EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by zajio1am » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 11:12 PM UTC

jariel wrote: post #85

zajio1am wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Well, this is true for prime minister posts in most parliamentary democracies. The winner is not the leader of plurality-winning party, but one who can get majority support in parliament. Usually it is the same person, but EP is too disi…

This argument doesn't work very well because even in Parliamentary systems there is good clarity as to what people are voting for. Your arguments is resting on technicalities, but not on the realities of awareness and participation of voters. Boris Johnson had a questionable first phase as PM due to his inherited position, a lack of confidence - so - there was an election. Not only did everyone in the UK know who the…

UK is bit of special case, as although it has parliamentary system, because of single-member districts it gravitates to two-party situation with clear winners. That is rarely case in other countries, where PM often depends on fragile coalition formed after election.

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

#92

Post by rootsudo » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 11:18 PM UTC

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…

Yes, because, in different parts of the world, laws are different. EU is saying these orgs are to powerful. How is that bad? They are planning on crafting laws to limit the abuse potential of these companies.

If a company rules are illegal in an area, then it should 100% be followed. Look at how the NYtimes for a while did not allow California residents who signed up online, cancel online. Ironically, also a media company.

How about ethics in general then? Facebook has been implicated in assisting genocide, the methodological execution of people in Myanmar - yet, people are focused on one recent event that, when you compare the effects of assisting a government in executing it's own people, to people using it as a platform to come together and raid the capitol - it seems to fall quite flat. Yes, humans lost their life in both examples, but how, why do we come together now that it is in our own backyard, vs happening in a distant part of the world? How do you quantify humanity value/loss of life or allow these social media orgs, that operate as an outlet, a communication platform, that bond "networks" together this unlimited power?

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

#93

Post by sampo » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 11:21 PM UTC

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…

European Union analog for America:

State governors are not voted, but chosen by the state legislatures: EU countries' prime ministers

Replace senate with a meeting of state governors: European Council, Council of EU

Replace president with a commission of 50 presidents (EU: 27), one from each state, chosen by the state legislature, not by elections: EU Commission

State legislatures are voted as normal (but proportional voting, not FPTP). The US house of representatives is voted as normal (again proportional voting). But the house can't propose new legislation, only approve or decline proposals from the senate and the commission.

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

#94

Post by saladgnu054 » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 11:23 PM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #39

BobbyJo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need to acknowledge that a lot of what these agreements outline is, to a large degree, subjective. If human language, or expression in general, weren't contextual and up for interpretation, then I think this would be a viable way of looking at things, but that simply isn't the case. So long as there is room for interpretation, and the consequences (politically, economically, etc.) of those interpretations…

So you have n companies each applying their own subjective judgement over their own networks, or you have 1 government applying its own subjective judgement over all networks in that country. It's highly unlikely that the latter is more friendly to fringe or extremist views (setting aside whether or not that's a good thing).

The key difference is a government is decided by the people. n companies (let's be real, 2-4) have no accountability.

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

#95

Post by tantalor » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 11:24 PM UTC

SulfurHexaFluri wrote: post #70

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…

The problem is these companies are too big and powerful now. If a small business refuses someone its no big deal, go to another business. But when these titans join together to make an action that affects you and there are no alternatives left, thats a different case. If both Apple and Google ban your app when the app is legal and useful, is it good for society that there is no way around this?

"Legal and useful" are but two criteria Apple uses to approve or refuse apps. They also care about safety, performance, and design.

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/

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

#96

Post by proactivesvcs » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 11:27 PM UTC

rootsudo wrote: post #92

proactivesvcs wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, because, in different parts of the world, laws are different. EU is saying these orgs are to powerful. How is that bad? They are planning on crafting laws to limit the abuse potential of these companies. If a company rules are illegal in an area, then it should 100% be followed. Look at how the NYtimes for a while did not allow California residents who signed up online, cancel online. Ironically, also a media co…

I wonder if there is a conflation (or I am misunderstanding) that the big social media orgs have some sort of duty to uphold freedom of speech but are at the same time vilified by some for banning abusive users. My criticisms align with yours it seems - that they have been complicit in perpetrating abuse for some time, including spilling of blood, and have only now, now the "optics are bad", decided to act. I guess my argument is that they should be allowed to ban any user for breaking their rules - as long as those rules are deemed fair and legal - and no organisation that does so should be decried by lawmakers or citizens for suppressing speech.

