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.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @04:08PM (24 children)
This will persist until alternatives to the "tech giants" that start serving American interests begin cropping up to fill the niches the Europeans try to smash down. And these groups and companies will probably not care too much what Europe thinks, lest they lose their American audience that went to them explicitly because the originals were listening too much to European authorities.
While the ever-present Opinion Police may attempt to redouble their efforts to clog up freedom of speech in the US so they can try to shut down the native alternatives to European oversight, that's easier said than done.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday November 03 2017, @04:24PM (1 child)
The Silicon Valley Question can be fixed with the Final Solution.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:43PM
Well, that escalated quickly!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday November 03 2017, @04:36PM (17 children)
Yep. Basically you can't have it both ways: a company can't have completely free speech because they're American and believe in that, and then also operate in Europe where there's more stringent limits. Pick one: either operate according to EU laws and limit speech, which means you need to silence a bunch of stuff that your American users may post, or don't operate in the EU. If you don't like the laws in a country, you don't have to operate your business there.
Personally, I'd like to see one of the tech giants (esp. Facebook) thumb their noses at these EU laws and disregard the fines. Then it'd be funny to see their assets in the EU seized, their executives jailed, and Zuckerberg with an Interpol arrest warrant on his head and seized when he's on vacation somewhere. Anything that hurts Facebook can't be a bad thing.
Anyway, back on topic: if a company doesn't like EU's non-free-speech laws, they don't have to have a presence in the EU. And if American users don't like that some big tech company is censoring their speech because of EU laws, then it's their responsibility to find an alternative.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday November 03 2017, @04:56PM (4 children)
ZuckerJew won't throw money away, he's Jewish.
And besides that point, the goal of people like him is to foist European-style free-speech restrictions on Americans. He could state some bullshit like, "Well, we had to comply with European regulations and since we are an international entity we also had to apply the same rules to domestic (American) users."
I hate that faggot-fuck. He's got the face and the shit-eating grin that just makes you want to instinctively punch him. You're making him money and giving all of your info to intelligence agencies, and he thinks you're all dumb-fucks for doing it.
Starve the beast and quit Facebook today.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @06:31PM (1 child)
Another day, another stupid post.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @08:04PM
The form was questionable, the content kinda accurate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @11:52PM (1 child)
Zuckerjew? Don't you mean Jewkerberg?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @02:22PM
Cuckerberg
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by jmorris on Friday November 03 2017, @05:03PM (2 children)
Their problem is they do not only have users from every country, they are multi-national corporations so they can process in ads and sell user data in all those countries. Kinda hard to declare a countries laws do not apply to you when you have a state of the art data center and a big fancy skyscraper HQ.
Contrast to Gab, no ads no multi-national incorporation. So when media reported Germany intended to regulate Gab Torba could post that, basically, Mad Merkel could lick his nutsack. And there isn't anything they can do other than build a "Great Firewall of Germany" which would be hilarious.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday November 03 2017, @05:09PM (1 child)
Have there been any court cases or any precedents set about this sort of thing?
When you have a company like Google or some other MNC, then that company does need to follow the laws of any country that it as physical operations in. And companies like Google have physical locations in many nations.
But if you have some small company that's only located in one country, expecting them to adhere to laws in other countries is ridiculous. They can't keep users in other countries from going to their site, without setting up a geo-block, but I don't see how they're obligated to do that. (And geoblocks aren't perfect anyway.)
Have there been any cases where some company tried to prosecute a site in another country, which did not have any operations at all in the country of prosecution?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday November 03 2017, @05:39PM
Plenty of legal precedent. A U.S. corporation is only subject to U.S. law unless it creates legal presence in another jurisdiction. There are a very few things you have to worry about. If you have a customer type relationship with a foreigner it is on the customer to obey local law with very rare exception. If you ship a physical product into a country that is illegal you could be liable, there are laws and treaties regulating common carrier shipping that would get you. You are liable if you do not correctly declare the contents for purposes of customs. But you are not responsible for any sales / use taxes. Heck, a U.S. based corp isn't even required to collect sales / use taxes in Interstate commerce. Streaming content across borders doesn't cause a problem for violating the other country's laws, it is the breaking of the regional distribution license here, although there also international copyright treaties to consider in edge cases. If you take a paid subscriber you probably are ok, plenty of U.S. publications with subscriptions to foreign addresses, for example, provide enough precedent to give cover.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @06:22PM (1 child)
It's not just EU, Canada also has anti-hate speed laws as does most of the world. It's just until now no one wanted to mess with American companies since other nations, especially western nations, looked up to America. That's changing now.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Friday November 03 2017, @08:58PM
Just don't exceed the anti-hate speed and you'll be fine.
