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

111–120 of 286 posts

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

#111

Post by stale2002 »

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).

> It's highly unlikely that the latter is more friendly to fringe or extremist views

This is empirically false though, at least in the the USA.

In the USA there are extremely strong protections for free speech.

If it was required that platforms followed the existing way that the government is allowed to ban certain speech, then platforms would be much less restrictive, because our laws of what speech is allowed is very pro free speech.

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

#112

Post by wombatmobile »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #99
proactivesvcs wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Witte…

The power a media company has is derived from its market share, which starts with zero for a startup, and grows with the successful performance of the company.

Similarly, the effect a company has by withdrawing access to its services is proportional to the power it has earned through its performance over time.

Thus, the power and influence a media company has is not arbitrary. it is a function of its social relations i.e. the percentage of society it has converted into customers, patrons, and followers.

To directly address your example - it already exists. One example: Fox News is selective with its choice of guests. Some types of guests get more access than others. The way the system deals with this is to allow other vendors besides Fox to operate competing networks.

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

#113

Post by stale2002 »

Talanes wrote: post #104
saladgnu054 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Simple, how about just like a store is not allowed to refuse service A store is absolutely allowed to refuse service. You're not allowed to walk in to Costco without a Costco card. Plenty of restaurants and clubs have a dress code. Most places have "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" rules.

> A store is absolutely allowed to refuse service.

No, that is not true for all private services.

For example, common carriers have strong restrictions on their ability to refuse service to others. Common carrier laws aren't particularly controversial.

These existing common carrier laws could be expanded to apply to other things.

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

#114

Post by azernik »

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 don't think the EU is (or would ever) propose that these decisions be made on an EU level; generally this kind of stuff, e.g. GDPR, requires each individual state to set up their own regulatory agency implementing the standard EU-wide rules.

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

#115

Post by ozim »

jively wrote: post #77

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…

Balkanisation of the internet is a feature not a bug and those companies are already too big for too long.

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

#116

Post by jariel »

zajio1am wrote: post #91
jariel wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Canada has a stable 3-party (+1, Greens) Parliamentary system.

But either way - even in more proportional systems, people know what they are voting for. In the EU, they generally do not.

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

#117

Post by proactivesvcs »

azernik wrote: post #107
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,…

Because terms of service are vague and, more importantly, selectively enforced. Selective enforcement of private contracts is totally legal, and the EU('s executive branch) is uncomfortable with the public policy implications of that when it comes to social media and would like new laws passed to add extra regulation on uniformity and specificity of moderation policies.

The selective enforcement - particularly when it's overt - really grinds my gears. When they are finally applied that doesn't make said application invalid or incorrect.

I think that some cases whereby $importantperson isn't banned because they're important are valid. It helps to have a public and verifiable record of a public office holder making provably false claims, particularly when a warning is then slathered over said bullshit. But the thought of a government body deciding when a company may and may not enforce its rules is chilling.

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

#119

Post by jariel »

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…

This is a very contemporary American view.

Look at the situation globally, over the 20th century and it doesn't look quite like that.

China, Soviets, Cuba, Venezuela, Poland, Vietnam, Singapore, Hong Kong etc. etc. there's a long list of various kinds of 'authorities' of every kind.

Post reply on HN