host. no where else do they get magic exceptions to well established law.
- PaulDavisThe1st 1y agowhat other thing is there that is equivalent to online services publishing user-generated content?
- dlivingston 1y agoA library, record store, or craft markets are the only physical analogues I can think of.
- pessimizer 1y agoThe online publishing of unedited user-generated content to the open internet may not be a business model that works.
- unaindz 1y agoNot everything has to be a business model
- kjkjadksj 1y agoYour local telephone pole
- harvey9 1y agoSo all the images need to go through replica filters but ai makes it trivially easy to make substantially different images from a single prompt so now we need an ai to infer the 'meaning' of an image. It all sounds like great news for chip makers and power generators.
- adolph 1y agoIt seems like one approach is to oppose such a law, but that is playing defense and will eventually lose. Another approach would be to develop OSS that fulfilled the basic requirements in a non-tyrannical manner that supports people who create things. There was the example of Cliff Stoll on this site just yesterday. It is objectively wrong for someone to mistreat his creative work in that way. What would httpd for content inspection look like? Plagiarism detection? Geo-encoded fair use?
- Melatonic 1y agoI'm not sure I agree with the author at all on this - they make a bunch of bold claims (comparing it to the DMCA which is totally different) without much proof. Counterpoint: https://www.recordingacademy.com/advocacy/news/no-fakes-act-introduced-in-the-senate https://www.recordingacademy.com/advocacy/news/no-fakes-act-...
- fifteen1506 1y agoSuch companies have the resources to sell a used snake skin to an elephant. I can be easily fooled by such blog entries.
- daft_pink 1y agoI would really like a simple english explanation of what this does without the lobbying/agitator catastrophizing. Are they saying that this act allows companies to watermark their content to prevent other companies from generating secondary content on their content? How exactly does this act work?
- fifteen1506 1y agoI skimmed the text. I think it is DMCA for images, tools and derivative works, along as all logging needed to track the creator, the tool and the publisher. As I said though, I just skimmed the text.
- strix_varius 1y agoThis has nothing to do with watermarking. It allows anyone to provide a complaint without any evidence, about any content hosted anywhere, and puts the legal onus on the person hosting that content to prove the negative (that it isn't a "fake"), with the legal requirement to remove the content as soon as is technically feasible (ie, instantly). So, similarly abusable to the DMCA, but with even broader requirements and even more-impossible-to-prove legitimacy, since it creates a whole new ill-defined class of legal ownership over content. TLDR: it's a great reason to move hosting outside of the US
- ProllyInfamous 1y agoTennessee enacts several genAI laws July 1st; interestingly (perhaps due to state legislator misunderstanding of terminology?), these generic bans are sooo sweeping that they effectively ban owning any GPU. >Oy': you got a license for that tensor core, mate?! ---- But hey at least we're outlawing marijuana beyond what the Federal 2018 Farm Bill authorizes, nationally /s ---- Our neighboring Friend down in Texas, the goodly-astute Gov-nuh, was wise to veto similar legislations in his own jurisdiction (due to perceived unconstitutionality / legal challenges).
- t0bia_s 1y agoWhy not ban lying and set up ministry of truth? Attempts to regulate lying are just cover for push certain narratives to favor political opinions.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]