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

211–220 of 286 posts

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

#211

Post by SllX »

analog31 wrote: post #184
winston_smith wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have an okay economy without tech heavy hitters, but the point is that being dependent on US internet tech or Russian natural gas or whatever can be a significant vulnerability.

Out of curiosity which tech heavy hitters would Europe be vulnerable to losing? I assume they could live without Facebook for a few days.

If by "vulnerable to losing", as in it would hurt their economies and put people out of work or hurt livelihoods because the EU in their infinite wisdom decided to excise one or more of them from the continent, it's pretty much name a non-European tech company.

Even Dell, HP, IBM, Oracle. Service contracts have to be fulfilled, and making a living off of social media like Instagram, YouTube and Twitch isn't just an American phenomenon, actually come to think of it, most of the YouTubers I follow aren't even American. They're mostly in Europe or Australia.

And don't assume they'll just be fine without Facebook either, as far as digital advertising goes, Facebook and Google are pretty much the only game in town. Some small businesses do depend on being able to get business through advertising referrals.

Europe is a rich continent, it's not like they would be destitute if the rich wonders of American tech companies just evaporated from their part of the world tomorrow, but you're not replacing most of them overnight either, so Europe instead is trying this thing where they can at least try to control them.

I mean, I don't see it working out in the long run but in the short term they've shown some muscle, because after all: Europe is a rich continent. Australia, Canada and New Zealand are market-wise, about the size of three US States put together, which is nice, but Europe is pretty much the only large and rich viable market for most tech companies outside of the United States and Japan without putting yourself in a position of having to kiss Chairman Winnie the Pooh on the ring.

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

#212

Post by tenpies »

analog31 wrote: post #184
winston_smith wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have an okay economy without tech heavy hitters, but the point is that being dependent on US internet tech or Russian natural gas or whatever can be a significant vulnerability.

Out of curiosity which tech heavy hitters would Europe be vulnerable to losing? I assume they could live without Facebook for a few days.

I almost want to see it because I'm really curious to see what happens if you remove Whatsapp from a population where it's very ingrained.

Do they riot? Do they just download an alternative? Does the disruption in business communications cause such a negative impact that it reflects in GDP?

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

#213

Post by jimkleiber »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #196
corty wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hypocrisy of the political class is even deeper, at least in Germany. Just recently, laws were passed to make platforms like Facebook filter, censor and rapidly delete content that might be against some law. Not after a court decision or at least an official order, no no, nothing so formal. A user complaint is sufficient to trigger the need to check within a few hours, have the platform decide to delete and repor…

I don't agree with her but her only argument is the government should make these calls rather then private companies. She probably even agrees with what they did just doesn't think anyone except the government should have that power.

For me the challenge becomes "which government?" Should 200 different national governments be able to decide how the platform is run in their country? Should different sub-regions be able to decide?

Makes me wonder what global governance would look like for this or even platform-specific governance could be. Maybe there's a play for users of specific platforms to unite and demand more representation over how a platform is governed, as workers united for more representation in companies.

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

#214

Post by osacial »

shripadk wrote: post #195
echelon wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100%. Germany is so wrong about this, and this is not the way we should go. We Americans needs to grow thicker skin and cherish our free speech more. If we don't, we're going to slip into a world with less liberty. Libel, slander, and "yelling fire" are sufficient limits on free speech. Seeing or hearing people say things you don't like isn't going to kill you. Society already has the tools to shun those who act egre…

That boat has long sailed once Big Tech banned Parler and everyone cheered it. America is no longer a country where free speech is paramount. Atleast in other democratic countries Censorship happens through the elected Government. As a citizen you can always remove the elected representatives if you don't like the Censorship implemented by your elected representatives for whatever reason. You can't remove/vote out Fa…

True, though the bad light is not that some companies and groups in US are limiting Free Speech, but because US government has lost monopoly on violence, judging others and dealing punishment. All they key components that holds together any state - with or without Free Speech(which exists only few centuries or so).

We do not know with whom we have to deal with - US government that is represented by People - including ELECTED President, or Thing that is not controlled by law and does not need to abide to it and can do as it wishes - just like terrorists. Essentially at this point US does not exist - when the Thing, that will arise in place in US will start to abide to law and make agreements with others, then others will be more relaxed, but currently Democracy citadel of the whole World has ended. No one is going to take US as an example anymore and it would take a lot of work to gain that position where US once was and usually there is no way to climb back after such actions.

Not to mention what this all is causing to current World Order, where no one is going to seriously take US - all the doors that are now opened for all the shit to pour out.

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

#215

Post by [deleted] »

shripadk wrote: post #208
scrollaway wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The very fact that Parler was banned by Big Tech and not by US Congress puts a very bad light on America. That you think a private company being shunned by other private companies, is worse for free speech than a private company being banned by the government, shows you don't really understand the american definition of free speech.

I don't care about American Free Speech. I'm not an American. I'm an Indian. Yes it is worse for America's image that a competitor censors another competitor. It puts a bad light on the US Government itself that it cannot regulate private companies and are at the mercy of private companies that even Government communications can be censored. This is far beyond what free speech is all about. And don't tell me US Gover…

[deleted]

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

#216

Post by silexia »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #196
corty wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hypocrisy of the political class is even deeper, at least in Germany. Just recently, laws were passed to make platforms like Facebook filter, censor and rapidly delete content that might be against some law. Not after a court decision or at least an official order, no no, nothing so formal. A user complaint is sufficient to trigger the need to check within a few hours, have the platform decide to delete and repor…

I don't agree with her but her only argument is the government should make these calls rather then private companies. She probably even agrees with what they did just doesn't think anyone except the government should have that power.

Actually, the worst possible party to limit your free speech is government. The government holds an exclusive monopoly on violence and killing. Almost every government that has obtained power over speech uses their violence monopoly to enforce it.

The best party to limit speech that is considered bad is private individuals and companies in their own venues. If I own a comedy theater, I should be able to kick out obnoxious patrons or comics. They can always go somewhere else. The same principle applies online, only it is much easier for someone who is not welcome in one community to go somewhere else or start their own.

Never give the government control over what is acceptable speech, let each business cater to the crowd they want.

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

#217

Post by fogetti »

trianglem wrote: post #124
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…

You’ve got that wrong. Europe want to push for takedowns to be enshrined in legislation. It’s not the free speech panacea push you’re looking for.

Where did you read that? The article doesn't mention it.

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

#218

Post by zmmmmm »

NoOneNew wrote: post #151
zmmmmm wrote: post #126

It's hard to overlook that the political class is suddenly up in arms about this primarily because they suddenly perceive themselves as being under threat from it. Ordinary individuals and businesses have had to deal with the hegemony of the platforms for a long time and it hasn't really mattered until now. I fear the outcome of this is going to be that it translates into massive regulatory overreach and splitting up…

Agreed that regulatory overreach is on the horizon. Hell, pretty sure it's going to happen (or at least be full steam ahead) in the first 100 days of Biden's presidency. While I don't agree with sweeping regulatory practices and would like to see a thoughtful plan of trying to increase competition instead, I can't blame the political class' position. I find it even fascinating how far reaching this event has been and…

Agree.

It is actually disturbing in that it seems by implication that many politicians are portraying what Trump was doing as legitimate speech - and in doing so they are effectively legitimising it. Whereas anybody I am sure in the big tech decision making on this was treating this as "shouting fire in a theater" exception to speech. I think it will be very harmful if the "legitimate speech" interpretation becomes the dominant view - in that case we are effectively setting a precedent here that inciting a riot to overturn your own government is legitimate free speech.

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

#219

Post by FranzFerdiNaN »

silexia wrote: post #216
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with her but her only argument is the government should make these calls rather then private companies. She probably even agrees with what they did just doesn't think anyone except the government should have that power.

Actually, the worst possible party to limit your free speech is government. The government holds an exclusive monopoly on violence and killing. Almost every government that has obtained power over speech uses their violence monopoly to enforce it. The best party to limit speech that is considered bad is private individuals and companies in their own venues. If I own a comedy theater, I should be able to kick out obno…

Ah yes, let’s just let open Holocaust-denial or Hitler-worshipping or white supremacy all be absolutely fine. Or what about doxxing or a focused effort to destroy a business online through lies and slander, on a social network that doesn’t have any rules? Is that allowed? It’s my free speech to tell lies of course.

Free speech without restrictions is a silly liberal dream that never works. It’s like capitalism in that it holds it own downfall within its internal logic.

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

#220

Post by shripadk »

outside1234 wrote: post #201
shripadk wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That boat has long sailed once Big Tech banned Parler and everyone cheered it. America is no longer a country where free speech is paramount. Atleast in other democratic countries Censorship happens through the elected Government. As a citizen you can always remove the elected representatives if you don't like the Censorship implemented by your elected representatives for whatever reason. You can't remove/vote out Fa…

Parler banned Parler. They refused to take down material that was obviously detrimental to society. We would not put up with television stations planning to kidnap senators either. You don’t get to yell fire in a theatre. They were warned. They didn’t do anything. They banned themselves.

Why stop there? I'll add more to the list of Parler transgressions:

1. They live streamed NZ Mosque Shooter. https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/444349-christchurch-shoote...

2. They helped ISIS in propagating terror material for 2 full years. They allowed ISIS to post beheading videos and threaten the then President of the United States Barack Obama. They even got sued for it but took protection behind Section 230: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-isis-lawsuit-idUS... and https://money.cnn.com/2016/12/20/technology/twitter-facebook... and https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/war-goe...

3. It was used to incite Genocide of an ethnic group causing mass migrations: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebo...

4. They were party to toppling of foreign Governments: https://www.smh.com.au/technology/can-social-networking-over...

5. They were used by foreign Governments to censor Citizens and Oppositon: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/7/16/it-exists-to-demobi...

> They banned themselves.

Oh yes they banned themselves. The proof I have given above validates your point. I am wrong, you are right! Congratulations!

Post reply on HN