The anti vax hysteria didn't stop, it just died down.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by meustrus on Friday November 03 2017, @08:40PM (6 children)
Hm, is that really how you all feel about EU regulations? Let's not forget that they're the ones that fought the good fight against Microsoft's browser monopoly and forced them to highlight other competing products. Sure, it's not a "free market" solution, but it's better than the very-much-not-free market that we were all otherwise fighting against.
I'm disappointed in all of you. Left-wing politics does still mean fighting to preserve the rights of the little guy. At least in some places.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Friday November 03 2017, @09:11PM (2 children)
If you read my post that you replied to, it should be fairly obvious that I'm not actually advocating either the US's or EU's laws. I'm just pointing out that the laws may be in conflict, and companies have to follow the laws in jurisdictions in which they operate, and if that results in the company applying laws from one jurisdiction to another (as censoring posts on a site in accordance with EU law isn't illegal in the US, whereas refusing to censor may get them in trouble with EU authorities; basically this is like a "lowest common denominator"), then ultimately it's up to the users to decide whether they want to continue using that service, or find an alternate service which doesn't try to follow the laws in multiple jurisdictions.
Basically I'm saying the end-users should stop expecting big corporations to cater to them and their whims.
Somewhat related, I'm getting sick of hearing people, esp far-right people, whining about sites like Facebook and YouTube "censoring" them, yet they keep using these sites anyway. The right-wingers are usually screaming about "private property rights", but then when a big corporation exercises those rights they cry foul. So hypocritical. If you don't like it, don't use it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 04 2017, @01:09AM (1 child)
It's hard to imagine a world in which Facebook and YouTube censored your stuff, but try. Wouldn't you find that horribly offensive? What could you realistically do about it?
Let's just take things to an extreme. In this alternate world, major web sites are all far-right. Negative comments about Trump will get your account locked, unless perhaps you are complaining that he is too liberal. (you could say "lock her up" or "build the wall", and even call him a lazy ass for not getting it done, but NO complaints if he does it) Suggesting that there might be a global climate problem will get your account locked. You can get your account locked by saying anything remotely positive about muslims, Mexicans, abortion, CNN, fact checkers, Obama, Hillary, subsidies, or government health care.
In this alternate world, all of current culture is still on Facebook and YouTube. Your friends, family, and coworkers all expect to communicate with you on these platforms. You still need to communicate with conservative people, and they aren't about to leave these platforms. Whenever you post, you fear losing access. You have to self-censor because you can't afford to lose access. Meanwhile, all the conservative people are happily posting away. The most extreme far-right and alt-right people can post whatever they like. You fear posting responses because you'll lose your account.
Sure, you could go to voat or gab.ai and be all by yourself, but "all by yourself" isn't useful at all.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday November 06 2017, @03:33PM
It's hard to imagine a world in which Facebook and YouTube censored your stuff, but try. Wouldn't you find that horribly offensive? What could you realistically do about it?
I'd do the same thing I do with Apple, because I find apple's products and business practices offensive: I'd stop using them. Same with Microsoft, except I'm stuck using their crap at work, but at least I don't spend a dime of my personal money on their junk. Same with Best Buy; I had one bad experience about 12 years ago, and haven't bought anything from them since. Same with TGIFriday's: I find their crappy food horribly offensive, so I don't eat there.
Let's just take things to an extreme. In this alternate world, major web sites are all far-right.
What world are you in? In the world I inhabit, Facebook is a far-right website. Zuckerberg may personally spout liberal platitudes, but the people actually using his site for political purposes are all far-right from what I've seen. I see no shortage of insane right-wing garbage on there, posted by dumb friends of my relatives. The liberals don't seem to be on there; they're probably too busy commenting on Slate or HuffPost articles or something. Honestly, Facebook is very low-brow; intelligent, highly-educated people do not spend time posting utter inanity in a social forum.
In this alternate world, all of current culture is still on Facebook and YouTube.
