[HN Gopher] Europe's big tech bill is coming to fruition
___________________________________________________________________
Europe's big tech bill is coming to fruition
Author : DamnInteresting
Score : 59 points
Date : 2023-03-06 20:40 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.technologyreview.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.technologyreview.com)
| adamsb6 wrote:
| This article is not at all skeptical of this regulation.
|
| I'm especially skeptical about legislation coming from the body
| responsible for making me click dozens of "Accept Cookies"
| buttons every day.
| timtom39 wrote:
| EasyList Cookie. uBlockOrigin has it built in. FF mobile can
| run it.
| andrewmutz wrote:
| I completely agree. The GDPR had the best of intentions, but
| did not materially improve data privacy online. Meanwhile it
| has absolutely made the UX of the web worse.
|
| I know what the responses will be: "its a great law with poor
| enforcement". Perhaps that's true, but if so what makes us
| think additional EU tech regulations will be any better
| enforced?
| Jochim wrote:
| The website choosing to sell your browsing data is the reason
| you have to click those buttons.
| rom-antics wrote:
| Well that's a loaded title. (EDIT: The article title, not the
| changed HN title)
|
| Another take:
|
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/02/enforcement-overreach-...
|
| Read the section on Trusted Flaggers to find out what that word
| "safer" really means.
| colpabar wrote:
| https://archive.ph/U5Vwa
| arbuge wrote:
| I am continually reminded of PG's joke on Twitter a few years
| ago:
|
| https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1231699385525903360?lang=en
| jawns wrote:
| I'm curious about the outlawing of shadow banning.
|
| As a former content moderator, I found shadow banning to be
| remarkably effective for our most pernicious actors, who would
| otherwise quickly realize that their account is banned and create
| multiple new ones.
| sacrosancty wrote:
| [dead]
| aaron695 wrote:
| [dead]
| Gigachad wrote:
| These days the most effective method is phone number
| verification. It's possible but significantly harder to get
| around this.
| seydor wrote:
| Requiring "trusted flaggers" should clash with freedom of press
| so i don't see this passing through parliaments.
|
| Transparency of algorithms is unenforceable to irrelevant.
|
| Things like "no personalized recommendations" are dead in the
| water- things like ai chat don't personalize, they just use the
| chat history, which can be stored locally.
|
| Mandatory data sharing breaks international trade agreements
|
| A lot of the other stuff is standard stuff that every website
| does
|
| https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-...
|
| https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...
|
| There stuff in the regulation that is simply laughably worded:
|
| >Providers of online platforms shall not design, organise or
| operate their online interfaces in a way that deceives or
| manipulates the recipients of their service or in a way that
| otherwise materially distorts or impairs the ability of the
| recipients of their service to make free and informed decisions.
| pjc50 wrote:
| The "trusted flaggers":
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Which government does that?
|
| They can sue and arrest people who publish, not play
| ducking big brother
| Jensson wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > 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)
| seydor wrote:
| There is no EU court, only national courts can refer a
| case to the ECJ for consultation. There is also no way to
| "kick a country out of EU"
| Jensson wrote:
| These aren't press companies, they are content platforms. It
| doesn't affect any press companies, the article states which
| services it effects and it is limited to large platforms.
|
| These companies are still allowed to post whatever they want,
| they just have to follow some rules regarding being a platform
| for content creating others. If they don't want to be a
| platform they are free to stop being one.
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| "in mice"
|
| or something like that.
|
| The internet is about to get a lot more balkanized and more
| heavily regulated. That doesn't make it safer, it just puts
| government back in the driver's seat for who gets to decide what
| is allowed where, sans those messy election things.
|
| > Proponents of the legislation say the bill will help bring an
| end to the era of tech companies' self-regulating. "I don't want
| the companies to decide what is and what isn't forbidden without
| any separation of power, without any accountability, without any
| reporting, without any possibility to contest," Verdier says.
| "It's very dangerous."
| [deleted]
| ParksNet wrote:
| Straight out of the World Economic Forum: 'Digital Identity'
| playbook.
|
| De-anonymize speech online, to protect the ruling class, and
| enforce any narrative you desire.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| > De-anonymize speech online
|
| anonymity for political speech has been known and debated for
| four hundred years in the West. Of course some actors come down
| on one side or the other. Twitter v0.1 was supposed to be a
| failsafe for that; now its 2023.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| The EU regulations need a lot more enforcement and agencies
| really need to go after companies trying to exploit loopholes.
|
| For example, consumers are entitled to return goods and services
| purchased online for 14 days, with some exceptions. Almost all
| app stores include some weasel wording how that 14 day rule
| doesn't apply, or they employ some kind of intermediate currency
| to get around the rule (eg. you have to buy Minecoins to buy
| content in Minecraft).
|
| The result is that a lot of digital markets are a wild west where
| the consumer protection rules don't apply (eg. if you buy a fake
| mod in Minecraft, you just lost 5EUR and there is nothing you can
| do about it)
|
| Another way companies get around the 14 day return policy is to
| just not offer services starting today, but you have to buy
| services 14 days ahead of time, so when the service starts you no
| longer have a right to reverse the contract.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| > Another way companies get around the 14 day return policy is
| to just not offer services starting today, but you have to buy
| services 14 days ahead of time, so when the service starts you
| no longer have a right to reverse the contract.
