End of the Internet as we know it, at least in Europe?

Status
Not open for further replies.
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Its not about the pirates. Its about people who operate under fair use and fair dealing or the grey areas of the law.

www.eff.org

How the EU's Copyright Filters Will Make it Trivial For Anyone to Censor the Internet

On Wednesday, the EU will vote on whether to accept two controversial proposals in the new Copyright Directive; one of these clauses, Article 13, has the potential to allow anyone, anywhere in the world, to effect mass, rolling waves of censorship across the Internet.The way things stand today,...
www.eff.org www.eff.org

Its a diabolically poor law, ripe for misuse, near impossible to implement technically. Just what you expect from a bunch of clueless politicians.

Content sharing sites such as this forum will be directly liable en masse for any errors in rights management committed by their users. It also makes linking to content something you have to pay the site you are linking to for.

Link to a news story? Violation! Copy the first sentence from the article? Double Violation!

The only defence allowed is the implementation of an automated content take down service to allow rights holders to register, submit their content claims and remove any work they deem infringes their copyright. If the system takes longer than 1 hour from notice to removal, you are operating illegally. There is no right of dispute, no claim of fair use, satire, parody, no burden of proof.

Nobody running a small website like this can even attempt to build such a system - Youtube's ContentID system cost them $60 millon to set up.

To remain compliant, you'd have to shift to Reddit or another big platform. No choice to stay legal.

Then sit back and watch as, say, Boeing assert copyright on all images of Boeing aircraft, and you find the photo you took of a Boeing plane at the airport gets removed. That photo of a model you took and uploaded to Wikimedia as public domain is taken by one of the big picture libraries, then asserted as theirs, and now you can't post it anywhere because the automated content systems remove it.

This already happens to artists of all kinds in small numbers.
Click to expand...
What's funny about that is it will have the exact opposite affect they are hoping for. It won't make people go to the original sites, it will just make people angry and they will avoid those sites even more. Hell, some sites that used to be free, when I go to read stories linked to the site, and they say you have to be subscribed to read the story, I just leave. They're just accelerating their own irrelevance. Also, you'll see much of that stuff being "off shored" to servers in countries that don't a give a crap about any of that you'll be able to see what you want. The same way those same politicians hide their money from taxes.
 
Control what information people can access, control those people.

Rather like know what information someone has and what they are communicating and you are effectively seeing the world through their eyes.

The logic of the Internet, is it's distribution. The lack of a pre-microcomputer era 'central computer', around which clustered the 'priesthood' who controlled access, what ran on it and what outputs to share.

The problem for the modern Internet is the political and corporate power the likes of Google have. Which favours server farms and effectively centralisation of facilities. Along with what is effectively a Silicon Valley Cartel.
 
Sundog said:
Also, you'll see much of that stuff being "off shored" to servers in countries that don't a give a crap about any of that you'll be able to see what you want. The same way those same politicians hide their money from taxes.
Click to expand...
Ahh yes, the old, "We the politicians are well aware that nobody else on the planet is as smart at thinking things through as we are."
 
tech.slashdot.org

Two-Year Internet Outage In Ethiopia Continues - Slashdot

Zecharias Zelalem writes via Reuters: Few have been spared the effects of a nearly two-year internet and phone shutdown in Ethiopia's northern Tigray region, which has been cut off since fighting erupted between Tigrayan rebels and government forces in November 2020. The conflict resumed last...
tech.slashdot.org
 
Australia has picked a fight with the world’s largest video platform by backtracking on an earlier promise to exclude YouTube in its social media ban for children under 16.

The Labor government said Wednesday the site, which is owned by Google’s parent company Alphabet, will be subject to the same rules as other leading platforms – Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and X – under legislation due to come into effect in December.

The ban puts the onus on social media platforms to prevent children under 16 from having an account on their sites, or risk fines of nearly 50 million Australian dollars ($32 million).

A YouTube spokesperson said the decision to include it in the ban “reverses a clear, public commitment” from the government to treat the site as an educational tool.

“We will consider next steps and will continue to engage with the government,” the spokesman said, omitting any comment on the status of reported legal threats. YouTube Kids won’t be included in the ban because it doesn’t allow users to upload videos, or comment on them.

Speaking Wednesday, Communications Minister Anika Wells likened the ban to teaching children to swim – a basic life skill in Australia where many suburban homes come with a swimming pool.

“It is like trying to teach your kids to swim in the open ocean, with the (rip currents) and the sharks, compared to at the local council pool,” she said.

“We can’t control the ocean, but we can police the sharks, and that’s why I will not be intimidated by legal threats when this is a genuine fight for the well-being of Australian kids.”

The government said the decision to include YouTube was influenced by a survey released by Australia’s independent online regulator, the eSafety Commission, this month that found 37% of children surveyed had reported seeing harmful content on the site.

Harmful content includes sexist, misogynistic or hateful ideas, dangerous online challenges or fight videos, or content that encourages unhealthy eating or exercise habits.


“YouTube uses the same persuasive design features as other social media platforms, like infinite scroll, like autoplay and algorithmic feed,” Wells told Parliament Wednesday.

“Our kids don’t stand a chance, and that is why I accepted the eSafety (Commission) recommendation that YouTube should not be treated differently from other social media platforms.”

[snip]
Click to expand...
 
Mr.T said:
Global censorship under pretense of protecting the children
Click to expand...
Bullshit!! It is a real attempt to protect the mental health and wellbeing of Australian children and teens from well known threats. This law introduces a mandatory minimum age of 16 for accounts on certain social media platforms. It is not a total censorship. Think of it as akin to existing laws to prevent minors drinking alcohol or smoking. It probably won't be perfect but it is an attempt to do the right thing.

I expect a lot more lobbying and false information from those with a vested interest in not having it (looking at Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg) as we get closer to December 2025 when it takes effect.
 
GTX said:
Bullshit!! It is a real attempt to protect the mental health and wellbeing of Australian children and teens from well known threats. This law introduces a mandatory minimum age of 16 for accounts on certain social media platforms. It is not a total censorship. Think of it as akin to existing laws to prevent minors drinking alcohol or smoking. It probably won't be perfect but it is an attempt to do the right thing.

I expect a lot more lobbying and false information from those with a vested interest in not having it (looking at Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg) as we get closer to December 2025 when it takes effect.
Click to expand...
That is probably why you will need to log in with your digital ID . Politicians don't give a fuck about the children, besides, we have seen how low the represive state went in Australia , NZ , basically everywhere they still bow to Windsors, they were not far from internment camps during Rona craze

Gwu2vi5XgAAaja9.jpg
 
Mr.T said:
That is probably why you will need to log in with your digital ID . Politicians don't give a fuck about the children, besides, we have seen how low the represive state went in Australia , NZ , basically everywhere they still bow to Windsors, they were not far from internment camps during Rona craze

View attachment 779750
Click to expand...
Tedros has already turned the world into a concentration camp where it was forbidden even to name the country of origin of the virus. They already have the data and they know how to do it.
 
That's ok guys, keep with the conspiracy theory bullshit. Have you got your hats on?

1200px-Manwithtinfoilhat.jpg
 
GTX said:
Bullshit!! It is a real attempt to protect the mental health and wellbeing of Australian children and teens from well known threats. T
Click to expand...
When I would become a world dictator, any author of any legislation "to protect the mental health and wellbeing of children" would be granted exactly ten minutes to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that his legislation aim is really and only to protect the childrens. Otherwise he would be hanged immediately after.

The "BUT IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!" hysterical narrative is far too overused as method to push absurd or tyrannical legislations all around the world, frankly. Most of it, of course, is nothing more than pretty blatant manipulation of human natural protectivness of children.
 
Working precisely as intended by the writers of the law. https://needtoknow.co.uk/2025/07/30...age-check-system-mistakes-his-ink-for-a-mask/

Honestly, the more these things are actually aimed at methods that are proven to work to protect children, GTX is right. But for the other crap mixed in aimed squarely at adults who are obviously of age and in the privacy of their own homes, Dilandu's point stands, however extreme the wording.

There must be a balance, however extreme the emotions get. And no, not the 'cut the baby in half' or 'ok only half the kittens die' bullpocky that reeks of mental laziness at best. Go where the evidence takes you, and do what the science says is best.

Above all, none of this is an excuse for lazy parenting.
 
Commentary from the Libertarian Magazine 'Reason'

A law in effect for less than two weeks is already wreaking havoc all over the internet.

