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

241–250 of 286 posts

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

#241

Post by apexalpha »

konschubert wrote: post #239
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…

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!

I think a big part is that the companies doing the censorship are American themselves, and can thus -if need be- be held accountable under American law.

For Europeans this is a lot harder, the companies are still American and mostly project their own cultural norms regarding violence, race, sex, etc, without being accountable to European governments.

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

#242

Post by PeterStuer »

dcposch wrote: post #160
mc32 wrote: post #123

I think the EU understands the precedent this sets. The tech giants have established that if they disagree with something (using their preferred value system), they feel they have the right to take action. Let’s say the an EU minister proposes something that’s antithetical to US principles but is lawful in the EU, now tech giants feel emboldened with the right to take action _unilaterally_ without the right to an app…

That is certainly what they're worried about. Here's a less flattering angle on the same worry. Europe is caught pants-down. They are realizing how weak they are in tech and scrambling to fix it. The facts: - None of the 20 most valuable companies in the world are European. Most are US or China based, and many are tech. - A tiny number of successful startups are European. I think their biggest in the last 20 years is…

This is an entirely different issue. Europe can never compete within the 'western' sphere as long the US wil just gobble up every EU software company that threatens to become relevant with unlimited free petrodollars.

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

#243

Post by netheril96 »

dcposch wrote: post #160
mc32 wrote: post #123

I think the EU understands the precedent this sets. The tech giants have established that if they disagree with something (using their preferred value system), they feel they have the right to take action. Let’s say the an EU minister proposes something that’s antithetical to US principles but is lawful in the EU, now tech giants feel emboldened with the right to take action _unilaterally_ without the right to an app…

That is certainly what they're worried about. Here's a less flattering angle on the same worry. Europe is caught pants-down. They are realizing how weak they are in tech and scrambling to fix it. The facts: - None of the 20 most valuable companies in the world are European. Most are US or China based, and many are tech. - A tiny number of successful startups are European. I think their biggest in the last 20 years is…

Be careful what you wish for. The Europeans might decide to import the GFW technology from China, and grow their own social media inside the new walled garden.

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

#244

Post by PeterStuer »

imtringued wrote: post #238
tenpies wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course. The value of having a messaging app that nobody else uses is very limited. Most people will roll their eyes every time some sports club, parents ascosiation, knitting circle, wathever will want you to install another niche app. It is a winner take all due to inherent network effects.

You can also predict that wathever emerges will be based on direct or indirect add revenue, and require massive sustained investment for years, thus making it again most likely to be US petrodollar backed, or, if not, petrodollar bought or else just brought to heel or extinguished.

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

#245

Post by zaarn »

corty wrote: post #169
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…

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…

There is a due process if the creator of whatever was complained about decides to do something about it.

Additionally, this is only a flagging process for plainly illegal content, it can (and is on FB and other platforms) be a separate process from normal reports.

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

#246

Post by scotty79 »

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…

I wish they'd go after the money and regulate not just social networks but advertising business instead.

What adverts and next to what contents they can shown.

You could keep right to free speech but you don't have right to monetizing any speech.

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

#247

Post by scotty79 »

themacguffinman wrote: post #240
shripadk wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Faceboo…

Freedom is not something natural.

In 100% freedom your stronger neighbour would have freedom to restrict your freedom and you would have freedom to resist, fail, and be sad about it.

So your freedom is dependant of how much the strongest entity around is willing to limit freedom of your neighbors of restricting your freedom.

US government showing restraint when major players on the market use their position to restrict freedom of smaller entity is reducing freedom not increasing it.

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

#248

Post by alickz »

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…

If a private party can use their monopoly on the limiting of free speech to control the government how is that any different than those private parties _being_ the government, and by extension enjoying the monopoly on violence?

If a handful of companies can influence the election of a government to such a degree then they would enjoy the best of both worlds: the freedom to censor as they please (because they aren't beholden to 1st Amendment / Free Speech), and monopoly of violence as they control who the government is (who gets more positive coverage in their algorithms, pagerank etc.)

I think a lot of people are worried that companies (Facebook, Twitter, Google) _do_ hold that kind of power over governments, and not just the American government.

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

#249

Post by shripadk »

Veen wrote: post #236
shripadk wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Exactly. Thanks for getting my point. Let us assume that the entire US Capitol plot was hatched in Parler. Even then that is just 1 transgression. Compare it to the history of social media enabling violence and that list runs into hundreds if not thousands (if you factor in the entire World). I haven't even covered threats of school shootings and other stuff that often gets overlooked.

When regime change happens in Middle Eastern countries Twitter was lauded for being a platform for voice of the oppressed. As long as it doesn't happen in America we should rejoice social media playing a pivotal role. The moment the same "Arab Spring" like situation strikes home all hell breaks loose.

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

#250

Post by dragonwriter »

alickz wrote: post #248
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…

If a private party can use their monopoly on the limiting of free speech to control the government how is that any different than those private parties _being_ the government, and by extension enjoying the monopoly on violence? If a handful of companies can influence the election of a government to such a degree then they would enjoy the best of both worlds: the freedom to censor as they please (because they aren't b…

> monopoly on the limiting of free speech

No private party actually has such a monopoly, so it's not a real current issue.

Post reply on HN