Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday November 03 2017, @03:59PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-you-see-depends-on-where-you-are dept.

Silicon Valley is a uniquely American creation, the product of an entrepreneurial spirit and no-holds-barred capitalism that now drives many aspects of modern life.

But the likes of Facebook, Google and Apple are increasingly facing an uncomfortable truth: it is Europe's culture of tougher oversight of companies, not America's laissez-faire attitude, which could soon rule their industry as governments seek to combat fake news and prevent extremists from using the internet to fan the flames of hatred.

While the U.S. has largely relied on market forces to regulate content in a country where free speech is revered, European officials have shown they are willing to act. Germany recently passed a law imposing fines of up to 50 million euros ($59 million) on websites that don't remove hate speech within 24 hours. British Prime Minister Theresa May wants companies to take down extremist material within two hours. And across the EU, Google has for years been obliged to remove search results if there is a legitimate complaint about the content's veracity or relevance.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:20PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:20PM (#591750)

    across the EU, Google has for years been obliged to remove search results if there is a legitimate complaint about the content's veracity or relevance.

    If something's veracity is in question, is it not effective to leave it and let it be debunked if it's false? Every side has (at least) two stories; why only allow one of those to persist? It seems like, if something is false, it would be better to keep it after it has been conclusively debunked, as a warning about that source in the future.

    Also...If something is not relevant, why does Google have to take it down? Why would someone complain about something that isn't relevant?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:24PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:24PM (#591755)

    Oops. Swap side and story.

    (Or don't! Do whatever you want! I don't care.)

    (Okay, I care a little bit.)

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday November 03 2017, @08:56PM (2 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 03 2017, @08:56PM (#591877) Journal

    Why would someone complain about something that isn't relevant?

    The fact that you are a moron is irrelevant and may well be ... well, trying to relate with the terminology in use... un-veracious.
    You wouldn't complain then to be called a moron, right?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @10:26PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @10:26PM (#591909)
      Why would I complain? If it's true, then I deserve to be called a moron. If it's not, then you deserve to be called a moron. Of course, the third option is that we're both morons, which I daresay is actually the most likely situation in the grand scheme of things.

      And at the end of the day, whoever is right will prevail. That's what dialogue, debate, and the scientific method are all about. That's how a healthy, open society operates.

      Or we can just censor everything that doesn't fit some rich person/group of people's narrative. Because they know what's best.
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday November 03 2017, @10:50PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 03 2017, @10:50PM (#591920) Journal

        And at the end of the day, whoever is right will prevail.

        Yes, the question of relevance and veracity - you have quite a statement of faith there.

        Then the question of cost to determine what's true and what's relevant. We live in fake-news post-truth world. Do you really want to embrace it?
        This cost is relevant. High enough cost and it won't be at the and of the day, it may be at the end of the week - in which time you may be forced to take decisions based on false information (or lack of any information, the cost of finding the relevant one being too high for your time budget). Maybe the end of the week will find you in debt to some loan sharks based on your decision.

        How about whatever or whoever is right will never prevail in your life time? How about never?

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford