[HN Gopher] Europe's big tech bill is coming to fruition ___________________________________________________________________ Europe's big tech bill is coming to fruition Author : DamnInteresting Score : 59 points Date : 2023-03-06 20:40 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.technologyreview.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.technologyreview.com) | adamsb6 wrote: | This article is not at all skeptical of this regulation. | | I'm especially skeptical about legislation coming from the body | responsible for making me click dozens of "Accept Cookies" | buttons every day. | timtom39 wrote: | EasyList Cookie. uBlockOrigin has it built in. FF mobile can | run it. | andrewmutz wrote: | I completely agree. The GDPR had the best of intentions, but | did not materially improve data privacy online. Meanwhile it | has absolutely made the UX of the web worse. | | I know what the responses will be: "its a great law with poor | enforcement". Perhaps that's true, but if so what makes us | think additional EU tech regulations will be any better | enforced? | Jochim wrote: | The website choosing to sell your browsing data is the reason | you have to click those buttons. | rom-antics wrote: | Well that's a loaded title. (EDIT: The article title, not the | changed HN title) | | Another take: | | https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/02/enforcement-overreach-... | | Read the section on Trusted Flaggers to find out what that word | "safer" really means. | colpabar wrote: | https://archive.ph/U5Vwa | arbuge wrote: | I am continually reminded of PG's joke on Twitter a few years | ago: | | https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1231699385525903360?lang=en | jawns wrote: | I'm curious about the outlawing of shadow banning. | | As a former content moderator, I found shadow banning to be | remarkably effective for our most pernicious actors, who would | otherwise quickly realize that their account is banned and create | multiple new ones. | sacrosancty wrote: | [dead] | aaron695 wrote: | [dead] | Gigachad wrote: | These days the most effective method is phone number | verification. It's possible but significantly harder to get | around this. | seydor wrote: | Requiring "trusted flaggers" should clash with freedom of press | so i don't see this passing through parliaments. | | Transparency of algorithms is unenforceable to irrelevant. | | Things like "no personalized recommendations" are dead in the | water- things like ai chat don't personalize, they just use the | chat history, which can be stored locally. | | Mandatory data sharing breaks international trade agreements | | A lot of the other stuff is standard stuff that every website | does | | https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-... | | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A... | | There stuff in the regulation that is simply laughably worded: | | >Providers of online platforms shall not design, organise or | operate their online interfaces in a way that deceives or | manipulates the recipients of their service or in a way that | otherwise materially distorts or impairs the ability of the | recipients of their service to make free and informed decisions. | pjc50 wrote: | The "trusted flaggers": | https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0045b1bf-165b... | | It's not that different from _existing_ ad-hoc systems for | dealing with CSAM, like the IWF in the UK. And it will be | within the exemptions of Article 10 ECHR. The only country that | might object is Germany. | seydor wrote: | But they allow a government to directly remove content. | | This is potentially evil, no matter how trusted a state | (thinks) it is. | | The status of 'trusted flagger' under this Regulation shall | be awarded, upon application by any entity, by the Digital | Services Coordinator of the Member State in which the | applicant is established, to an applicant that has | demonstrated that it meets all of the following conditions: | | (a) | | it has particular expertise and competence for the purposes | of detecting, identifying and notifying illegal content; | | (b) | | it is independent from any provider of online platforms; | | (c) | | it carries out its activities for the purposes of submitting | notices diligently, accurately and objectively. | Jensson wrote: | You do know that the government can already remove whatever | they want? Why is this evil at all compared to what we | already have? All it does is give us more due process and | clearer rules than before when it was up to private actors | to do it. | | For example, do you think it is more evil that Google can | ban you for any reason without telling you why, or the | government being able to ban you while stating exactly why | and you having legal rights? I think the first is worse | than the second, so moving from the first to the second is | a positive development. | seydor wrote: | Which government does that? | | They can sue and arrest people who publish, not play | ducking big brother | Jensson wrote: | If they tell Google that you have illegal content then | Google will remove it, that is how it works today | everywhere. What kind of world do you think we live in? | seydor wrote: | Which is crucial, that google has the chance to challenge | the request , in court where it belongs | | Removing content by government insiders has only been | done in authoritarian countries | Jensson wrote: | Google can challenge the content flagging as well. These | trusted flaggers can only