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

EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 183 posts

Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook

#151

Post by pessimizer »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #95
wbxrs wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not the job of the government to preserve "civilised discourse". It is a government, not the moderator of an Internet forum. I must be able to say whatever I want, and you must be able to ignore me or openly disagree.

It absolutely is the job of the government to regulate interactions between its citizens. That's literally why people let them exist. We're arguing here about extent of that regulation. No sane government will prevent you from generally moving around. But try to run around the town naked, and see how long it'll take before you get in trouble. Being naked is a form of expression too - one that's almost universally fro…

This argument suffers from both the "no sane government" and the "no reasonable government" fallacies.

Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook

#152

Post by AnthonyMouse »

wbl wrote: post #110
porpoisely wrote: post #16

This is what I despise about "news". If this was china or russia or venezuela, etc, the headline would be "China tightens grip on their people" or "International community concerned as China becomes more authoritarian" or "Pro freedom activists protest against China's draconian censorship". It would be spun as something more ominous than "reform". But reuters being reuters and also a major supporter of censorship, of…

Nothing is being censored. You can say whatever you want.

> Nothing is being censored. You can say whatever you want.

a) Not if the platforms needed for ordinary people to say them are destroyed/neutered.

b) This is a direct attack on criticism and fair use in general. Some of the most biting criticism is to use the opponent's own words against them, or to demonstrate a historical example of them being wrong or inconsistent. Which has in general been legally protected for that exact reason, yet this is likely to impair that significantly because it would be detected as "infringement" by an automated system with a useless, opaque or non-existent appeals process.

Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook

#153

Post by pessimizer »

ThePawnBreak wrote: post #100
TeMPOraL wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This and the "insult the president" sound both like cases of the offender being an asshole. I mean, there is a difference between criticizing an idea - or a person - and being purposefully insulting about it. Surely there is a way to draw a line in between that preserves free and civilized discourse.

> This and the "insult the president" sound both like cases of the offender being an asshole. I fully agree. I think we should start jailing all the people who called Trump an idiot or a racist. That's no way to talk about the President!

Or the Thai king or Turkmenbashi:)

Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook

#154

Post by deogeo »

mancerayder wrote: post #62
mancerayder wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But reuters being reuters and also a major supporter of censorship, of course spins it in a pro-censorship manner. That's too bold of a claim to just toss in there leisurely. Surely you should feel some degree of need to qualify that statement. "Supporter of censorship"? How does this become the top comment?

The Reuters article presented both points of view, including the dissenters, contradicting the "Reuters supports censorship". But perhaps if we upvote and downvote commenters, we can make a real change in the world.

Pay attention to the language of the article:

> two years after the EU executive proposed changes to protect the bloc’s cultural heritage and ensure that publishers, broadcasters and artists are remunerated fairly.

> dissenting countries said the proposed changes could hinder innovation and hurt the bloc’s competitiveness

The first statement is presented as fact, the second as something that was merely 'said'. 'Censorship', 'freedom of expression', or 'chilling effects' are entirely absent from the article.

Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook

#155

Post by mancerayder »

deogeo wrote: post #154
mancerayder wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Reuters article presented both points of view, including the dissenters, contradicting the "Reuters supports censorship". But perhaps if we upvote and downvote commenters, we can make a real change in the world.

Pay attention to the language of the article: > two years after the EU executive proposed changes to protect the bloc’s cultural heritage and ensure that publishers, broadcasters and artists are remunerated fairly. > dissenting countries said the proposed changes could hinder innovation and hurt the bloc’s competitiveness The first statement is presented as fact, the second as something that was merely 'said'. 'Censo…

I see your point but the full sentence seems to me (to my reading) simply to mention the stated purpose of the legislation. The phrase after "to" I read not as what Reuters stamped as the Correct or Real reason, but what the legislators' implied reasons were:

Negotiators from the EU countries, the European Parliament and the European Commission sealed a deal last week, two years after the EU executive proposed changes to protect the bloc’s cultural heritage and ensure that publishers, broadcasters and artists are remunerated fairly.

What's after "to" is the reason for the legislation. What, the reason for the legislation is fully subjective? And then they mentioned the dissenting voices.

I don't know. Reuters might be biased, but I don't see this as making a strong case.

Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook

#156

Post by tedunangst »

porpoisely wrote: post #16

This is what I despise about "news". If this was china or russia or venezuela, etc, the headline would be "China tightens grip on their people" or "International community concerned as China becomes more authoritarian" or "Pro freedom activists protest against China's draconian censorship". It would be spun as something more ominous than "reform". But reuters being reuters and also a major supporter of censorship, of…

> Also, considering that google and facebook support these "reforms", how are they "aiming" it at them?

Huh?

"Google, which has lobbied against both features and has even suggested that it might pull Google News from Europe, said last week it would study the text before deciding on its next steps."

That does not sound like support to me.

Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook

#157

Post by throwaway_9168 »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #128
craigsmansion wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely is, depending on your p.o.v. I know the U.S. is big on their "freedom of speech" since it's one of the few things all citizens agree on, an All American Shibboleth, so to speak, but National Security trumps everything. There are plenty of things you can say at the border that will get you on the next plane back home. There may or may not be people being held in captivity without access to a lawyer for t…

This comment seems like an entirely disingenuous argument for me. I'm sorry if it's not, truly, but it's an argument fit for a Fox News editorial. > There are plenty of things you can say at the border that will get you on the next plane back home. Do you mean there are things that non-citizens can say at the border of entry to the US that might prohibit entry into the US? That does not seem like a limitation of free…

>> Which country permits their citizens to disclose highly classified information with not repercussions, however unjust those repercussions may ultimately be?

Yeah, its free speech, as long as it doesn't fall under some bullshit definition of "classified" (how convenient that the classified information also includes unilateral infringement of another country's rights, e.g. the downright creepy snooping on the phones of world leaders who are supposed allies). And of course, you should also understand that you _might_ die saying certain things, but hey, otherwise its free speech. And finally, as long as you understand the "relative" merits of the case (i.e. one rule for me, another for you), we can all agree that free speech is what is being practiced in the USA.

Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook

#158

Post by raverbashing »

r_smart wrote: post #148
raverbashing wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, like Java? I'd say the case was good to highlight the absurdity of it. And sometimes speaking your mind has a cost.

Let's not conflate fundamental rights with programming languages. |And sometimes speaking your mind has a cost. Wait, you think this was acceptable? The fine for speaking is outrageous, and it will only get worse if it turns out it's not enough of a deterrent.

Let's just say there are worse ways of paying it and that speech in this website is limited as well

> Let's not conflate fundamental rights with programming languages

If you r_smart you should have noticed the jest in this statement

Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook

#160

Post by deogeo »

mancerayder wrote: post #155
deogeo wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pay attention to the language of the article: > two years after the EU executive proposed changes to protect the bloc’s cultural heritage and ensure that publishers, broadcasters and artists are remunerated fairly. > dissenting countries said the proposed changes could hinder innovation and hurt the bloc’s competitiveness The first statement is presented as fact, the second as something that was merely 'said'. 'Censo…

I see your point but the full sentence seems to me (to my reading) simply to mention the stated purpose of the legislation. The phrase after "to" I read not as what Reuters stamped as the Correct or Real reason, but what the legislators' implied reasons were: Negotiators from the EU countries, the European Parliament and the European Commission sealed a deal last week, two years after the EU executive proposed change…

I have no idea if Reuters is deliberately biased, and I don't think this article shows that. It's just lazy inertia-driven reporting. But inertia-driven reporting is biased, even if the reporter tried to be neutral. It usually ends up subconsciously treating official sources as truth, and everything else as mere claims. But it's what it doesn't report that tilts the story most heavily. Industry PR and politicians give very different answers from e.g. software freedom activists.
Post reply on HN