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

71–80 of 286 posts

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

#71

Post by proactivesvcs »

engineer_22 wrote: post #63
proactivesvcs wrote: post #25

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,…

Yeah, so, basically, and I can't believe I have to spell this out, the EU Commission is saying "we need new laws".

Please, continue to spell this out. Laws that forbid an organisation from applying its rules because that organisation is popular? Laws that compel an organisation to allow users to perpetrate abuse if they're important in one country? Where does liability now fall when say, incitement to violence end up with someone losing an eye, a life?

Don't misunderstand me - I absolutely think that those who allowed Trump to directly incite violence for years have blood on their hands. They absolutely have liability for this. They disgust me. But now suddenly the conversation seems to be that Twitter, for example, should have been forbidden from kicking Trump off now or years ago when they should have. So who would share the blame now?

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

#72

Post by turbinerneiter »

jlokier wrote: post #58
turbinerneiter wrote: post #46

I fully agree that these decisions have to be done by democratic institutions. They also have to be very liberal and very careful and erring on the side of not taking things down. My biggest problem however is the EU commission acting like they are a democratic institution. The president of the commission didn't even run in the election. We were promised that the candidate of the winning party would become president…

I think your comment gives the misleading impression Von der Leyen was not elected at all. So for readers who may not know the system: Von der Leyen's appointment, and the EU Commission, were both subject to approval votes by MEPs of the EU Parliament, who are elected by EU citizens in all member countries using proportional representation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_der_Leyen_Commission#Elect... > On 16 July…

She was not elected by the voters. The voters were told that the winning party's candidate would be the commission president.

Now von der Leyen is. She did not run in the election.

This is a lot more similar to the electoral college making the losing candidate president than people want to admit.

We elected the parliament under the impression that the MEPs would then elect the candidate of the party that got the most votes. Then, they didn't.

The EU is not very democratic and if we don't fix that, we will lose it. And that is the last thing I want. I want the EU to succeed.

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

#73

Post by mistermann »

andrewstuart wrote: post #43
turbinerneiter wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Future of the Left btw. is one of the best bands ever and are very helpful if you need a distraction from all this BS. I fully agree on the notion that the right wields every power it can get, while the left doesn't. We now have two years ahead of us where the Democrats are in full power of the US government. Let's see what they do with it. I'm especially interested if they are going to make sure to help themselves f…

My guess is that the Democrats will be unlikely to make radical changes needed to fix all the things that need to be fixed. I see the left side of politics generally as weak and unable to take strong action. The left likes to listen - an admirable trait, but listening and collaborating too much dilutes outcomes.

> The left likes to listen - an admirable trait, but listening and collaborating too much dilutes outcomes.

Who on the left (or any pole/dimension) has actually sat down and made a serious effort to understand in high detail the various grievances and world views of the type of people who stormed the Capitol, or conspiracy theorists?

I'm not asserting that no one has done it, but I have never encountered anyone who has. The best I know of is the Jubilee YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/c/jubileemedia/videos

What I have encountered though, in very large quantities (essentially, the entirety of journalism and social media comments on the matter) are people who make detailed claims about what these sorts of people say, or believe, or want to do - and typically, they state these beliefs not in the form of opinions, but in the form of facts. But to be fair, I doubt that they even realize that they aren't facts, that's just the unfortunate way that our minds perceive reality.

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

#74

Post by pmontra »

syntaxing wrote: post #60

I know this is a heated topic but I really don’t understand what the other options are. Having businesses dictate who they want to serve seems like censorship but having the government dictate it seems way worse. I’m not sure how to decouple or balance the freedom of will as a business, freedom of will as a person and the societal mandate of the majority (which is how democracy works? It’s always about the majority v…

They could bring those issues to courts. It takes time but it is normal in almost every other context.

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

#75

Post by johntb86 »

lima wrote: post #68
syntaxing wrote: post #60

I know this is a heated topic but I really don’t understand what the other options are. Having businesses dictate who they want to serve seems like censorship but having the government dictate it seems way worse. I’m not sure how to decouple or balance the freedom of will as a business, freedom of will as a person and the societal mandate of the majority (which is how democracy works? It’s always about the majority v…

> Having businesses dictate who they want to serve seems like censorship but having the government dictate it seems way worse. That's what judges and courts are for. Neither government nor platforms should be able to make these decisions unilaterally.

Judges and courts are part of the government. In particular, they apply laws (including the constitution) that were written by the government.

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

#76

Post by engineer_22 »

proactivesvcs wrote: post #71
engineer_22 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, so, basically, and I can't believe I have to spell this out, the EU Commission is saying "we need new laws".

Please, continue to spell this out. Laws that forbid an organisation from applying its rules because that organisation is popular? Laws that compel an organisation to allow users to perpetrate abuse if they're important in one country? Where does liability now fall when say, incitement to violence end up with someone losing an eye, a life? Don't misunderstand me - I absolutely think that those who allowed Trump to di…

Your point is fair and valid, but Europe has long been wary of US Tech's incipient power and they see Trump's permaban (warranted as it is) as a warning.

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

#77

Post by jively »

This is the same issue that faces newspapers, publishers and TV stations. At some point the scale of reach and influence come into conflict with public policy and governance.

Newspapers are horribly regulated and most TV stations can say what they like within reason - especially in the US where being fair and balanced is no longer a requirement to run a news service.

This jurisdictional problem affects all media and isn't just limited to social platforms.

The difference with TV and Newspapers is that they can have their licenses revoked. So there is a degree of power wielded by the government over what is acceptable locally.

In contrast, social media infringes on sovereign power by existing and influencing on a global scale without being regulated on a local one. A great example is name suppression during trials, it might be illegal for a newspaper in France to publish a name, but that doesn't stop one in the UK from doing it, and because the paper has a website, that foreign paper inadvertently breaks local law in France because anyone can look it up, but it can't be held accountable.

Sovereignty and global digital media do not intersect well without an interface - and that just doesn't exist.

Expect more balkanisation of the Internet in the future as govts take back some control over media within their borders.

And no, I'm not advocating for dictator-like suppression of free-speech, but a mechanism of accountability for foreign firms breaking local laws.

It's a shame that the real-world example has to be Trump, if this had happened to Malala, or Thunberg, or the Pope, the advocacy for oversight and accountability would be a lot easier to digest.

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

#78

Post by lima »

johntb86 wrote: post #75
lima wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having businesses dictate who they want to serve seems like censorship but having the government dictate it seems way worse. That's what judges and courts are for. Neither government nor platforms should be able to make these decisions unilaterally.

Judges and courts are part of the government. In particular, they apply laws (including the constitution) that were written by the government.

Yes, but that's not the government dictating something.

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

#79

Post by [deleted] »

Talanes wrote: post #3
yummybear wrote: post #2

You really have to walk a censorship tight rope as a social media. You need to remove content that targets minorities and hate speech or face consequence, but only when it applies to the bottom 99% of society - apparently. The fact that the EU seems to want control over who gets to express themselves freely, is even more troubling than the inconsistent rules applies by the media themselves.

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.

[deleted]

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

#80

Post by khawkins »

syntaxing wrote: post #60

I know this is a heated topic but I really don’t understand what the other options are. Having businesses dictate who they want to serve seems like censorship but having the government dictate it seems way worse. I’m not sure how to decouple or balance the freedom of will as a business, freedom of will as a person and the societal mandate of the majority (which is how democracy works? It’s always about the majority v…

It doesn't have to be a system where the government can pick and choose who they want to ban/keep, but rather a system where businesses must go through a legal government process to ban someone themselves. That platforms need to be held to the same freedom of speech standards the US government is held to.
Post reply on HN