|
| The supplier might think that that circumvents the law, I
| suspect that the courts might think otherwise. Some loopholes
| only exist in potentia and evaporate under court scrutiny, but
| no one can be certain which they are until a a case is brought.
| endofreach wrote:
| This is just plain wrong. The 14-day return policy is meant for
| physical goods in the first place. It was not meant as a trial
| period, but a protection because you can't actually see the
| product when buying online.
|
| Also, the 14-days do not start with the purchase date, but with
| the delivery date.
|
| If you buy a digital product online, it is the equivalent of a
| physical purchase in a physical store. So nobody needs to ,,get
| around" the policy. They just need to let you know it does not
| apply.
|
| And i do think it is fair.
|
| If someone rips you off, that's a different story, there is
| laws for that and those cases aren't meant to be covered by
| this policy.
| krzyk wrote:
| IANAL but the above won't fly in court. At least the last part,
| 14 day return policy applies from the time you receive the
| goods/service, not when you give a business money for that
| good/service.
|
| E.g. you can return preordered goods, for which you sometimes
| wait a month.
|
| Even steam allows returning a game in 14 days (and you played
| at most 2 hours, which is fair).
| debugnik wrote:
| > Even steam allows returning a game in 14 days
|
| I believe that's their own policy, digital goods that are
| consumable immediately can be sold with a renounce of your
| return period.
| justaman wrote:
| The internet doesn't need to be "safer".
| Guthur wrote:
| Safer for them.
| deathhand wrote:
| Nothing allowed that could influence elections. Oh gee, I'm
| sure that wouldn't be abused at all.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| _" The DSA will effectively outlaw shadow banning (the practice
| of deprioritizing content without notice), curb cyberviolence
| against women, and ban targeted advertising for users under 18.
| There will also be a lot more public data around how
| recommendation algorithms, advertisements, content, and account
| management work on the platforms, shedding new light on how the
| biggest tech companies operate"_
|
| Although it comes very late, better than never. I think this bill
| is fantastic. It brings important decisions on how platforms work
| from tech companies to the public, which is where they ought to
| belong in the first place.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| > That said, the bill makes it clear that platforms aren't liable
| for illegal user-generated content, unless they are aware of the
| content and fail to remove it.
|
| Is there any clarity as to what "aware of" constitutes here? For
| example, telephone providers are aware that people are using
| their service for illicit things but knowing _which_ account /
| phone call is illicit suddenly makes that all less clear.
|
| Honestly, I'm not quite as bullish on the ability to regulate
| safety on the internet, considering a not insignificant amount of
| the privacy violations is promulgated by ad networks collecting
| information on behalf of intelligence agencies to work around
| those pesky constitutional provisions. The history of the
| internet is filled with "make you safer" legislation that
| achieves questionable results at best.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Oh goody.
|
| > Only if the flagged content is evidently manifestly illegal
| can such notices give rise to 'actual knowledge'. According to
| the text of the Digital Services Act (section 63), "Information
| should be considered to be manifestly illegal content and
| notices or complaints should be considered manifestly unfounded
| where it is evident to a layperson, without any substantive
| analysis, that the content is illegal or, respectively, that
| the notices or complaints are unfounded."
|
| So glad we're leaving this up to a vague obviousness standard.
| Not like copyright and other kinds of illicit content is
| notoriously hard even for experts to decipher and get right.
| Jensson wrote:
| American copyright laws already makes these platforms delete
| anything that could hint at being copyright infringement, I
| don't see how this could make things worse.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| Anecdotal
|
| I used to run a live video streaming website (a la Twitch.tv)
| for a specific niche of live content. But once the pirates
| discovered the site they started streaming live sports and
| other copyrighted content. I started getting DMCAs from MLB,
| NFL, EPL. All very threatening emails with PDFs of legalese
| containing screenshots of my (small, niche) website streaming
| their content.
|
| I would always just immediately shut off and ban the streamers
| that were mentioned.
|
| > Is there any clarity as to what "aware of" constitutes here?
|
| I became "aware" by the DMCA notice.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Running a large scale service is completely different I think
| though. My understanding is that most DMCA notices are
| automated and a good fraction of those not actually valid.
| Similarly, these systems from the provider side already have
| automated DMCA takedown mechanisms. The bigger problem is
| what happens when the counter party files a DMCA counter
| notice - now you are aware there's potentially infringing
| content but you're not allowed to take it down. Of course,
| I'm sure this law takes the DMCA into account.
|
| The trickier part though I'm referring to is not DMCA but
| community moderation. Someone flags a picture of your child
| bathing naked as child porn. Is the provider now on notice as
| having been informed? How do they validate the circumstances
| of the photo to make sure it's yours? These aren't easy
| questions and looking at it through the DMCA lens is
| insufficient because this law goes way beyond that. The
| section 230 lawsuits in front of SCOTUS right now are not
| dissimilar to what DSA is trying to regulate and yet I don't
| see extra clarity here.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-06 23:00 UTC)