"Still"? Since when is "all of current culture" on these two sites? That is literally the stupidest thing I've heard all day. (To be fair, it's still morning here.) Do you honestly believe that bullshit? Get off your computer and go experience real life: there's a lot more to "current culture" than these stupid sites.
Your friends, family, and coworkers all expect to communicate with you on these platforms.
If you have to use Facebook to communicate with your coworkers, you need to look for a new job. That's seriously stupid. And if your friends will only talk to you on Facebook, find some new friends. Do your friends insist you get an iPhone too, or tell you which cellular service you must use to talk to them?
Honestly, your post is idiotic. No one is realistically requiring you to use Facebook to avoid being shunned into hermit-dom. Anyone who refuses to talk to you by some other method (like, oh, telephone?? Or SMS texting? Or email?) is someone you don't need in your life.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @10:27PM
Monopoly regulations are not what concern me. Hate speech laws and such, however, do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 04 2017, @01:02AM (1 child)
Yes.
Monopolies and censorship are two entirely separate kettles of fish, and the US did more to stop Microsoft than Europe ever did. Microsoft only started with things like Windows 10 once the US's oversight had expired.
Good. I tire of Eurotrolling. Frankly if the EU wants to be censored and indoctrinated I don't really care too much (although I do think it is very unfortunate and am sympathetic to those who don't agree but have little practical recourse), but I take exception when it becomes impractical to avoid EU censorship in the US. It isn't now, but with the ever-expanding reach of a few companies it's pretty obvious the building blocks for this and a lot of other nasty things are being put in place or are already there. The EU has made it plain they intend to extend their tentacles as far as they will go. This is not unexpected as most countries do that, but that also means they shouldn't expect a positive response when they try to entangle others. People bitch whenever the US sneezes in the wrong direction, so the EU shouldn't be surprised if it gets a similar reaction.
(Score: 3, Informative) by meustrus on Sunday November 05 2017, @01:33AM
IF you’re really worried about foreign censorship leaking into US operations, you’re paying attention to the wrong game. China is the big fish here, and unlike the EU where hate speech laws are democratic and theoretically exist for the benefit of the people, in China the Party censors anything it wants, with no democratic oversight, for its own benefit. And while the influence of the EU is shrinking, the influence of China is growing.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @06:31PM (3 children)
so uh
can you tell me what the european services were for email, search engine use, and social networking happened to be? maybe a character limited instant messaging service as well.
if my history is correct, there were none of those things that mattered in the US and the people that had any of those on a server at home were using products that were not in europe, mostly not by european programmers, nor could they get their family to log in or even call the damned bulletin board to play as a dummy in some door based game.
it took widespread high speed internet and either money or time. it geeks that set up the aforemented were employed already and thus a big company had to do it for the most part.
those companies didnt care what europe thinks, but then most people using America Online didn't either.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Gaaark on Friday November 03 2017, @07:23PM
OMG!: Archy has joined SN!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archy_and_Mehitabel [wikipedia.org]
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Informative) by dry on Saturday November 04 2017, @02:17AM
Used to be a nice anonymous email service operating out of Finland until the Americans forced them to shut down due to the types of speech they were enabling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 04 2017, @04:11AM
> can you tell me what the european services were for email, search engine use, and social networking happened to be? maybe a character limited instant messaging service as well.
The Pirate Bay.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @04:13PM (9 children)
The Big Corporations get a lot of their money from Big Governmental contracts, and special governmental treatment.
A government is inherently anti-capitalist; there's no way I would voluntarily pay for the service of throwing people into cages for smoking a plant in the comfort of "their own" homes—you'd have to take my money involuntarily. That's not Capitalism.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday November 03 2017, @04:41PM (2 children)
No True Scotsman.
The US likes to believe it practices "no holds barred capitalism", and claims to do so. I can't think of any other countries that make the claim that their version of capitalism is even more "no holds barred".
Also, the US's drug war just shows that it's not a libertarian paradise, but that's nothing new, and again, I don't know of any other countries that are more libertarian (though a few are more lax on drugs).
Anyway, I'd just like to add that the American people support the Drug War, and throwing people into cages for smoking a plant in the comfort of their own homes. They voted *explicitly* for this a year ago when they chose Jeff Sessions to be their Attorney General. What's really funny is how stupid some of them are, acting shocked that electing an anti-pot demagogue would result in mj facilities being raided; I know someone like this.
