Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering • Hacker News Board

Re: Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering

#111

Post by matt4077 » Wed, Sep 06, 2017, 6:16 PM UTC

Stranger43 wrote: post #97

casiotone wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean aside from the fact that MEPs - the politicians sitting in the EU government - are elected by the general population?

Please don't use the mere existence of the "Mickey Mouse" parliament as an evidence of direct representation to the EU as the parliament have literally none of the roles or authority of a real parliament but is mostly ceremonial, like the president of the EU. The real power is and have always been with the council of ministers who is appointed by the member governments, and in practice only responsible to the member…

Not a single piece of EU legislation (both directive and regulation) can be enacted without a majority in the EU parliament.

The only difference to national governments is the lack of a right to initiate legislation. But in practice, they just stick anything they want into any vaguely related piece of regulation. They do have the power to amend.

Re: Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering

#112

Post by apk-d » Wed, Sep 06, 2017, 6:18 PM UTC

Personally, I think the cookie law could be expanded a bit further. Currently, I'm not always appropriately notified that the website I'm visiting uses cookies. How about we institute a law that requires browsers to implement a feature that detects when a cookie is stored, locks the browser and proceeds to play an unbridged rendition of the Ode to Freedom (yes, that's really what it's called) while displaying a full page warning that you have to manually accept. Later, we could expand the mechanism to cover websites that use CSS stylesheets.

Re: Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering

#113

Post by matt4077 » Wed, Sep 06, 2017, 6:19 PM UTC

andy_ppp wrote: post #46

icebraining wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to be focused on copyright, not "protecting the little people from themselves." I find a financial reason more likely to be behind this push.

Yes after finding and reading the document (TFA was hosed) I have totally misunderstood it's content; maybe a better headline including the word copyright would help.

Thank you for admitting the misunderstanding.

It's really dangerous to go around calling democratically elected governments "autocratic". These people really do try, and there's really no indication that any government except maybe Hungary is bent on perpetuating their power. Calling them names just removes any incentives for anybody to do well: Why bother, if you're just going to be called an incompetent autocrat anyway?

Re: Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering

#114

Post by ntuch » Wed, Sep 06, 2017, 6:31 PM UTC

SimbaOnSteroids wrote: post #92

JBReefer wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A huge chunk of millennials are non longer believe in free speech [0], and everyone seems to agree that Facebook et. al's censorship of objectionable content is great. Between the insanity of the current government/far right, and the rise of the far/tankie left, I'm not sure that liberalism is long for this world, even in the West. [0] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millen...

I don't recall a time in history when publishers (what Facebook et al. are) were required or expected to publish whatever any random person or organizations opinions. Furthermore, the country most in favor of limiting free speech to protect minorities, Germany(70% pro, 29% against, total population) , ironically has the most experience with the dangers of both extremes of allowances on speech. On one hand the Nazi's…

> publishers (what Facebook et al. are)

They're not publishers, so your argument falls apart in the very first sentence.

I don't recall a time in history when services (what Facebook et al. are) were allowed to police the content of communications made with their service. I don't recall AT&T, when they allow customers to communicate using their telephone lines, being allowed to police the content of those communications. I don't allow printer manufacturers being allowed to police the things people print.

Before you reach for the keyboard to type the words, "that's different" - no, no it's not. It's not different at all. Facebook offers a service. They aren't publishers. My analogy is closer to reality than yours. It just so happens that Facebook is technically able to police my speech, and so you've chosen to shrug and say it's okay. If AT&T had been technically capable of listening to my speech and policing it, what argument would you make that they shouldn't be allowed to do that? Whatever argument you come up with, I make the same argument for facebook.

> I'm for free speech, but

"...but I'm not really for free speech."

It's all or nothing. You either accept it as a principle because you understand that it's literally the most important principle, or you don't. In your case, you don't.

Re: Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering

#115

Post by guelo » Wed, Sep 06, 2017, 6:33 PM UTC

JBReefer wrote: post #65

dalbasal wrote: post #49

China’s example is massive. China’s success has proven that countries can succeed without adopting western liberal freedoms. In fact, success adopting only a small subset of economic and personal freedoms, and none of the political freedoms. The economy is good, the state is stable.. Proof of concept for non-liberal systems. This means freedoms need to be argued for on their own merits. Free speech for its own sake.…

A huge chunk of millennials are non longer believe in free speech [0], and everyone seems to agree that Facebook et. al's censorship of objectionable content is great. Between the insanity of the current government/far right, and the rise of the far/tankie left, I'm not sure that liberalism is long for this world, even in the West. [0] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millen...

> tankie left

I had to look that one up. A tankie is a hardline stalinist who defends old USSR policies in all cases. I really have a hard time believing that there is a rise in people like that.

