61–70 of 125 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In any case, this regulation seems more misguided rather than malicious. Intent isn't relevant at all - only result.
And relevant in how it'll be interpreted by the courts.
This feels like a fight we're going to lose eventually. Proposals come up.. most fail. I admire those responsible for putting up resistance. But.. some succeed. Others partially succeed. Limited to stopping pedophilia, piracy, nazis... Those are bridgeheads. The direction is monodirectional. Eighty six proposals can fail, but if the eighty seventh succeeds that's just as good. There is no going back. Win, good. Lose,…
I'm against this ... unless they block Facebook :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So obviously corrupt Sources please. The EU isn't perfect... But this sounds a lot like an attempt to give consumer protection agencies the powers to block scam sites. From what I could see Julia Reda (MEP - German Pirate) wasn't unhappy about the intents of this legislation. Merely concerned about: A) Website blocking without judicial oversight B) Existence of website blocking infrastructure C) Inability to force…
> The EU isn't perfect... But this sounds a lot like an attempt to give consumer protection agencies the powers to block scam sites. It sounds more like an attempt to give somebody powers to block potentially copyright infringing sites, under the pretense of consumer protection, through the roundabout justification that consumers "collectively" benefit from strict enforcement of copyright.
Man am I naive. I read the title as the EU wanting to provide a way to block web sites that do things like track consumers.
Man am I naive. I read the title as the EU wanting to provide a way to block web sites that do things like track consumers.
It's a lot of friction and hoops to go through, especially for smaller companies, to do business that reaches into the EU (directly or indirectly) with these regulations.
I think this is the relevant paragraph in the document (page 27 in http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/commissions/imco/inag/... ) linked from the article: "3. Competent authorities shall have at least the following enforcement powers: (e) where no other effective means are available to bring about the cessation or the prohibition of the infringement including by requesting a third party or other public authority t…
"risk of serious harm to the collective interests of consumers" What a weaselly term. Bet they spent months trying to come up with something that didn't sound ridiculously biased/anti-consumer and that's the best they came up with. So obviously corrupt.
I ask because the EU already has the ability to block sites infringe on copyrights.
To me this law is one of the reactions taken to the fact that foreign powers are using completely faked news papers and social media pages to influence out elections.
Right now consumers have very little ammunition against companies like Facebook. In the EU we have the right to everything they’ve gathered on us and to demand they delete it, but if they went full retard we couldn’t legally block them.
Now we can.
This feels like a fight we're going to lose eventually. Proposals come up.. most fail. I admire those responsible for putting up resistance. But.. some succeed. Others partially succeed. Limited to stopping pedophilia, piracy, nazis... Those are bridgeheads. The direction is monodirectional. Eighty six proposals can fail, but if the eighty seventh succeeds that's just as good. There is no going back. Win, good. Lose,…
I don't know if I buy this slippery slope argument. Nazi memorabilia and glorification have been banned in France and Germany for more than 70 years now, and these countries have not yet descended into fascism and further impeding of free speech and other points that we usually hear from offended Americans who learn about this.
This feels like a fight we're going to lose eventually. Proposals come up.. most fail. I admire those responsible for putting up resistance. But.. some succeed. Others partially succeed. Limited to stopping pedophilia, piracy, nazis... Those are bridgeheads. The direction is monodirectional. Eighty six proposals can fail, but if the eighty seventh succeeds that's just as good. There is no going back. Win, good. Lose,…
> Limited to stopping pedophilia, piracy, nazis... Those are bridgeheads. I don't know if I buy this slippery slope argument. Nazi memorabilia and glorification have been banned in France and Germany for more than 70 years now, and these countries have not yet descended into fascism and further impeding of free speech and other points that we usually hear from offended Americans who learn about this.