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

EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

euractiv.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 286 posts

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#21

Post by bmaisonp »

j_walter wrote: post #12
bmaisonp wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think that these platforms are actually taking action for "the left?" Is silicon valley actually a leftist paradise full of leftist megacorperations?

Ummm...yes https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/facebook-inc/summary?all=20... https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/microsoft-corp/summary?id=D... https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/amazon-com/summary?all=2020...

They are certainly aligned with the US Democratic party, but I think it's a mistake to equate the Democrats with "the left" unless you're only speaking in that total American context where "Left=Dems, Right=GOP, end of story."

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#22

Post by raverbashing »

Freedom of expression on platforms is important

But it absolutely does not matter for a person in a position of power who has dedicated dedicated public information channels

Twitter is right, in the same way any journalist has the right to publish or not a statement by the president

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#23

Post by africanboy »

bjeds wrote: post #19

I'm impressed that the EU is taking action in this case and I hope they also look into the shutdown of Parler under antitrust legislation. Parler was the number one downloaded social media app in the app store after all. According to BBC the most popular accounts on Parler were people like Sean Hannity and Ted Cruz, who each had followers in the millions. Of course Parler had a problem with some - maybe even many - v…

I think EU doesn't have an opinion on Parler, that's a business relationship gone wrong.

The leak of the Parler content shows that they were actively moderating the platform to push it on the far right side, using millions of fake accounts with admin privileges.

So Amazon terminated their account.

The ban of Trump from social networks is a different topic, I don't think Trump has a big fan base in EU, but it's the perfect excuse to demand what many have been advocating for years now: political control of the social network decisions, given that they can influence the public opinion (Facebook admitted today that their platform was used to spread violence in Myanmar)

I have personally advocated for putting social network under public scrutiny or close their operations in EU.

I am glad that the European Union is finally taking steps in that direction.

EDIT:

source -> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25731121

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#24

Post by _y5hn »

ortusdux wrote: post #15
Talanes wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. The problem lies in the power to control expression lying in too few hands. Just having the same media system, but with the government directing who they ban is just passing the buck.

I've been wondering how much of all this is an (over?)reaction to the threat of the repeal of section 230. How many of the people making these decisions have reciently had meetings with legal where they learn what changes they would need to make to not risk lawsuits. Allowing governmental oversight, with legal protection, would sound pretty good in comparison.

We clearly need to understand what rules and algorithms are OK, what are their side-effects and potential for abuse.

To get governments into moderation business sounds like an idea that simply won't scale. We already got laws to cover the legal aspects.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#25

Post by proactivesvcs »

Assuming that a company's terms of service are deemed fair and legal, why would it be "no longer acceptable" to apply them? I couldn't care less how high profile someone is, what public office they hold; if they break the agreement they made with a service provider, they should be subject to the consequences they agreed to.

What I would like to see is a company being obliged to enforce its terms of service promptly, and not allow profitable rule-breakers to continue. Especially when their abuse of the service also breaks laws.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#26

Post by [deleted] »

orange_tee wrote: post #20
FrameworkFred wrote: post #16

I see the argument the commission is making, but when it comes to the question of inciting violence on privately owned systems, is it really the right idea to move it to some sort of public committee when the target is "too big to censor?"

Remember that Facebook and Twitter only acted after the fact. For them, Trump was too big to censor too. They only took action days before he is out of office when it was guaranteed he would leave.

[deleted]

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#27

Post by africanboy »

j_walter wrote: post #12
bmaisonp wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think that these platforms are actually taking action for "the left?" Is silicon valley actually a leftist paradise full of leftist megacorperations?

Ummm...yes https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/facebook-inc/summary?all=20... https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/microsoft-corp/summary?id=D... https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/amazon-com/summary?all=2020...

the Democratic party of the USA is center-leftish at best.

For example they don't openly support

- unions

- universal free healthcare

- strong workers' guaranteed rights (paid holidays, paid sick leave, paternity/maternity, limited working hours - e.g. max 40 hours per week -, overtime pay etc. etc.)

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#28

Post by tsherr »

orange_tee wrote: post #20
FrameworkFred wrote: post #16

I see the argument the commission is making, but when it comes to the question of inciting violence on privately owned systems, is it really the right idea to move it to some sort of public committee when the target is "too big to censor?"

Remember that Facebook and Twitter only acted after the fact. For them, Trump was too big to censor too. They only took action days before he is out of office when it was guaranteed he would leave.

FB and Twitter didn't deplatform Trump because he was a nasty bastard who was inciting revolt. They did it because the Democrats won and they want to suck up.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#29

Post by sbuk »

j_walter wrote: post #7
andrewstuart wrote: post #4

I'm left wing but I despair for the future of the left. If the right had control of the tech companies it would have removed left content years ago and never blinked or even thought twice about it. The right never agonises over its own strong decisions, whereas the left, if it takes strong action , wrings its hands in agony about whether it has done the correct thing or not. That's why in the long run the right will…

Spoken like someone that only sees right and left. In fact many people on the "right" were tired of seeing FB and Twitter control so much and they were constantly told it's a private platform so go make your own. They did so, and then those same companies worked in tandem to destroy Parler. Signal and WhatsApp are used to coordinate violent and destructive riots...we don't see anyone trying to take them down. The opi…

This is the paradox of tolerance, which says for a tolerant society to remain tolerant, it cannot tolerate intolerance.

Many people need to learn the difference between de-platforming and censorship - in this case Parler is essentially being de-platformed by private businesses who no longer wish to do business with them, which is their right. As a free speech advocate, surely you must accept that that extends to a company of people, be that 1, 1000 or 10000 people, otherwise you're advocating for double-standards (see above). Forcibly compelling businesses (which include sole-traders or individuals) to conduct business with anyone that wants to avail themselves of their product, which is what the EC is advocating, if far more worrisome for free speech.

Moreover, there is nothing stopping the "silenced" organisations and people from creating their own platform. Blocking organisations and individuals from accessing the internet is problematic, but in this situation somewhat ironic. The side cheering the bans (no, not leftist, America doesn't really have left-wing politics) were pushing net neutrality and the internet as a public service while those being de-platforming were adamant that this would be a bad thing.

Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

#30

Post by loxs »

grahamburger wrote: post #14
loxs wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sad thing is that this is exactly how the right sees the actions of the left. and it's even worse, as they (the left) are now winning. Their eyes are not blinking - they don't care about freedom of speech or fair game. In the long run, both sides start to see this modus operandi as completely normal. Censorship and vengeance to the other side are completely acceptable. As a libertarian, I am utterly horrified.

What is the proper libertarian response to current events? Asking in good faith, honestly curious. To be fair, I'm curious about what the response would be to BLM riots+politician involvement, MAGA riots+president involvement, and big tech censorship in response.

- Corporations have the right to censor whatever they want. But that's not moral (what they are doing currently). We should abandon these instances and find better ways to communicate - less centralized.

- Store owners (and property owners in general) should be able to defend their property with firepower (or pay for such services) freely, without fear of repercussions. This stands both against BLM and MAGA. Of course, this luxury is not allowed in the current world.

So we have to find find better ways - don't stand in the way of a moving train, but find ways to survive and prosper no matter. We move to greener pastures, find jobs that are better paying with less risks, learn to be adaptive and prepared.

For me personally, this means that I did not move to the USA when I had the chance. I prefer not to work for US companies (especially the SV commie bunch), I don't travel to the USA any more. And I try to be vigilant with regards to the dangers that come from there (and will inevitably become worse, at least in the near future).

Post reply on HN