81–90 of 332 posts
Anyone who is serious about this needs to stop attacking all the symptoms and address the root cause of Big Tech's monopoly power: Imaginary Property Laws ("IP"). Everything else is just tissues to sooth a runny nose instead of medicine to fight the virus.
End IP and bring real competition and democratization to Big Tech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Another interesting tidbit is the answer to the common trope that 'private platform can act as they wish since they are private' : Now the EU is saying the same thing to Apple. It is their market, and they dictate the rules. Which is perhaps a taste of Apple's own medicine? I wonder what those people who keep saying it is Apple's platform they can do what ever they want had to say? I sometimes wonder had Apple not b…
The EU didn't create its citizens (unlike Apple which created its products); saying that the EU 'owns' their market is quite a big step in assuming control over the lives of residents.
All the rules, all the borders, all their values have been created, quite hard earned in fact, with a lot of blood and sweat along the way I might add, even more so than at an Apple smartphone factory if you can believe it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> quite a big step in assuming control over the lives of residents. Have you heard of laws and governments before? This is exactly what they do, it’s also why democracy is such a big thing. If you’re gonna give that much power to an organisation, you want to make sure you can change it if start going off the rails. > The EU didn't create its citizens (unlike Apple which created its products); It might not have “creat…
"do, it’s also why democracy is such a big thing" Voters of France and Netherlands strongly rejected the treaty upon which the EU derives is legitimacy. Referendums were cancelled elsewhere. Ursula von der Leyen did not receive any votes, she wasn't even part of the process, she was an unknown German figure until after the election, when she was plucked from obscurity by actors acting in total opacity, behind closed…
The EU has always struggled to explain how it works, why it's structure works the way it does. But all the leaders in the EU are elected, just not always via direct elections. A process that actually isn't that unusual in the world.
The US is actually a bit of an outlier, because they have direct elections for almost every position in government, with some slightly mixed results. The EU it's common for countries to select and organise their executive bodies via in-direct elections. For example in the UK our prime minister isn't directly elected, the general public didn't "choose" Boris Johnson. Instead the conservative party did, via its own methodology which it can change any time it does.
The current byzantine system exists out of a need to somehow balance the power of the EU as a federal entity, against the sovereignty of the individual nations. With irony come from the fact that the "unelected" leader only exist because it give more power to leaders of the member states, and takes it away from the EU as an organisation independent of its member states and their elected governments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't 10% too low a number to consider a platform systemic?
Nah. I can see why it sounds small, but I'm having trouble thinking of places where 10% isn't of huge significance. If you drink one cup of coffee a day, that's less than 10% of your waking time, but coffee is systemic to your life. If 10% of your cells have a defect, that defect is systemic to your body. If your API is down 10% of the time...
> The operators of online platforms - such as social media apps and video-sharing sites of any size - must prioritise complaints raised by "trusted flaggers", who have a track record of highlighting valid problems. Who determines which problems are valid? Unless I overlooked something, this article seems really vague. > Likewise, all online stores must be able to trace traders selling goods via their platforms, in ca…
> must prioritise complaints raised by "trusted flaggers" That's the real concern here. Speech must be handled very carefully, but now we're elevating some specific people to be 'more equal' than others? Who are these people, and why do they get more say? I can see that opening a can of worms. I don't live in the EU, but just like that well intentioned but shortsighted cookie law, the rest of us will have to deal wit…
As for who is a trusted flagger: "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 competence for the purposes of detecting, identifying and notifying illegal content; (b) it represents collective interests and is independent from any online platform; (c) it carries out its activities for the purposes of submitting notices in a timely, diligent and objective manner. "
I.E. if you can convince your local government that you should be one, bam you are one, and online platform the EU needs to expedite processing of any notices you make.
On the other end of the spectrum, the companies are required to allow you to appeal takedowns and account suspensions/terminations (for TOS or illegal content reasons, not for non-payment reasons) for a 6 month period. Further, if you appeal a takedown or account suspension and the company rejects your appeal, the law will allow you to take the matter to binding arbitration. If the user wins, the company pays all costs, and must reinstate the content or account. If the user loses, they only pay their portion of arbitration costs. (The company's portion are just part of doing business in the EU).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> must prioritise complaints raised by "trusted flaggers" That's the real concern here. Speech must be handled very carefully, but now we're elevating some specific people to be 'more equal' than others? Who are these people, and why do they get more say? I can see that opening a can of worms. I don't live in the EU, but just like that well intentioned but shortsighted cookie law, the rest of us will have to deal wit…
Trusted flaggers sounds to me like crazy people who spend all day reporting content because they are obsessed or have absolutely nothing to do. Having a system like this in place would lead to bad outcomes.
"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 competence for the purposes of detecting, identifying and notifying illegal content; (b) it represents collective interests and is independent from any online platform; (c) it carries out its activities for the purposes of submitting notices in a timely, diligent and objective manner."
edit: Yeah, NGOs and also MPAA/RIAA style associations will probably be the most common entities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> quite a big step in assuming control over the lives of residents. Have you heard of laws and governments before? This is exactly what they do, it’s also why democracy is such a big thing. If you’re gonna give that much power to an organisation, you want to make sure you can change it if start going off the rails. > The EU didn't create its citizens (unlike Apple which created its products); It might not have “creat…
"do, it’s also why democracy is such a big thing" Voters of France and Netherlands strongly rejected the treaty upon which the EU derives is legitimacy. Referendums were cancelled elsewhere. Ursula von der Leyen did not receive any votes, she wasn't even part of the process, she was an unknown German figure until after the election, when she was plucked from obscurity by actors acting in total opacity, behind closed…
> The operators of online platforms - such as social media apps and video-sharing sites of any size - must prioritise complaints raised by "trusted flaggers", who have a track record of highlighting valid problems. Who determines which problems are valid? Unless I overlooked something, this article seems really vague. > Likewise, all online stores must be able to trace traders selling goods via their platforms, in ca…
---
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 competence for the purposes of detecting, identifying and notifying illegal content;
(b) it represents collective interests and is independent from any online platform;
(c) it carries out its activities for the purposes of submitting notices in a timely, diligent and objective manner.
---
on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC
(50)
To ensure an efficient and adequate application of that obligation, without imposing any disproportionate burdens, the online platforms covered should make reasonable efforts to verify the reliability of the information provided by the traders concerned, in particular by using freely available official online databases and online interfaces, such as national trade registers and the VAT Information Exchange System, or by requesting the traders concerned to provide trustworthy supporting documents, such as copies of identity documents, certified bank statements, company certificates and trade register certificates. They may also use other sources, available for use at a distance, which offer a similar degree of reliability for the purpose of complying with this obligation. However, the online platforms covered should not be required to engage in excessive or costly online fact-finding exercises or to carry out verifications on the spot. Nor should such online platforms, which have made the reasonable efforts required by this Regulation, be understood as guaranteeing the reliability of the information towards consumer or other interested parties.
---
Not sure about your third point yet, I've only briefly jumped around in the (lengthy) full text.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your parent are EU citizens, and the EU 'is it's citizens' (which is controversial but defensible) then yes, the EU did create you.
None of my family have ever resided in the EU either. I think I understand the argument you're trying to make, but it relies on some rather tortured logic.
Where's our comment from HN user "dang" to tell us all the related articles?
If there are two discussions of the same event, dang sometimes adds a comment to the smaller discussion pointing to the larger one.
If neither of those are true... what, exactly, do you want him to do?