201–210 of 1001 posts
If GDPR didn't make you block the EU, this will.
GDPR is TOTALLY different. If you can't run a business under GDPR legislation then what you're doing is almost certainly unethical or at worst mismanaged and irresponsible with customer data. On the other hand this legislation will completely change the internet as we know it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Germany was a pioneer with its "Leistungsschutzrecht" and German publishers indeed wanted to force Google to show their news snippets (and therefore pay for them). Their reasoning was that Google as a monopoly position and therefore they have to show news from all publishers equally.
How would this work in practice? I could easily set up a news company. Would they have to link to my articles as much as other news articles?
For the anecdote, Nils Torvalds, the father of Linus, is one of the many authors of this text law. I'm from EU, I had the time to look at the recent amendments about this law, in which they added precisions about the fair use of data, for non-profit and public research. They also precised that this law and the technical implementations should not go against already in-place freedom of speech rights. Hopefully, people…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, first of all I have yet to hear about this vote from any of my local news sources. If I didn't browse hackernews I likely wouldn't know about it. Secondly I don't recall voting for any MEPs, as far as I can tell it's similarly not reported on. Besides given the lack of news about what any of the parties are up to it's hard to say anything about who you should even vote for. Thirdly just because somewhere at the…
> first of all I have yet to hear about this vote from any of my local news sources This is definitely a deficiency of your local press. > I don't recall voting for any MEPs Elections are held every 5 years and organised by your local electoral authorities? Which country are you in and are you a national or a resident?
So that's one, in my opinion very big problem.
Second, people are just not aware of what power the EU has. And the politicians I speak to actually see this as an advantage. One told me specifically that without power like this we would still have the insanity of driving on the left of the road in Norway, or would still have the separate currencies (which of course, would also have prevented a lot of problems in Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland and Portugal, and provided better lives for probably 100 million (!) people).
So that's the second part. Nobody cares about the EU, because there is no unity. Europeans don't feel part of Europe. They feel they're part of France, Belgium, UK, but not of Europe. So they don't care. There is little to no local presence of any EU agency.
UKIP and the Green Party joined forces to prevent Article 13 from getting rammed through without a public discussion. It was a good first step, but here we are, 2 months hence, and it was passed with virtually no amendments to the original text. This is an abhorrent decision by people who have no idea how the internet works. Markus Meechum (aka Count Dankula) was at the hearings, and reported that MEPs voting on the…
I may be naive in saying this, but I believe the law is made with good intentions in mind. The real problem lies in the laws it relies on, namely the extremely stringent copyright laws and the weird fair use. > Much of YouTube content is (perfectly legal) remixes, responses, or criticisms of other YouTube content that embeds part of the referenced video in their own video. As weird as it sounds, you are wrong. In a s…
This is a decision that will end up benefitting the big players on both sides, i.e. regulatory capture. Google, Facebook and the like already employ filtering and copyright techniques and they can afford it. So, this law lifts the barrier to entry for smaller internet companies. On the other side, it's also beneficial almost exclusively for the larger publications or copyright holders as the collected amount of licen…
Regulatory capture implies Google and Facebook were in favor of this and made it happen, which I doubt is true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Example: article in arXiv gets later published in a journal. Will the arXiv article version be still available for anybody? Only for non-EU people? Will be removed from arXiv? None of these?
How does this law change anything? Are you distributing now via arXiv preprints despite not being legally allowed to do so?
I'm worried not so much about the outcome of this decision (which indeed is bad), but more about the whole decision-making process and how often we'll see such uninformed decisionmaking in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the EU's capability to be authoritarian (and from what I gather, propensity to use this authority) was one of the reasons I voted to leave. The central dictation of "how it shall be", reality be damned, reminds me of the Soviet Union. Obviously not to the same extent and severity, but the EU is making the same mistakes in thinking that broad-brush central planning of a huge geographic region isn't a fundamentally fla…
If you voted for Britain to leave the EU because of the EU's "capability to be authoritarian", then perhaps you should have already voted (with your feet) to leave Britain because of its much worse capability to be authoritarian. For example, it was Britain that introduced the Snoopers' Charter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016 without any encouragement from the EU, and indeed that Act has…
> Out of interest, can you name another example where the EU was authoritarian (acting in a way that the British government wouldn't have)?
I can't really speak to things the EU would do that the British government wouldn't - as you've already said, the UK government is pretty bad too. But we have more democratic control over the UK government than we do the European, because it's more localised. I've heard many examples of overreaching EU directives through listening to parliamentary debates but my memory sucks, so I'll give you a couple of examples that I can remember without re-researching the topic: the EU national fishing quotas (famous for decimating the British fishing industry), and the EU's "enthusiasm" for collective bargaining at the WTO. Rather than negotiate directly, many of Britain's trade agreements are bundled up into the EU's and then the EU makes special concessions to Britain. We've actually been historically quite good at forcing the EU to give us trade concessions so as far as I am aware it's not been too harmful to our prospects (I welcome a correction from anyone more well-versed in the UK's international trade standing) but it's still an example of EU authoritarian practices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the European Parliament (here the body making a decision) is the EU institution that supposedly does not have the "democratic deficit", they are elected by the citizens. So in what way is this different from what we expect in democracies?
Ask Brits who their MEPs are, see if they know (or have even heard of MEPs... modulo Farage for his infamy)
Not rly an MEP problem I think. Most people don’t care that much.