The whole "antifa is just as bad"/"hard right and hard left are the same" thing just helps mask the real rise of the alt-right who have amassed a lot of power, they just helped elect a president. The hard-left has nowhere near that much power.

Re: Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering

#116

Post by wsc981 » Wed, Sep 06, 2017, 6:38 PM UTC

digi_owl wrote: post #28

rovek wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For this reason the article seems at least a little alarmist. It wouldn't be news that Estonian politics is delving into censorship/surveillance; tacking on "EU Presidency" just ads faux-gravitas.

There are times i wonder if politicians use EU as a "trump card". This in the sense of getting it into a EU directive and then turning around to the nation, stating as it is part of an EU directive their hands are tied...

Has happened in The Netherlands as well, sadly.

Re: Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering

#117

Post by Stranger43 » Wed, Sep 06, 2017, 6:45 PM UTC

matt4077 wrote: post #111

Stranger43 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't use the mere existence of the "Mickey Mouse" parliament as an evidence of direct representation to the EU as the parliament have literally none of the roles or authority of a real parliament but is mostly ceremonial, like the president of the EU. The real power is and have always been with the council of ministers who is appointed by the member governments, and in practice only responsible to the member…

Not a single piece of EU legislation (both directive and regulation) can be enacted without a majority in the EU parliament. The only difference to national governments is the lack of a right to initiate legislation. But in practice, they just stick anything they want into any vaguely related piece of regulation. They do have the power to amend.

Even if what you stated was true(which is isn't for all cases) it's still a complete reversal of how every single other democratic parliament works as the EU parliament cannot propose anything.

It's correct that the commission(which it itself fairly powerless) have to ask the MEP for yes and no on directives, that is not the case on all regulations passed by the council of ministers as the council can choose to bypass the EU parliament, in cases where no disagreement exist within the council.

Re: Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering

#118

Post by BearGoesChirp » Wed, Sep 06, 2017, 6:57 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #106

ravenstine wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because they advocate freedom to express those ideas does not mean they advocate freedom of speech as a whole. Talking about anything not in the liberal vogue right now opens one up to a world of hurt that wasn't as prevalent even 10 years ago. Bring up being against draconian gun control and, depending on where you live and how large your social circle is, you might get a reputation for being a bunch of things…

> world of hurt that wasn't as prevalent even 10 years ago Well this sounds unfortunate ... > might get a reputation for being a bunch of things you're not .. but that's just other people's free speech? > I'm often seen as a conservative for bringing up the fact that violent crime in America is down True, and also free speech. I'm slightly surprised this labels you as a conservative. I'm not really seeing the "world…

>.. but that's just other people's free speech?

No. That saying "Hey, I want to own my own semi auto rifle." leads to someone thinking you are alt-right has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Their expressing their view of you being alt-right does, but the logical jump itself does not.

Now, people are free to think what ever they want. Not exactly given in a single Amendment, but people would agree holding some belief is a freedom. But we can still say that some beliefs being wide spread is a bad thing.

>True, and also free speech.

Their spreading their view of grandparent as being conservative is free speech. Their actually having this view is not related to free speech at all.

Take a comparison, imagine extremely racist views became extremely widespread and people kept bringing them up. Even though this is free speech, we still put limits on it. For example, the notion of creating a hostile work environment and the penalties that can bring.

Re: Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering

#119

Post by pyoung » Wed, Sep 06, 2017, 7:00 PM UTC

forapurpose wrote: post #76

icebraining wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. One wonders what Estonia, or its government, has to gain from this, though.

> One wonders what Estonia, or its government, has to gain from this, though. As a guess, it's due to the threat to Estonia from Russia, which includes Russian cyber attacks and propaganda. Russia has used propaganda operations very effectively in Europe and the U.S. If the U.S. has trouble protecting itself, imagine Estonia's situation. In response to the same issue, earlier this year (IIRC) I read about a similar c…

This seems like the most plausible explanation. I recently read an article[1] regarding Ukraine's struggle against Russian propaganda.

[1] http://www.npr.org/2017/08/21/544952989/rough-translation-wh...

Re: Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering

#120

Post by petre » Wed, Sep 06, 2017, 7:01 PM UTC

richrichardsson wrote: post #51

allendoerfer wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The MEP are not part of the government, they are part of the parliament, which is elected by the public. The EU comission (which is the government), is decided upon by the national governments. Only the head of the comission was elected (indirectly) by the people. Edit: Btw, the head of the comission is more like what the US would think of an actual president. The president, OP talks about is more like a representing…

The EU commission is also indirectly elected by the people in a (maybe tenuous) way. Member state populations elect their national governments, those governments put forward commissioners. They're not that much different to civil servants in national government really.

We do not elect the national goverments. We elect political parties in the national parliament who then form a government or a coalition and appoint comissioners in the EC. There is in fact little representation.