Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

juliareda.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 450 posts

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#321

Post by Zak »

claudius wrote: post #193
hyperman1 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For your info: Hacker news is: - an Internet platform - that organizes and promotes large amounts of posts - which are copyright-protected works uploaded by their users - in order to make a profit as it is an advertisement for y combinator. So hacker news needs a filter lest you quote a sentence from some movie. What is 'meant' is irrelevant. Important is the letter of the law. Besides, 'meant' is a very dangerous wo…

For your info: Hacker News being responsible for the data its users provide is not a problem for the users, it is a problem for Hacker News and similar platforms who leech off content from the general public for their own profit. Further for your info: Hacker News does not "need a filter lest you quote a sentence from some movie", it only needs to take responsibility of you commit copyright infringement by doing so.…

> I’d happily let Hacker News go if it means other such platforms go with it.

Why?

I'll take as a given that many platforms are profiting from copyrighted content uploaded by users, but I very much doubt that the copyright owners would secure any of those profits for themselves if the platforms in question were driven out of existence.

Do you believe otherwise? If so, why?

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#322

Post by sonnyblarney »

kodablah wrote: post #320
sonnyblarney wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I can see most of the obvious impetus for this, but don't feel it's going to work out very well at all. I'm not sure what a smarter version of the legislation would look like. Maybe it works out, but there is some downside risk here which involves a brand new 'lawyer economy'.

> I can see most of the obvious impetus for this, but don't feel it's going to work out very well at all. You can see this reaction to the GDPR where the discussion of benefits are hypothetical. Most of these pieces of legislation have predecessors that we can look to for real, practical results. And that practical result is that the governments have mandates to govern the internet in a large, globally-affecting, inf…

I think that GDPR will in many ways be meaningless, but I don't have a problem with it because it seems 'fair' and 'implementable' at any scale.

This legislations looks like a train wreck out of nowhere, for no real, pragmatic reason.

Of the 100 or so top issues facing Europe today, is this among them? Really?

Maybe the EU Executive should be elected, like in every other democracy.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#323

Post by Aengeuad »

ThomPete wrote: post #254
toyg wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post explicitly mentions a clause that will make that distinction. The author argues it might be removed from the final text as part of the ongoing horse-trading, but at least it’s clear MEPs do understand the difference nowadays.

If they did they wouldn't have implemented GDRP as it was. The very fact that it might be removed in a horse-trade illustrates my point.

It would be insane to implement privacy and data regulations differently for smaller companies. You would end up with startups having free reign to abuse peoples privacy in order to gain market dominance against their larger competitors who don't have this advantage, and you'd have larger companies near the threshold arguing about and doing everything in their power to stay under their threshold so they can avoid doing things like allowing people to delete their profiles or downloading their data to transfer to a competitor. Smaller or less important leaks would be brushed up under the rug because 'Well, at least they're not BA', nothing good would come of it. If the law is unduly harsh on smaller companies that's due to the realities of dealing with people's personal information in a secure manner, not because the legislators decided to put people before corporations.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#324

Post by kodablah »

DCKing wrote: post #97
radarsat1 wrote: post #10

The GDPR has already resulted in quite a few websites simply refusing to serve the EU. Will this clinch it? Will the EU be cut off form the internet due to over-regulation that no one wants to put themselves at risk over?

I think calling GDPR over-regulation is extremely suspect. The GDPR does a good job in codifying basic privacy principles of what you can do with personal data. Clear communication, consent, control over your own data and data protection principles. Things that should be self-evident but we have been failing with forever, and something that has become an extremely widespread widespread in an online society. The only…

> I think calling GDPR over-regulation is extremely suspect.

I don't. I find it an egregious example of over-regulation. I think not recognizing the obviously large scope of such regulation is extremely suspect.

> The GDPR does a good job in codifying basic privacy principles of what you can do with personal data

By what measure do you define "good job"?

> The only reason to call it over regulation is if you're spoiled about not being regulated beforehand

I admit being this kind of spoiled. But it's ridiculous to say that's the only reason. There are measured ways to go about things and to so blatantly say that this is the only reason one might view it as over-regulation (despite real reasons such as size and scope and ineffectiveness of predecessors/enforcement) destroys our ability to have real conversations about the many alternative ways to solve some of the problems we have. Such a black-and-white absolutist view is harmful.

> I don't understand why I hear so few Americans about wanting this in their own country.

Can't speak for all, but for many, it's because they recognize the difference between what would be ideal and what would actually happen. Large anti-company (especially against companies that users prefer to use) laws have a chance to be frowned upon, despite ridiculous promises/optimism/naivete by the hopeful.

> Websites that don't want to comply with GDPR, I say good riddance. If you really feel you cannot uphold the basic privacy principles posited, then screw you too.

These are not how chilling effects work. You don't get to say "well, if they choose not to do business where a law is, they must not be able to uphold that law". There are compliance costs/risks. The amount of assumptions concerning this topic, whether assumptions that the law is good or assumptions that those disagreeing with it are of a certain ilk, need to stop. You only hurt your cause discussing things in this manner.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#325

Post by hpcjoe »

yostrovs wrote: post #204
drewbuschhorn wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like we had this exact same argument over GDPR, but no horror stories have descended about Mom and Pop operations run out of business but the evil Brusselcrats.