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

#97

Post by user982 » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 11:27 PM UTC

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…

> According to BBC the most popular accounts on Parler were people like Sean Hannity and Ted Cruz...fairly normal republicans of the kind that are still not banned on Twitter and Facebook (like the two persons I mentioned).

The two persons you mentioned as "fairly normal republicans" had their contact information carried by an armed terrorist who invaded the Capitol on the hunt for "bad guys": https://twitter.com/johnkruzel/status/1349061894418685953

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

#98

Post by saladgnu054 » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 11:29 PM UTC

proactivesvcs wrote: post #65

lmilcin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, for one, democratic countries are supposed to be governed by representatives elected by people, not by corporate boards. Ability to selectively enable or disable people from being able to access voters is tantamount to having a huge influence on election results. While in the past you could avoid using social media, today this is THE way to reach most of voters. Most people no longer pay substantial attention t…

You discuss governance, access to voters, wielding of power and free speech but not the meat of my comment: a customer not playing by the rules they agreed to, and the implication that they should be allowed to break the rules they agreed to simply because they're important. An organisation must now allow people to flaunt their rules, helpless to remove them despite the abuse that they perpetrate?

Simple, how about just like a store is not allowed to refuse service, an online platform also not be allowed to refuse service? Is someone misbehaving, great, inform the actual authorities of their jurisdiction.

Actual governments, with the people's mandate, are the only ones with authority to set the laws. Not tech monopolies.

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

#99

Post by AnimalMuppet » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 11:30 PM UTC

proactivesvcs wrote: post #65

lmilcin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, for one, democratic countries are supposed to be governed by representatives elected by people, not by corporate boards. Ability to selectively enable or disable people from being able to access voters is tantamount to having a huge influence on election results. While in the past you could avoid using social media, today this is THE way to reach most of voters. Most people no longer pay substantial attention t…

You discuss governance, access to voters, wielding of power and free speech but not the meat of my comment: a customer not playing by the rules they agreed to, and the implication that they should be allowed to break the rules they agreed to simply because they're important. An organisation must now allow people to flaunt their rules, helpless to remove them despite the abuse that they perpetrate?

I don't think you can square that circle.

Let's say it's 2024, and the dominant social media platform is called Witted[1]. They have their terms of service, but the terms of service have some ambiguity. In fact, Witted deliberately left some ambiguity, for two reasons. First, you can't absolutely codify human interactions - human communication is too complex. Second, Witted wanted the ambiguity, because it gave Witted more power.

Now President Harris is running for re-election, and she is aware of how much power Witted has. She wants to rein it in. Witted therefore finds some grounds for declaring Harris to be in violation of Witted's terms of service, and kills her account. That leaves the Republican candidate, Romney, a channel to voters that Harris can't adequately respond to. Romney wins the election. (There's talk about Witted being biased, but that resonates less with voters than what Romney can do with a Witted feed that Harris can't answer.)

Now, you say, that shouldn't be allowed to happen. I agree. But how are you going to stop it, without giving the exact same power to someone else? And who are you going to trust with that power? The government? Absolutely not. The EU commission? Equally not. But who?

I assert that there is nobody that you can trust with that power. But the power already exists, and we've just seen it used. Now what do we do? (Preferably before 2024 rolls around...)

---

[1] Actually, Witted would be a pretty good name for a social media platform.

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

#100

Post by neogodless » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 11:30 PM UTC

saladgnu054 wrote: post #94

majormajor wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you have n companies each applying their own subjective judgement over their own networks, or you have 1 government applying its own subjective judgement over all networks in that country. It's highly unlikely that the latter is more friendly to fringe or extremist views (setting aside whether or not that's a good thing).

The key difference is a government is decided by the people. n companies (let's be real, 2-4) have no accountability.

There is potential for an antitrust issue - two companies having immense control over the most popular way to access the internet, your phone. At least for now, it's really more of a convenience thing when app stores remove apps; limiting the feature set of your product offering to apps only may make sense, but it is an educated risk. If you feel you want the most people to access your content, you make it work on mobile and desktop computers without requiring a specific app store gatekeeper.

If you disagree with Apple removing something from an app store, you buy an Android compatible and enable side-loading, or you buy a Linux compatible phone, or if all else fails, you connect through a web site.

When I used Windows Phone, it was annoying that I couldn't download an app for my bank, inconvenient that I still had to use ATMs to deposit checks. And disappointing that I couldn't hop on the Snapchat bandwagon. But I was still able to communicate with friends and family, read the news, do research, learn things, and make use of the internet.

Allowing just a few companies enough control over the internet to take away your ability to choose how you use it is an antitrust issue.