The United Kingdom law—called the Online Safety Act—is purportedly about protecting children. The best I can say about its rollout is that maybe it will serve as a cautionary tale for lawmakers here.

It's certainly not stopping motivated individuals—and who is more motivated than a teen told they can't do something?—from accessing verboten content. "Let's start with the most obvious sign that this law is working exactly as poorly as critics warned: VPN usage in the UK has absolutely exploded," notes Mike Masnick at Techdirt. "Proton VPN reported an 1,800% spike in UK sign-ups. Five of the top ten free apps on Apple's App Store in the UK are VPNs. When your 'child safety' law's primary achievement is teaching kids how to use VPNs to circumvent it, maybe you've missed the mark just a tad."
Click to expand...

https://reason.com/2025/08/06/10-examples-of-absurd-fallout-from-the-u-k-s-online-safety-act/
 
I presume that those rallying against the laws restricting under 16s or similar from accessing social media are also in favour of the laws restricting their access to alcohol, tobacco etc also being removed?
 
The arrogance of European politicians writes checks that reality cannot pay, we have more laws than the infinite number of gods that the ancient Egyptians had: a society, which could have been prosperous, paralyzed for three thousand years by the arrogance of a ruling caste.
 
There's a difference between carding someone who appears to be a kid at a shop and harassing an adult in their own home knowing full well you have that adult's age on file anyway through their taxes.
 
GTX said:
Not really. The dangers of social media are just as real as alcohol or smoking, arguably more so.
Click to expand...
So's crossing the street, want to put age verification on that too?
 
Justo Miranda said:
The arrogance of European politicians writes checks that reality cannot pay, we have more laws than the infinite number of gods that the ancient Egyptians had: a society, which could have been prosperous, paralyzed for three thousand years by the arrogance of a ruling caste.
Click to expand...
Dude, I really think it's high time for taking whatever meds you doctor has you on.
 
Last time I went on X a buncha kids was rallying against another for under 16 copulation. In the big US of A.
Having been through similar but less violent freakout myself, yeah I'd advocate for laws to control children's access to the net. It's ultimately choosing between tyranny from the parents or the government. One is toss-the-dice luck that their offsprings wouldn't turn out to be a circus show with bent neurons, other is Orwellian's. But these people lives in a democratic environment, use that! Somehow the world went to demanding others do their share of work, not laboring sweat for rewards themselves.
 
martinbayer said:
Please explain your logic.
Click to expand...
GTX suggests that access to social media is as directly hazardous as drinking and smoking, this is clearly false, thus a false equivalence.

martinbayer said:
False equivalence.
Click to expand...
GTX further argues that "the dangers of social media are just as real as alcohol or smoking, arguably more so", in effect "doubling down". I point out that the dangers of crossing the street are also: "just as real as alcohol or smoking, arguably more so", and ask if crossing the street shouldn't also be subjected to an age verification test. You'll need to explain how that's a false equivalence. I'll grant you it borders on reductio ad absurdum but I think there's enough wriggle room to pass.
 
GTX said:
I presume that those rallying against the laws restricting under 16s or similar from accessing social media are also in favour of the laws restricting their access to alcohol, tobacco etc also being removed?
Click to expand...
Those laws are basically "to avoid house fires, all matches would be held in the police station safe, and only released for limited time to verified persons". I.e. they needlessly oppressive, they have little to do with actual safety, and they actually promote more risky behavior, since peoples would now have great reason to circumvent those laws.
 
jeffb said:
So's crossing the street, want to put age verification on that too?
Click to expand...

Some countries do have restrictions on crossing the street and regulate precisely where or how you can cross. But in practicality they dont regulate the pedestrian they regulate the driver with minimum driving age and a license test to prove understanding of the rules and proper behaviour.
 
WatcherZero said:
Some countries do have restrictions on crossing the street and regulate precisely where or how you can cross. But in practicality they dont regulate the pedestrian they regulate the driver with minimum driving age and a license test to prove understanding of the rules and proper behaviour.
Click to expand...
One would have to be utterly naive to think this isn't about governments wanting to control "The Message". Note, they've never said they want to go after things like rotten.com. No, it's "misinformation" they want to control, and guess who gets to decide what that is? That's right, Big Brother.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom