Live data from Hacker News

EU censorship machines and link tax laws are nearing the finish line

juliareda.eu

181–190 of 223 posts

Re: EU censorship machines and link tax laws are nearing the finish line

#181
post #147
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't quite get this, the problem is not with linking, but the link previews.

It seems pretty clear that the intent is for this to cover the current linking/snippeting practices. If it wasn't covered, there is no chance of this law providing publishers a new revenue stream. And what are those current practices? On Google News it appears to literally be just the title and maybe a tiny thumbnail image. On search it's those plus less than a sentence of text. It's pretty hard to see the intent her…

Maybe the problem is that most of the articles nowadays could be shortened to just a few sentences as the rest of the body is just a filler and people just don't want to waste time going to the linked sites to ingest it?

Re: EU censorship machines and link tax laws are nearing the finish line

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regulations are tools. They’re not inherently good or bad. It depends on how you use them. It's not just that though. There are good and bad regulations in the sense that the law against murder is good and DMCA 1201 is bad, but there are also compliance costs for any regulation, even good ones. Economic transactions have a certain amount of surplus. The value of doing something is $100 and the cost of doing it is $…

I don’t see how that’s possible. If two regulations are in completely unrelated areas, how can they combine to destroy something? There are plenty of cases where regulation benefits all of the involved parties. My favorite example is safety equipment for race cars. Absent regulation, there’s huge pressure to not have any because it increases weight and slows you down. But if you regulate it so everyone has to have it…

> I don’t see how that’s possible. If two regulations are in completely unrelated areas, how can they combine to destroy something?

Let's take three unrelated regulations. Factories can't pollute the environment, vehicles have to undergo crash testing, and buildings above a certain height are not allowed in a particular area.

Now we look at a local newspaper. It has to buy newsprint from a factory, the factory's costs have gone up due to environmental regulations, so the price of newsprint goes up. Then it has to deliver the print edition to readers, the safety standards cause vehicles to be more expensive, which raises its delivery costs. Then its rent is higher because the zoning regulation prevents the construction of more commercial rental properties.

The local newspaper is struggling to survive as it is. It can survive any two of these regulations but the combination of all three puts it out of business. (And having too many newspapers go out of business may put the newsprint factory out of business etc.)

So we need to prioritize. Environmental regulations and vehicle safety are pretty important, so we should have those and not the zoning regulations.

> There are plenty of cases where regulation benefits all of the involved parties.

You're talking about the consequences of the regulation, not the compliance costs. Even if everyone is better off -- even if the regulation is worth having -- it still required everyone to spend some amount of resources on lawyers and safety equipment and so on. You can only do that finitely many times before you exhaust your available resources.

Which means the regulations we have should be only the ones that yield major returns.

Re: EU censorship machines and link tax laws are nearing the finish line

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The big issue is that Google over time has moved to scrape the web. This is true, and a lot of Google's practices are monopolistic/hegemonic. However banning/taxing links is not the answer.

But what are you gonna do about it then? Ban snippets? Tax snippets? Wait for Google to be the web? Specially regulate Google? There’s no good solutions.

> But what are you gonna do about it then? Ban snippets? Tax snippets? Wait for Google to be the web? Specially regulate Google?

I think I would ban search engines from doing other things, ban or regulate targetted advertising, require social networks to be interoperable, and ban social networks from owning other social networks (so Facebook would have to sell off Instagram).

Re: EU censorship machines and link tax laws are nearing the finish line

#184
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coming up after that: More unexpected effects. Which presumably most of us in Europe won't hear about, if all the sites with a link/discussion format like HN and Reddit will be faced with paying huge fees or stopping/geoblocking/etc...

I'm not sure why HN would be affected, there's no link previews or anything pulled from the article. Links themselves do not seem to be a problem if I understand right: > This protection does not extend to acts of hyperlinking which do not constitute communication to the public. section 33, page 19. http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016...

I'm not sure why HN would be affected

It's not the link's address that is the problem under the questionable proposals, but rather the text that describes it. HN's normal custom is to use the original title/headline for that description, and HN's own mods actively change submissions that don't follow that policy. It looks like that could easily get them caught in the same trap as a site like Google that offers accompanying snippets.

Maybe YC would be willing to accept the risk of publishers trying to extract money from them, just as running HN itself is a favour to the community, but I see no good reason they should be expected to put up with that risk and any actual costs incurred just to continue providing a useful service that they already generously provide for free.

Re: EU censorship machines and link tax laws are nearing the finish line

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what are you gonna do about it then? Ban snippets? Tax snippets? Wait for Google to be the web? Specially regulate Google? There’s no good solutions.

> But what are you gonna do about it then? Ban snippets? Tax snippets? Wait for Google to be the web? Specially regulate Google? I think I would ban search engines from doing other things, ban or regulate targetted advertising, require social networks to be interoperable, and ban social networks from owning other social networks (so Facebook would have to sell off Instagram).

That’s an idea I can agree with, and that Vestager visibly sympathizes with, but that’d mean breaking apart Google, and as result would anger a lot of people.

Re: EU censorship machines and link tax laws are nearing the finish line

#186
post #145
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you (and others) lump GDPR with this law? There is nothing common to them. Other than people who actually profit of personal data, I have not met one person who isn't in favor of the GDPR. This law is different.

>Other than people who actually profit of personal data, I have not met one person who isn't in favor of the GDPR yeah! Also, only people who have something to hide are too attached to privacy /s

Every law is a balancing act. I note your /s, but still think its worthy of a response because many people accept this without sarcasm.

GDPR prefers, in the grand scheme of things, the privacy and anonymity of 400M European to the bottom line of 50-100 companies, most of which aren't based in Europe.

Lack of privacy hurts & benefits ... who, exactly? Mostly the same (except it's more like 1000-5000 companies, but still).

Re: EU censorship machines and link tax laws are nearing the finish line

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: I thought my parent poster was the same as my grandparent's parent. I removed a paragraph aimed at the latter. Sorry! [...] Just because people earn less and have less money, the economic output in goods won't change. Goods will simply become cheaper. What really matters is WHERE the money is removed from the system because companies/individuals supposedly hoard it, pay low wages, or cost of compliance is high.…

> Just because people earn less and have less money, the economic output in goods won't change. Goods will simply become cheaper. Wait, what? That is obviously not what happens. If 100K people lose their jobs, they have less money which means they buy less stuff. But nobody is going to materially change prices as a result of what 100K people do out of 300M. Those 100K people are just screwed. > Criminals always had a…

> But that's what would happen regardless if the human worker could find another job that pays more than the one being automated. The issue is that the human worker would prefer $5/hour to unemployment, and the employer would prefer a $5/hour employee to automation but prefer automation to an $8/hour employee, so an $8 minimum wage puts the employee on the unemployment line.

Putting people who perform work we can do cheaper with automation on the unemployment line is a side-effect of a good thing. Think of what the first wave of industrialization brought us.

People can now invest time learning skills they're actually needed for, without reducing economic output (and later supplementing it).

> Which is more undignified, working a job supplemented by government assistance or being unemployed and 100% reliant on government assistance?

Honestly? Rather than slaving away at McDonalds working for 7 dollars an hour, effectively kissing the ass of that horrible company, just to receive government aid anyways to get me to the end of the month I'd just not work at all.

At least that way FastFoodChainX can't use me to leech off the government and myself.

Just because you introduce a minimum wage restaurants and junk food chains aren't going to go away. They're gonna get more expensive, sure. But you'll lessen the burden they create on society, as well as raising a class of neglected workers to the point where they can afford to dine at such places themselves.

> Both of those benefit larger entities. Suppose you sell a unit for $100 and your previous unit cost was $80 but with the more expensive materials it's $90.

What's really gonna happen is that it'll now sell for $110. Or probably $115 to cover the advertising for the new "High quality ingredients! Now 95% less poisonous!"

Re: EU censorship machines and link tax laws are nearing the finish line

#189

At this point, I'm just exhausted. I'm tired of fighting this battle that we lose every single step of the way. I kind of just want privacy, expression, user safety, and free speech on the web to be dead already so we can skip the inevitable grinding progression of crushing defeats as it dies bit after bit as we expend massive amounts of effort, will, emotion, and stress campaigning against the latest in a long line…

The fight is far from over. We still have crypto. If that is outlawed, we'll have steganography. When that's outlawed, well, we'll still have sneakers. Iron curtain and Stalins' organs failed. Stasi failed. War on drugs is failing. We, the people, shall prevail. Have hope, brother.

Re: EU censorship machines and link tax laws are nearing the finish line

#190
post #31

Seems like the past 15 years were once-in-history-and-never-again blip where we had some illusion of building a better society. Oh well, my face goes back under the stamping boot...

Everything changes yet remains the same. The Man and the people are always in balance. Have hope. We shall prevail.
Post reply on HN