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

231–240 of 286 posts

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

#231

Post by agiroth »

tantalor wrote: post #141
SulfurHexaFluri wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also care about squashing competition which prevents many apps like real web browsers, game streaming and alternative stores which can not pay the 30% fee. IMO its fair for the app store to remove whatever it wants but there needs to be an escape hatch where apps blocked by apple can be manually installed. Since the API apps have access to is secure, this should not be a significant issue. Apps like Parlor may b…

They have that, it's the web browser.

And what do you do when your webhost becomes your moderator and deplatforms your site, on the exact same day?

We can take this all the way to fabricating wires to build computers to make our own servers; at some point we have to discuss the actual issue: where to private and public rights intersect and what is the role of government in resolving the conflict.

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

#232

Post by apexalpha »

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…

I disagree, I'd rather have my own government decide what is acceptable rather than an American multi national projecting their own rapidly shifting cultural norms.

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

#233

Post by clusterfish »

taurath wrote: post #227
silexia wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A functioning democratic government is accountable to its people, while a private corporation is only accountable to its shareholders. Depending what you believe politically either, none or both could be true. Ultimately free markets can work against societal good just as much as an overly stringent and unaccountable government. Maximally accountable government and a moderately and fairly regulated market seems to be…

Politicians are only accountable as much as they are subject to competitive pressure from other politicians. The same goes for corporations.

Just as you can have a healthy democracy, you can have a healthy, regulated market.

But unlike corporations, you can't really break up the government's monopoly on lawmaking and law enforcement. Governments can be some of the least accountable entities despite elections because they are natural monopolies that regulate themselves.

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

#234

Post by vmilner »

DanBC wrote: post #130
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 we have articles 10 and 11 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, and the EU does protect these rights. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12... --- https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... Article 10 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedo…

Just realised that this charter contains a rule against double jeopardy:

"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law."

which slightly surprised me, as the UK has allowed this for about 10 years, (I think). (I guess "finally" may be a getout.)

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

#235

Post by imtringued »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #187
mrtksn wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If EU doesn't have valuable companies and cannot produce valuable products how come that EU is not much different for living standarts than the US then? Is EU a petrostate? Where the money comes from if USA makes all the good stuff and EU none? From pumping out the Bulgarian crude or mining the Spanish rare earth metals? The thing is, Europe missed out on the Software&Internet and the reality is, it is not the only t…

> If EU doesn't have valuable companies and cannot produce valuable products how come that EU is not much different for living standarts than the US then? I think you need to turn this question around: if the USA has all these valuable companies and all this amazing innovation, how come our standard of living is the same or lower than that of Europeans? What's all that stuff for? Just making a bunch of people very ri…

The inequality doesn't just exist between nation states. It also exists within the US. It's making Californians rich.

That's what people forget. The US is a large country with states that have a land mass as big as entire nation states. It's entirely possible that one or two states are doing well while the rest are doing very poorly. There is an obvious economic split between those who went to college to move to the growing places and those who didn't and had to stay behind in a stagnating community.

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

#236

Post by Veen »

shripadk wrote: post #220
outside1234 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: ht…

Is your point that Facebook and Twitter are just as culpable as Parler but held to a different standard?

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

#237

Post by imtringued »

SllX wrote: post #211
analog31 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 A…

>most of the YouTubers I follow aren't even American. They're mostly in Europe or Australia.

Ok, if that is the case then why would those content creators want a country locked market place to publish their content on? If I were in the shoes of a European content creator I would publish on the platform with the most reach. I don't have to care about which nation the platform is hosted from.

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

#238

Post by imtringued »

tenpies wrote: post #212
analog31 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They will download an alternative. The interesting part is that they will very quickly converge on a single option.

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

#239

Post by konschubert »

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…

I found Merkel's comment interesting, because it really shows the cultural difference between the US and Europe:

-EU: Only governments should be allowed to censor speech, not private companies!

vs.

- US: Only private companies should be allowed to censor speech, not governments!

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

#240

Post by themacguffinman »

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…

I disagree, in fact it enhances my impression of the US government in the way that it exercises restraint on its immense natural power. It's quite easy for governments to flex their power and regulate anything and everything. This is common in third world countries and developing societies: edicts are the answer to everything. It is the language of dictators.

The US government can absolutely force Twitter and Facebook to do whatever it wants but it doesn't, instead it guarantees freedoms to enterprises and entrusts slow but deliberative bodies with the task of deciding when exceptions should be made. It creates courts and laws for companies to resolve disputes amongst themselves. These principles are upheld even at the government's own inconvenience.

I find that far more admirable than the hasty and impulsive exercises of power that characterize uncivilized authorities that aspire to rule instead of govern.

Post reply on HN