Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU reveals plan to regulate Big Tech

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 332 posts

Re: EU reveals plan to regulate Big Tech

#161

Post by I_am_tiberius »

nickpp wrote: post #110
baxtr wrote: post #75

Ok, I will probably get downvoted for this. But I will still speak my mind: I am an EU citizen and I don’t think that’s the right approach because it’s distracting from what really happened: We missed the big Internet bus because we were so much focused on keeping things the way they were. Now we try to regulate us out. It makes me unbelievably sad. And it continues. The car was invented here but it takes an Australi…

Another EU citizen here, resonating with your words. It seems that Europe has decided to stop evolving and just do anything to protect the status quo. All these regulations just trying to keep those damn disruptors at bay. Innovation is forbidden here. But hey! It’s for our own good.

As a founder myself, I can't agree more. For startups the EU becomes more and more poisonous.

Re: EU reveals plan to regulate Big Tech

#162

Post by I-M-S »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #141
rrdharan wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Vimeo is based in New York City and I believe always has been? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimeo

Oh damn, my bad. I always though it was french for some reason.

You've probably got it mixed up with Dailymotion

Re: EU reveals plan to regulate Big Tech

#164

Post by didibus »

Ok, most of those do seem reasonable to me. That said, I still wonder where all this motivation comes from? Have we really shown that big tech is harmful? And exactly to what kind of harm? And how we know alternatives arn't more harmful?

Re: EU reveals plan to regulate Big Tech

#165

Post by dragonwriter »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #151
dragonwriter wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're conflating several things. Yes, censorship by a third party has similar effects to government censorship, but we treat them differently My post was discussing whether censorship occurred and whose freedom was affected. While it did mention certain explictly public schemes, it nowhere argued that other schemes should be treated as government censorship, so you are inventing a position here for the sole purpos…

>> You're conflating several things. Yes, censorship by a third party has similar effects to government censorship, but we treat them differently > My post was discussing whether censorship occurred and whose freedom was affected. While it did mention certain explictly public schemes, it nowhere argued that other schemes should be treated as government censorship, so you are inventing a position here for the sole pur…

> You brought up the 'third party vs government' dynamic

No, “third-party” contrasts with the parties involved in the transaction (mostly the source, which may exercise self-censorship, which does not restrict the freedom of the participants the way third-party censorship does.)

The government would be an example of a third-party censor, not something distinct from it.

Re: EU reveals plan to regulate Big Tech

#167

Post by Tarsul »

frankfrankfrank wrote: post #155
Majestic121 wrote: post #6

A interesting point missing from the BBC article is that they have different levels of expectations between small to medium businesses and large ones, to avoid regulatory capture ? : > Platforms that reach more than 10% of the EU's population (45 million users) are considered systemic in nature, and are subject not only to specific obligations to control their own risks, but also to a new oversight structure. Another…

I haven't read the details, but I'm surprised not only by the tiers, but that the measure would be something like "reach". How do you accurately and consistently measure "reach" with the internet? Language adapted sites as a ratio of the population that is possibly able or actively accesses the internet? Accounts? Active accounts? Also, my first thought is to simply then start breaking up into smaller social media co…

the free speech in the usa is also something out of a dystopian terror novel. Writers (e.g. in the atlantic) like to say that our time is less like 1984 and more like brave new world in that all the noise that is allowed through free speech leads to bad results (trump, brexit, anti-social media etc.) that are not necessarily better than what the EU is trying to avert with its free speech agenda. I'd argue some regulation is necessary since the popularity contests that thrive within the current media environment do not lead to enlightened people (since it's not necessarily the smartest/most empathetic argument that wins/gets all the attention). However, it's a slippery road, that's for sure (and you CAN deconstruct my arguments in that way) - but let's be honest: allowing ALL free speech and letting the loudmouth that makes fun about the out-group win all the arguments is not a solution either.

Re: EU reveals plan to regulate Big Tech

#168

Post by throwaway894345 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #165
throwaway894345 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> You're conflating several things. Yes, censorship by a third party has similar effects to government censorship, but we treat them differently > My post was discussing whether censorship occurred and whose freedom was affected. While it did mention certain explictly public schemes, it nowhere argued that other schemes should be treated as government censorship, so you are inventing a position here for the sole pur…

> You brought up the 'third party vs government' dynamic No, “third-party” contrasts with the parties involved in the transaction (mostly the source, which may exercise self-censorship, which does not restrict the freedom of the participants the way third-party censorship does.) The government would be an example of a third-party censor, not something distinct from it.

Fair enough, I misunderstood your meaning; thanks for clarifying. The "'freedom to listen' vs 'freedom to speak'" concern still stands (i.e., no, restricting private citizens' speech on social media platforms doesn't have exactly the same effect as limiting the content that broadcast media corps can publish on the airwaves).

Re: EU reveals plan to regulate Big Tech

#169

Post by buisi »

avianlyric wrote: post #104
Veedrac wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/proposal_for_a_re... --- Article 19, Trusted flaggers 2. The status of trusted flaggers under this Regulation shall be awarded, upon application by any entities, by the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State in which the applicant is established, where the applicant has demonstrated to meet all of the following conditions: (a) it has particular expertise and compet…

Sounds like Trusted flaggers are expected to be social interest charities like Internet Watch Foundation. https://www.iwf.org.uk/

The Internet Watch Foundation has made questionable calls in the past, like the one where they blocked Wikipedia for having a controversial (yet legal and historically relevant) image of a naked child.

Despite this, the IWF might be one of the more reputable "trusted flaggers", and this system may open the door for far worse ones to enter into the scene.

Re: EU reveals plan to regulate Big Tech

#170

Post by Zenst »

Majestic121 wrote: post #6

A interesting point missing from the BBC article is that they have different levels of expectations between small to medium businesses and large ones, to avoid regulatory capture ? : > Platforms that reach more than 10% of the EU's population (45 million users) are considered systemic in nature, and are subject not only to specific obligations to control their own risks, but also to a new oversight structure. Another…

>A interesting point missing from the BBC article is that they have different levels of expectations between small to medium businesses and large ones, to avoid regulatory capture ? :

Yes that does seem like it could be bumpy. I like the UK approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-55230704 which seems to be that they will have more flexibility - hopefully not over-flex, but a set of rules catering for the large companies, which at the scale is maybe a more manageable approach without culling all the middle/small growing companies with some solid rule that is less fiscally impacting upon the large players.

However, a final thought for all - countries been doing their own TAX laws for ages and the companies that always manage to play that game better than those who write the rules are....large companies of the type these are targeting. So I don't think it will improve overnight, but does seem that the right direction would be a good place to start.

> The road is still long before ratification, but it looks like a step in the good direction.

Yes and with the EU, just one country could hold the whole thing up and Ireland may have more of a vested interest in the large tech firms than many others, so may or may not be more suitable to corporate lobbying factors.

Post reply on HN