Making content providers liable about the content they publish seems to me essential to have an healthy internet: I don't understand all the problem about censorship; Am I missing something?
Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive
81–90 of 204 posts
Re: Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive
#82As an EU citizen, I hope large portions of the internet will just block us. A couple of days without YouTube, Wikipedia and other services would create sufficient outrage to put pressure on the EU for introducing these idiotic laws. I mean, GDPR is bad enough for start ups, but Article 13?
Have you read the content of article 13?
Re: Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive
#83It is interesting to me that only four of them are protesting—German, Czech, Danish, and Slovak—by blacking out their sites on 21 March 2019 in opposition to the proposed EU Copyright Directive. Why is it that other EU Wikipedia language editions like French, Italian, Polish, Portuguese and Spanish not joining in the protests? Did they come up with a different conclusion on the potential impact of the new copyright d…
As each Wikipedia project is independant, there's not really any cross-wiki communication and the guidelines can vary quite a bit. But I would not have supported this, I just don't believe these kind of a stunts are effective, just annoying to users. Everybody already has copyright-directive-warning-fatigue. If you must you can put up a banner.
> Everybody already has copyright-directive-warning-fatigue.
If that is you experience, I think you might be living in a bit of a bubble (as we all do, arguably). Anecdotally, I know quite a few people who seem to be pretty unaware of the whole discussion.
Re: Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Article 13 is terrible not because it’s terrible for start-ups, it’s terrible because it’s terrible for people. I’m pretty close to the rough-end of GDPR in my current job, but it represents real benefits for millions of people. If you asked them what’s a reasonable way to treat their data, I believe the GDPR is close-ish to what a lot of Europeans would want. Or, at least a shift in the right direction. Article 13 o…
If you asked them what’s a reasonable way to treat their data, I believe the GDPR is close-ish to what a lot of Europeans would want. I'm pretty sure that if you asked people whether they would prefer to pay for Facebook and Google with cash or by sharing data for ad targeting, most would choose the latter. The GDPR specifically forbids that option. Article 13 on the other hand is what you get if you ask rights-holde…
[deleted]
Re: Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive
#85Making content providers liable about the content they publish seems to me essential to have an healthy internet: I don't understand all the problem about censorship; Am I missing something?
Consider the difference "making content providers liable for the content they publish" vs "making platforms liable for the content others publish".
Re: Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Article 13 is terrible not because it’s terrible for start-ups, it’s terrible because it’s terrible for people. I’m pretty close to the rough-end of GDPR in my current job, but it represents real benefits for millions of people. If you asked them what’s a reasonable way to treat their data, I believe the GDPR is close-ish to what a lot of Europeans would want. Or, at least a shift in the right direction. Article 13 o…
If you asked them what’s a reasonable way to treat their data, I believe the GDPR is close-ish to what a lot of Europeans would want. I'm pretty sure that if you asked people whether they would prefer to pay for Facebook and Google with cash or by sharing data for ad targeting, most would choose the latter. The GDPR specifically forbids that option. Article 13 on the other hand is what you get if you ask rights-holde…
My understanding of the GDPR (did a course on it for work) is that it allows data sharing for advertising to named companies, but holds you and the advertiser responsible for ensuring that no-one else gets your data without permission and for letting you know if any such data breach occurs.
But I agree with you on the principle that bureaucracy very seldom does only the things I want.
Re: Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you asked them what’s a reasonable way to treat their data, I believe the GDPR is close-ish to what a lot of Europeans would want. I'm pretty sure that if you asked people whether they would prefer to pay for Facebook and Google with cash or by sharing data for ad targeting, most would choose the latter. The GDPR specifically forbids that option. Article 13 on the other hand is what you get if you ask rights-holde…
I had absolutely no issue getting my family members to pay for an account at diasp.eu when google+ shut down. They were rather happy to do so since one of its selling points is that they do not track users for advertising. Do not underestimate the general publics tracking/advertising fatigue.
Forgive me but doesn't that mean they were actually using google+ in the first place? Which seems.... unlikely? Or at least incredible outliers.
You won't get the majority of people on Facebook to pay for the service after you've been giving it to them for "free" for 10 years, you'd maybe convert 10% if that, at which point what use is facebook with most of the users gone?
Re: Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm pretty sure that if you asked people whether they would prefer to pay for Facebook and Google with cash or by sharing data for ad targeting, most would choose the latter. The GDPR specifically forbids that option. Do you have a source for that?
Well since you can't make sharing of personal data a prerequisite for using a service unless it can be shown that data is actually necessary for the operation of the service it could be argued that this follows.
That's not quite accurate. The law allows you to legitimately ask for permission to share the data for advertising purposes, but you have to be transparent with the details, and the advertiser has to have the same safeguards on the data as your company (they aren't allowed to re-sell it without the original company's knowledge, for example).
Re: Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive
#89As an EU citizen, I hope large portions of the internet will just block us. A couple of days without YouTube, Wikipedia and other services would create sufficient outrage to put pressure on the EU for introducing these idiotic laws. I mean, GDPR is bad enough for start ups, but Article 13?
GDPR was never intended to be "good for startups". Just like pro-climate policies are never intended to be good for the economy. GDPR was intended to be good for peoples privacy. Pro-climate policies are meant to be good for the climate. Somethings gotta give. People are generally more important than startups. Climate is generally more important than economy. Because without people, there are no startups. And without…
So who is benefiting from this article 13? The copyright holders.
Not the people, not the startups, not the EU companies.
There are things to be said about GDPR and climate, but not so much about article 13. It's just retarded and insane. These people have totally no clue.
"Artificial intelligence can recognize faces today, filter out preferences and even park independently. It should be easy to distinguish between original and parody." - Says the Germany's equivalent to the RIAA
Re: Four Wikipedias to ‘Black Out’ over EU Copyright Directive
#90As an EU citizen, I hope large portions of the internet will just block us. A couple of days without YouTube, Wikipedia and other services would create sufficient outrage to put pressure on the EU for introducing these idiotic laws. I mean, GDPR is bad enough for start ups, but Article 13?
As a user, GDPR is great for me.
As a user, article 13 is bad for me.