It's not clear what's going on with GDPR, good test cases are only now starting to be tested. But the fact that many American newspapers, for example, are blocked in Europe is certainly something to worry about.

[humor] Given the "quality" of reporting in most of the publications here, we should be thanked for that outcome [/humor]

More seriously, GDPR should not extend beyond its jurisdiction. It does though, and there are consequences. Blocking european IPs cost (loss of revenue) must be balanced against compliance costs.

Claims that "they've had N years to prepare" are specicious, if for no other reason than they aren't bound by the specific law. Meanwhile the law introduces a new, potentially large, liability. Which results in companies self censoring by geolocation.

This is what you call an unintended consequence. Remote access to quite a few resources outside of Europe is likely to be restricted should this pass into EU law. As we like to say here, elections have consequences.

FWIW, I support the aims of GDPR, and wish we would get a sane law on this here in the US as well. But I don't want our law extending to others. That would be unfair to them.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#326

Post by TeMPOraL »

stef25 wrote: post #297
drewbuschhorn wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like we had this exact same argument over GDPR, but no horror stories have descended about Mom and Pop operations run out of business but the evil Brusselcrats.

GDPR has had a very detrimental effect on user experience, with never ending popups and warnings about crap nobody understands. And being in the EU there's several US publications we can no longer access.

I can buy arguments that extra compliance efforts make some businesses not cost-effective in Europe, but this particular argument is nonsense.

It's like a factory that dumped toxic waste into a river complaining that, because of a ban on dumping toxic waste into rivers, they now "have to" dump them to nearby meadows instead, and that makes local customers unhappy.

"Detrimental effect on user experience" is an intended effect that clearly signals the company doesn't want to stop abusing its users.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#327

Post by TheCoelacanth »

sambe wrote: post #215
DCKing wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think calling GDPR over-regulation is extremely suspect. The GDPR does a good job in codifying basic privacy principles of what you can do with personal data. Clear communication, consent, control over your own data and data protection principles. Things that should be self-evident but we have been failing with forever, and something that has become an extremely widespread widespread in an online society. The only…

There is a cost to businesses in complying with and implementing regulations, regardless of the size of the business and how good or bad their behaviour has been with respect to the intention of those regulations. You can't deny over-regulation by assuming only the badly-behaving people are burdened by it. Besides, there is also a cost to me: the never-ending pop-ups and acceptance dialogues, inability to access info…

You can avoid the burden of GDPR entirely if you simply don't collect user data, and you can avoid most of it if you only collect data that you actually need.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#328

Post by hpcjoe »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #306
mvanga wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"internet platforms", "organize", "promote", "large amounts", "uploaded by their users", "in order to make a profit". These phrases by themselves are open to interpretation in various ways. In particular, what I find dangerous is that these appear to be specific enough to convince people to believe there will be little to no room for abuse, and yet are vague enough to allow a motivated political actor to target someo…

> DMCA: there will be no abuse https://www.theverge.com/2015/6/18/8803571/sunday-times-inte... > GDPR: there will be no abuse https://euobserver.com/justice/143343 > Art. 13; there will be no abuse yeah, let's be optimistic!

[paraphrase] You keep using that phrase "no abuse". I do not think it means what you think it means ... [/paraphrase]

Single paraphrased/modified quote from a movie, meant to mock the abuse that has, and surely will, happen, under the existing, and new regimes. Fair use, and parody all wrapped up in one sentence.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#329

Post by mrep »

m-i-l wrote: post #241
hyperman1 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For your info: Hacker news is: - an Internet platform - that organizes and promotes large amounts of posts - which are copyright-protected works uploaded by their users - in order to make a profit as it is an advertisement for y combinator. So hacker news needs a filter lest you quote a sentence from some movie. What is 'meant' is irrelevant. Important is the letter of the law. Besides, 'meant' is a very dangerous wo…

Most film quotes on HN would be covered by "fair use"[0]. If someone pasted an entire script in a comment that would be something different entirely, and likely to be picked up by the existing flagging or moderation system. Also, I'm not entirely sure how HN itself can be said to be profit-making, e.g. there are no subscription fees to use it and it doesn't appear to have any advertisements from any advertising platf…

I highly doubt they would be flagged and instead upvoted. I have seen multiple instances here where a US website has blocked the EU due to GDPR and some user posts the entire content of the article as a comment.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#330

Post by ABCLAW »

kd5bjo wrote: post #318
ABCLAW wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"internet platforms that organise and promote large amounts of copyright-protected works uploaded by their users in order to make a profit" HN does not organize large amounts of copyright-protected works, nor are the links to articles an 'upload'. If HN organized PDFs of the linked articles so you could just skip heading to a third party site then we'd be talking. 'meant' is not a dangerous word. All laws require in…

Many of the comments on HN are substantive enough to be covered by copyright, and modern copyright law protects everything protectable whether there’s a copyright notice or not.

...So what?

Comment content is governable in the site ToS, where copyright assignment or other methods of defining the respective user/site rights can be dealt with.

Even if it wasn't, your performance in posting implies consent to provide at the very least a limited license to publish content you posted.

So where's the beef here?

Post reply on HN