(Score: 5, Touché) by JNCF on Friday November 03 2017, @07:57PM
Parts of Somalia are more libertarian, certainly. There are plenty of countries with lower taxes. Last time I checked, northern Pakistan had some pretty beautiful gun laws (you can purchase anti-aircraft guns without any paperwork).
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday November 04 2017, @01:11PM
That's changing in some ways: A majority of the country now supports legalization of marijuana.
That said, the main reason they support it is that they think of the Drug War as being aimed at people other than themselves. They never think that it's possible they'll be busted for drugs that were planted on them by a cop while they were walking down the street. They never think that they are the homeowner who will have the cops bust in on their family guns blazing. They never think that they'll be the ones roughed up on the side of the highway for exercising their Fourth Amendment rights. They never think that they'll be the one to lose everything they had when the cops seize it via asset forfeiture. They never think that they'll be the ones shot in a battle that has nothing to do with them.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:42PM (2 children)
Capitalism isn't a political system. It's an idealised economic system.
Capitalism as a political system would kill people who weren't rich enough, productive enough (you got a serious illness?, off to the efficiency chamber with you), or expected to be productive enough (bad grades?, off to the efficiency chamber with you). Things like slavery would be just fine, as long as it's profitable enough for the shareholders.. The only ethic and morals is profit for the owners. In fact, we can see the effects of treating it like a political system. As just one example, universal health care, which is cheaper and more effective on a societal level but would mean much less profit for a very wealthy group.
(Score: 3, Informative) by UncleSlacky on Friday November 03 2017, @07:12PM
>Capitalism as a political system would kill people who weren't rich enough, productive enough (you got a serious illness?, off to the efficiency chamber with you),
Like what happens to people without health insurance?
>Things like slavery would be just fine, as long as it's profitable enough for the shareholders.. The only ethic and morals is profit for the owners
Like private prisons? (thanks, 13th amendment!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 04 2017, @01:14AM
If you kill someone against his will, then you are re-appropriating that person's capital involuntarily.
Well, capitalism is voluntary appropriation of capital. So... NOPE. Not capitalism.
faggot.
(Score: 5, Informative) by UncleSlacky on Friday November 03 2017, @07:10PM
>A government is inherently anti-capitalist;
Industry-funded lobbyists ensuring capitalist-friendly laws get passed don't real...
>there's no way I would voluntarily pay for the service of throwing people into cages for smoking a plant in the comfort of "their own" homes—you'd have to take my money involuntarily. That's not Capitalism.
You would if you owned a pharma company that sold a painkiller that was being outcompeted by marijuana:
http://www.businessinsider.fr/us/police-unions-and-pharmaceutical-companies-fund-anti-marijuana-fight-2014-7/ [businessinsider.fr]
or if you wanted to keep your private prison full of cheap labor:
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/12/08/pot-legalization-opponents-aim-to-protect-their-bottom-line [usnews.com]
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday November 03 2017, @08:51PM
The
libertariananarchist straw man is back!If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Informative) by dry on Saturday November 04 2017, @02:25AM
Huh? Those anti-pot laws were bought and paid for by a capitalist, namely Hearst, who had invested heavily in pulp paper and his investment was threatened by cheap hemp paper.
That's capitalism, investing your capital to get your product to market and government is just a means to save money by buying laws rather then investing in expensive stuff like creating a better product.
Why so many Americans don't seem to understand how capitalism works, I don't know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @04:22PM (6 children)
Will then be dead.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Friday November 03 2017, @04:31PM (5 children)
There is and was no free speech. You always end up paying somehow.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday November 03 2017, @05:38PM (4 children)
There is and was no free speech. You always end up paying somehow.
In Europe they censor to prevent World War 3. In the US we censor to protect corporate profits.
It's illegal for me to tell you how to decrypt a DVD here in the land of reverential free-speech.
(Score: 1) by Woosh on Friday November 03 2017, @07:47PM (1 child)
It's not illegal to tell someone how to decrypt a DVD. It is illegal to decrypt a (copyrighted) DVD. IT Security classes teach about exploits to digital systems in order to train on prevention. As a software engineer, how can I protect a website from SQL injection without actually knowing what it is? Look at the guy who's getting away with selling plans on how to make 3D printed guns under the first amendment. Unless you make the case for national security or any other government mandate (i.e. gag order on jury duty) you're free to talk about whatever you want in any capacity. I also feel like I have to add so long as the platform you're using to exercise that right allows it (i.e. Soylent News, Facebook, etc.)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JNCF on Friday November 03 2017, @08:02PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday November 03 2017, @10:33PM
So they infringe upon people's fundamental rights while deluding themselves into believing they're actually preventing a grand catastrophe? That's just idiotic. Speech is different actions which physically harm others, like making war. If your people are that susceptible to bad ideas, then you are doomed anyway and it's not the fault of the speech but the people implementing its message.
Which is completely unconstitutional and does not justify any form of censorship in the slightest. It's a matter of getting the courts to realize the obvious unconstitutionality of this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 04 2017, @01:17AM
By censoring, complaints can not be seen or heard. People are unhappy, but they hide it.
At some point, society reaches a breaking point. Europe is only a generation or two away from this at most.
There will be a flood of refugees. I don't know where the losers (non-Sunni) will go. Perhaps they will try to reach the USA. Perhaps they will choose Russia or somewhere in South America. Many will die.
(Score: 4, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 03 2017, @04:44PM (30 children)
Fuck Europe. I'm not European. SN is not a European company. They can suck a dick.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:05PM
I appreciate this. I am more than happy to have Europeans of all sorts comment and participating, but if there has to be an assumption of risk for allowing that, it should be on them. If their governments want to restrict their access to this or another site, I will (anonymously) support their effort to stop or change their government, but we (especially you all in the editorial/developer/maintainer group) should never allow that to change how the site operates. I suppose I should go buy another contributor a gift subscription. Thanks to all the people that contribute to this place.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:13PM (5 children)
And they can, you know why? it's because they don't have government agents telling them what genitalia to have contact with unlike the big government amerikkka
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:50PM (3 children)
lolwut
Oh, oh, oh, I've got it. You're a homosexual man living in Texas, and you're frustrated by sodomy laws. I'm with you 100%! Government should not be in the marriage business, and it certainly should not be regulating people's sex lives!
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 03 2017, @06:35PM (2 children)
You're both living a decade or two in the past. You can buttfuck your boyfriend till his colon falls out in Texas in $current_year.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by krishnoid on Friday November 03 2017, @06:43PM (1 child)
IANAL, but that seems like it would fall afoul of at least some law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @06:56PM
Littering?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday November 03 2017, @07:30PM
"big government of bukake"
FTFY
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Informative) by maxwell demon on Friday November 03 2017, @05:16PM (6 children)
I'm also pretty sure SN is not a tech giant. Or did I miss something?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:20PM
You just don't understand that the donation meter is measured in millions of dollars
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @06:33PM (3 children)
No shit
anyway I approve of their privacy policies, those europe people.
they are doing more good for my privacy than republicans EVER did no matter who was in charge of which house.
i am not saying democrats did it right, but they at least listened. the current administration and their incredibly anti-consumer rights approach to business is so appalling i feel sorry for the ignorance of my fellow americans, but I am sure they already have something marketed to them to make them feel better if they buy it.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 03 2017, @07:01PM (2 children)
No, pretty much everyone's pissed off about Trump's boy's Internet decisions who's heard about them. Yes, even Trump fans. What, you think they're like Democrats and think their guy in office is some sort of holy priest?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @07:56PM (1 child)
No, it appears they believe he is a God Emperor, they probably envisage themselves as priests spreading the bad word and kicking immigrants in the nuts.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 03 2017, @10:12PM
Put. Down. The. Kool-Aid.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 03 2017, @06:36PM
What, you think they go easier on the little guys who can't afford lawyers?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @06:14PM
I was going to make a post about privacy laws and how I think those are a good thing, but obviously from the article that is not what they're getting at.
So censorship, plain and simple. Oh, along with official propaganda campaigns. Ugh.
Such laws will fix nothing and will most likely have a backlash that is even worse. Silver lining though, perhaps it will drive people to actually adopt decentralized and encrypted communication channels.
The answer to crime and violence has always been the same, get real people investigating. Creating some sort of automated system is bad, even though it sounds good at the start to some. Red light cameras went bad, automated content removal systems went bad and punish innocents. I can't think of more right now, but I'm curious to see how self driving cars will go.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @06:28PM (2 children)
US server, US law should apply. The "open borders" psychopaths think this concept should somehow extend their authoritarian bullshit. I don't reside or do business in Africa and just because my site is accessible from there, I am not subject to their fucking laws. The EU and other censors can simply fuck right off. And if they really don't like terrorism, how about policing their physical borders rather than attempting to infringe on virtual ones?
(Score: 2) by looorg on Friday November 03 2017, @07:09PM (1 child)
Most of the US "tech giants" have giant server- and datacenters in EUrope to server the European market. So inside Europe, European laws. Adapt or fuck off to your side of the pond.
https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/global-infrastructure/ [amazon.com]
https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/inside/locations/index.html [google.com]
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/technology/us-europe-cloud-computing-amazon-microsoft-google.html [nytimes.com]
http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/content-tracks/design-build/facebook-to-build-second-data-center-in-sweden/85409.fullarticle [datacenterdynamics.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @08:35PM
Which they can and should remove.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @06:50PM
european here.
thank you.
please follow the laws of the country you and your server reside in.
i am happy that I can connect to it from outside your country, and I hope I won't have to fight for the right to connect to it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by looorg on Friday November 03 2017, @06:59PM (8 children)
If US companies doesn't want to have their "silicon valley goodness" spread to Europe that has almost twice the population of the US and instead go suck a dick I'm cool with that. If they want to peddle their warez in Europe they should adopt and adapt to European rules just like if they want to sell them anywhere else outside the USA. Just like other companies adapt to American standards when they want to sell their stuff in the USA. I don't really see a fault with that.
I know a lot of people would probably suffer great mental anguish if they didn't get their daily Facebook fix and such but I'd be cool with it. Some other other company would swoop in and fill the void in no time. But it still wouldn't bother me one way or the other.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 03 2017, @07:07PM (7 children)
You'd actually be fine with your government setting up the Great Firewall of $state and don't think they'd abuse it once in place? I don't think I'll ever understand people who think like that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by looorg on Friday November 03 2017, @07:13PM (3 children)
I'm not saying I'd be fine with that. I'm saying that if you want to sell your warez in Europe you adapt to the local laws just like European companies that want to sell their stuff in America adapt to the american ways and laws. If one doesn't like it then try peddling the stuff on one of the other continents. Except they won't accept the american way either, just ask China. But the high paying consumer market in Europe is just to juicy to give up. So you adapt and then apparently cry like a bitch about it to the WSJ or your share holders or whomever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @08:56PM
No, they only have to do that if they have a US office. Should the law of England and Wales suddenly apply to a NYC apartment if I want to travel over and crash on someones couch for a week? Why would it be different for me interacting with people on a US based forum?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 03 2017, @10:14PM (1 child)
Ahh. Roger. Personally, I think Europe would blink first if their people were suddenly cut off from most of the top sites on the Internet.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Friday November 03 2017, @11:14PM
You may be surprised how fast those services will be replaced by local clones. Look at yandex and the like.
I know for a fact many apps have clones in the language of their country - happens a lot in my country of origin.
They won't have zillions of subscribers, won't ever go global, but they do charge low fees for their service and are operating under a much stricter privacy legislation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 04 2017, @01:47AM (2 children)
I think you'll admit that there is plenty of suck in the way our tech industry does business. It seems that all of them view American citizens/consumers/whatever as assets to be exploited. Although we, as a group, do little to inspire respect, American business makes it's disrespect obvious. Europe seems to demand a minimal level of respect for human rights.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 04 2017, @02:17AM (1 child)
Like the right to free speech? Naw. They give not a fuck about the people. They're just pandering for votes same as any politicians.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 04 2017, @02:28AM
I was referring more to rights like privacy. Corporations have no right to data mining. I do have a right to privacy, however poorly defined that right might be.
Pandering for votes, of course. But, if the votes demand that US corporations respect privacy, then so be it. And, if Euros don't care about their right to free speech, the politicians will strip that right away. It's up to them.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Sunday November 05 2017, @04:59AM (1 child)
Only 4 sentences packed into 83 characters... and I'm not quite sure where to begin.
I agree with 50% of your message and loathe the other 50%. Your score is currently marked as flamebait with 4 with points because you received 2 insightfulls, 2 flamebaits, 1 informative, and 1 funny -- a fair rating, so I'll just leave everything as is.
First off, I agree with you on the legality of free speech. It should be completely open. However, when I first read the words "Fuck Europe" and that Europe could "suck a dick", I thought you were talking about people like me. I'm an American living in Europe (because I dared fall in love with a European). However, knowing your history and re-reading the post, I know you're talking about politicians, the political situation, etc. BUT...
For your information, if Soylent News were to ever be filtered in Germany, I -- one of your fellow Americans who agrees with you about free speech -- would lose an important source to help remind me how to critically think. It's one of the very few places I can find people that help challenge my way of thinking because it doesn't often fall prey to over simplifying a complex situation in a tweet-sized "message". Which is what leads me be miffed at you because you are over-simplifying a complex situation with a tweet-sized message. The very thing that both left and right wingers are guilty of.
Look, I'm not European either, but with your tweet size rant, you're insulting both a lot of Germans I know and the many Americans who live here when you say "I'm not European... They can suck a dick."
Yeah, I know. You couldn't give a shit about our feelings.
But here's a pro tip from someone trying to educate the masses that you're thumbing your nose at: Don't insult your target group. You have a bad habit of that and if you want to change the world, you have to look at things from other people's perspective and alter what you say to they will be receptive to your ideas. People do have feelings and when those feelings are hurt, your message will not be received. Although there's a time to be crass and insensitive, you cross that line waaaay too often. You're hurting your own cause.
Or, maybe you don't want to change the world and you really want to tell about 7 billion people on the planet to suck a dick. (Including your fellow Americans living abroad.) I don't know. I can't ever tell with you.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday November 05 2017, @11:30AM
I thought it obvious from the context that this was a targeted "fuck you" rather than a broad spectrum one.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:20PM (4 children)
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
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)
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
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @10:26PM (1 child)
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
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
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:32PM (2 children)
Require google to mod down on court order, and forbid real names on facebork or insist that all posts are private unless explicitly and individually marked public, require warrants to collect any personal information these companies hold, and require specific opt in for any personal information collection as well as compensation for sales or trading of that information.
The wholesale violation of peoples expectations of privacy have created a wonderland for fascists and moral majority types, stop the flow of information you stop the violence that comes from it. Just stop trying to monitor every aspect of peoples lives for private profit, the Dutched burned their hall of records when the Nazis invaded for a reason
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @09:48PM (1 child)
This time the Nazis learned, it's not "Nineteen eighty four" but "Brave new world"...
If you're not familiar with the books, go fix that tonight. There's a library close by.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 04 2017, @04:18AM
> There's a library close by.
Socialist!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @06:38PM
Easy answer: let's say you're the boss of Yaceboogle, and you're worried about EU laws and US attitudes - or even chinese laws. Whatever. The answer is the same.
Parent company in ... oh, say, the Caymans. Why not?
Subsidiaries in all kinds of other countries, operating financially independently from each other.
Now, if Bob Kiddiesex Terrorlist in Berlin decides to post something about how jews are all good for making soap, and does so on Yaceboogle.de, he gets shut down good and hard. So he signs on to Yaceboogle.us, and posts his thing. Now it's not the german company's problem, and if Germany wants to cry about it they can firewall their country.
Problem solved.
And just in case one Yaceboogle tentacle goes bananas and picks up gazillion yuan fines and goes bust? That's why we have limited liability corps.
This balkanisation nonsense will die when we replace broken IPv4Q with something better, but that's not happening just yet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @07:00PM (1 child)
Individual freedom is much more important. Without the state's/corp's big money on our side we have to overcome censorship and ensure robust open access on our own. Doesn't seem to likely though, does it? Humans still do need a dictator to get things done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @07:46PM
Freedom for people is not relevant to any of these entities, violence, oppression and murder are the only objectives, in short Terror.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by kanweg on Saturday November 04 2017, @12:29AM (2 children)
In the US, free speech is revered. Truth, not so much. If people were taught that opinions aren't equal and that an opinion that is in line with reality deserves more respect than one that isn't, then matters would be different
....
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday November 04 2017, @01:10AM
Is free speech revered? What about obscenity censorship (it might be used sparsely but the courts accept it), NSLs, free speech zones, laws against public nudity (which I consider this a form of expression), censorship by the FCC, DMCA takedown notices, and the restrictions on circumventing digital restrictions management created by laws like the DMCA? All of those things are completely unconstitutional. Only certain types of free speech are revered, and not even by everyone. The best you could say is that the US might be better than others, but that is not saying much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 04 2017, @02:25AM
When truth is enshrined too highly over things like free speech, "truth" usually ends up being decided by whoever has the power to force "agreement."