flag content for Google to | review, they can't remove it themselves, as far I | understand it. So it is exactly the same as before, just | that it is formalized. | | Edit: Think the Twitter files, with how the American | government flags content on Twitter and then Twitter bans | it. USA already has that trusted flagging system, but | under the hood so you don't see it. I don't see why | moving that to the open would be any worse. | seydor wrote: | > Think the Twitter files, with how the American | government flags content on Twitter and then Twitter bans | it | | Yes this is pretty much what it is, and now it is a legal | requirement, and the request by the government have to be | prioritized and processed 'without delay'. | | And if the government abuses the requests, then the | website can complain to ... the government. | | I don't understand why you think this is normal. it is | not. This "government unable to stop itself" is precisely | the reason why press freedom was written into | constitutions | | Much of EU doesn't rank low in corruption. What this | means is, every 4 years the new government will be re- | staffing the "national censorship service" (Digital | Services Coordinator ) with its cronies. The countries | which need free press the most will be affected for the | worse | Jensson wrote: | > Much of EU doesn't rank very low in corruption. What | this means is, every 4 years the new government will be | re-staffing the "national censorship service" with its | cronies. | | But Google could challenge that to the EU court, and the | EU court isn't full of Bulgarian cronies. Or do you think | that the EU court would take the side of Bulgarian | cronies, really? | | If Bulgaria wanted to censor the internet they would | already have their own laws to do it. As you said, only | extremely authoritarian countries censors the way you | describe here, I doubt Bulgaria would get away with it, | they would get kicked out of EU if they start to create a | CCP style big brother state. | | (I used Bulgaria as an example since it is ranked the | most corrupt country in EU) | seydor wrote: | There is no EU court, only national courts can refer a | case to the ECJ for consultation. There is also no way to | "kick a country out of EU" | Jensson wrote: | These aren't press companies, they are content platforms. It | doesn't affect any press companies, the article states which | services it effects and it is limited to large platforms. | | These companies are still allowed to post whatever they want, | they just have to follow some rules regarding being a platform | for content creating others. If they don't want to be a | platform they are free to stop being one. | slowmovintarget wrote: | "in mice" | | or something like that. | | The internet is about to get a lot more balkanized and more | heavily regulated. That doesn't make it safer, it just puts | government back in the driver's seat for who gets to decide what | is allowed where, sans those messy election things. | | > Proponents of the legislation say the bill will help bring an | end to the era of tech companies' self-regulating. "I don't want | the companies to decide what is and what isn't forbidden without | any separation of power, without any accountability, without any | reporting, without any possibility to contest," Verdier says. | "It's very dangerous." | [deleted] | ParksNet wrote: | Straight out of the World Economic Forum: 'Digital Identity' | playbook. | | De-anonymize speech online, to protect the ruling class, and | enforce any narrative you desire. | mistrial9 wrote: | > De-anonymize speech online | | anonymity for political speech has been known and debated for | four hundred years in the West. Of course some actors come down | on one side or the other. Twitter v0.1 was supposed to be a | failsafe for that; now its 2023. | newaccount74 wrote: | The EU regulations need a lot more enforcement and agencies | really need to go after companies trying to exploit loopholes. | | For example, consumers are entitled to return goods and services | purchased online for 14 days, with some exceptions. Almost all | app stores include some weasel wording how that 14 day rule | doesn't apply, or they employ some kind of intermediate currency | to get around the rule (eg. you have to buy Minecoins to buy | content in Minecraft). | | The result is that a lot of digital markets are a wild west where | the consumer protection rules don't apply (eg. if you buy a fake | mod in Minecraft, you just lost 5EUR and there is nothing you can | do about it) | | Another way companies get around the 14 day return policy is to | just not offer services starting today, but you have to buy | services 14 days ahead of time, so when the service starts you no | longer have a right to reverse the contract. | kwhitefoot wrote: | > Another way companies get around the 14 day return policy is | to just not offer services starting today, but you have to buy | services 14 days ahead of time, so when the service starts you | no longer have a right to reverse the contract. | | The supplier might think that that circumvents the law, I | suspect that the courts might think otherwise. Some loopholes | only exist in potentia and evaporate under court scrutiny, but | no one can be certain which they are until a a case is brought. | endofreach wrote: | This is just plain wrong. The 14-day return policy is meant for | physical goods in the first place. It was not meant as a trial | period, but a protection because you can't actually see the | product when buying online. | | Also, the 14-days do not start with the purchase date, but with | the delivery date. | | If you buy a digital product online, it is the equivalent of a | physical purchase in a physical store. So nobody needs to ,,get | around" the policy. They just need to let you know it does not | apply. | | And i do think it is fair. | | If someone rips you off, that's a different story, there is | laws for that and those cases aren't meant to be covered by | this policy. | krzyk wrote: | IANAL but the above won't fly in court. At least the last part, | 14 day return policy applies from the time you receive the | goods/service, not when you give a business money for that | good/service. | | E.g. you can return preordered goods, for which you sometimes | wait a month. | | Even steam allows returning a game in 14 days (and you played | at most 2 hours, which is fair). | debugnik wrote: | > Even steam allows returning a game in 14 days | | I believe that's their own policy, digital goods that are | consumable immediately can be sold with a renounce of your | return period. | justaman wrote: | The internet doesn't need to be "safer". | Guthur wrote: | Safer for them. | deathhand wrote: | Nothing allowed that could influence elections. Oh gee, I'm | sure that wouldn't be abused at all. | Barrin92 wrote: | _" The DSA will effectively outlaw shadow banning (the practice | of deprioritizing content without notice), curb cyberviolence | against women, and ban targeted advertising for users under 18. | There will also be a lot more public data around how | recommendation algorithms, advertisements, content, and account | management work on the platforms, shedding new light on how the | biggest tech companies operate"_ | | Although it comes very late, better than never. I think this bill | is fantastic. It brings important decisions on how platforms work | from tech companies to the public, which is where they ought to | belong in the first place. | vlovich123 wrote: | > That said, the bill makes it clear that platforms aren't liable | for illegal user-generated content, unless they are aware of the | content and fail to remove it. | | Is there any clarity as to what "aware of" constitutes here? For | example, telephone providers are aware that people are using | their service for illicit things but knowing _which_ account / | phone call is illicit suddenly makes that all less clear. | | Honestly, I'm not quite as bullish on the ability to regulate | safety on the internet, considering a not insignificant amount of | the privacy violations is promulgated by ad networks collecting | information on behalf of intelligence agencies to work around | those pesky constitutional provisions. The history of the | internet is filled with "make you safer" legislation that | achieves questionable results at best. | vlovich123 wrote: | Oh goody. | | > Only if the flagged content is evidently manifestly illegal | can such notices give rise to 'actual knowledge'. According to | the text of the Digital Services Act (section 63), "Information | should be considered to be manifestly illegal content and | notices or complaints should be considered manifestly unfounded | where it is evident to a layperson, without any substantive | analysis, that the content is illegal or, respectively, that | the notices or complaints are unfounded." | | So glad we're leaving this up to a vague obviousness standard. | Not like copyright and other kinds of illicit content is | notoriously hard even for experts to decipher and get right. | Jensson wrote: | American copyright laws already makes these platforms delete | anything that could hint at being copyright infringement, I | don't see how this could make things worse. | VWWHFSfQ wrote: | Anecdotal | | I used to run a live video streaming website (a la Twitch.tv) | for a specific niche of live content. But once the pirates | discovered the site they started streaming live sports and | other copyrighted content. I started getting DMCAs from MLB, | NFL, EPL. All very threatening emails with PDFs of legalese | containing screenshots of my (small, niche) website streaming | their content. | | I would always just immediately shut off and ban the streamers | that were mentioned. | | > Is there any clarity as to what "aware of" constitutes here? | | I became "aware" by the DMCA notice. | vlovich123 wrote: | Running a large scale service is completely different I think | though. My understanding is that most DMCA notices are | automated and a good fraction of those not actually valid. | Similarly, these systems from the provider side already have | automated DMCA takedown mechanisms. The bigger problem is | what happens when the counter party files a DMCA counter | notice - now you are aware there's potentially infringing | content but you're not allowed to take it down. Of course, | I'm sure this law takes the DMCA into account. | | The trickier part though I'm referring to is not DMCA but | community moderation. Someone flags a picture of your child | bathing naked as child porn. Is the provider now on notice as | having been informed? How do they validate the circumstances | of the photo to make sure it's yours? These aren't easy | questions and looking at it through the DMCA lens is | insufficient because this law goes way beyond that. The | section 230 lawsuits in front of SCOTUS right now are not | dissimilar to what DSA is trying to regulate and yet I don't | see extra clarity here. | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-03-06 23:00 UTC)