SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
'No longer acceptable' for platforms to take key decisions alone, EU Commission says
It is "no longer acceptable" for social media giants to take key decisions on online content removals alone, following the high profile takedowns of US President Trump's accounts on Facebook and Twitter, the European Commission has said.
Trump's accounts have been suspended by the two platforms for inciting calls to violence ahead of the violent riots that hit Washington's Capitol Hill last week.
Speaking to lawmakers on Monday (11 January), Prabhat Agarwal, an official who heads up the eCommerce unit at the European Commission's DG Connect, noted how the EU executive's Digital Services Act attempts to realign the balance between effective content removal and preserving freedom of expression online.
"It is no longer acceptable in our view that platforms take some key decisions by themselves alone without any supervision, without any accountability, and without any sort of dialogue or transparency for the kind of decisions that they're taking," Agarwal said.
"Freedom of expression is really a key value in this," he told the European Parliament's internal market committee.
The comments came following concerns raised by some lawmakers in the European Parliament following the suspension of Trump's social media accounts. In doing so, platforms giants had demonstrated that they yield a disproportionate degree of power over the freedom of speech online.
"The fact that platforms like Twitter and Facebook decide who can speak freely is dangerous," Green MEP Kim van Sparrentak said.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Friday January 15 2021, @02:59PM (34 children)
Twitter is speech in about the same way that a toilet full of smelly shit is nutrients. A trillion flies may eat shit, but that does not make it right.
Remember that Twitter(R)(TM) is a private company running a private web site, so what is being exercised here is TWITTER'S freedom of speech.
It is absolutely mind boggling how few people realize that Twitter is not some kind of public utility. Change that, and then we can talk about freedom of speech.
Until then -
Twitter to Trump: "We reserve the right to refuse service to ASSHOLES like YOU."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DannyB on Friday January 15 2021, @03:16PM (32 children)
If bakers don't have to make gay cakes that they oppose, then why should Twitter or Amazon or any other platform have to host repulsive speech they strongly oppose?
The same arguments apply. They are private businesses. (Even if publicly traded, they are by law required to be profitable to investors. The investing public has means to vote for directors, etc.) And let's not forget the Republican mantra: Corporations are people too! So they have opinions.
One precedent for corporations (who are people too) having free speech was good ol' Search King. Search King had found a way to game Google's algorithm to bring their evil spam to the top of search results. Evil Google modified their algorithm to prevent this. Google's argument was that its search results were Google's opinion of what it believed the end users wanted from their search query. Search King had no right to dictate what Google's opinion was regarding the most relevant results to a query.
Taking Parler for example. There is absolutely nothing standing in the way of Parler doing what Amazon did. (And Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, and others) Buy some land. Secure multiple independent redundant large scale power feeds. Secure multiple high speed independent redundant internet backbone connections. Build a data center. Install hundreds of thousands of Linux servers. Install large scale cooling equipment. Backup power systems. Build security. Hire a security force. Hire an IT force. (People smarter than those who wrote Parler.) Then host whatever hateful untrue speech you want! Nobody can tell you no! You could even do like Amazon and run a side business of hosting other people's servers that have equally vulgar content!
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday January 15 2021, @05:18PM (14 children)
Because a baker is accountable for their product while Twitter isn't.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 15 2021, @05:44PM (4 children)
What does that even mean? The baker is accountable?
If you are referring to food safety, I would expect the cake maker could construct a gay cake using the same ingredients as a heterosexual cake. To the same standards of quality and safety. The colors on the gay cake might not be a dull and drab as a heterosexual cake.
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday January 15 2021, @06:43PM (3 children)
It means that if the bread ends up toxic then the baker is liable while if Twitter ends up transferring a message that leads to someone's death, they're not.
Actually I believe the baker was asked to decorate the cake with a gay couple figurine or some inscription... Regardless, the point is that if craftsmen are responsible for their products, they should be allowed to deny service however they see fit. But if Twitter is not responsible for their product, they shouldn't have the power to deny service however they see fit.
So, if Twitter wants to edit or block specific speech, they should be liable to the content they transmit. There's exceptions for copyrights (since that's trade) and "Imminent lawless action"*. However, that's to do with specific messages rather than blocking per-user. And since not everything Trump says is a call for "Imminent lawless action", Twitter wasn't suppose to block his account entirely.
*And hate speech in the EU but lets not bother with that just now...
compiling...
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday January 15 2021, @07:19PM
Regardless, the point is that if craftsmen are responsible for their products, they should be allowed to deny service however they see fit.
I think "artist" is a better term here: I think this was left out of the debate in court, and I think it's an important distinction. I personally wouldn't buy from a cake-baker that won't make a custom cake for a homosexual wedding, but I do have to acknowledge that asking someone for **custom art** is not the same as just walking into a store and asking to buy something off-the-shelf. With other types of art, artists usually have discretion over who they will accept commissions from. A talented painter is *not* required to take a commission from someone who wants him to make a painting glorifying Hitler or somesuch. I don't see why the cake-maker is any different: what they're selling isn't a cake, it's artwork on a cake.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 15 2021, @07:59PM (1 child)
Your argument about creative art is a good one. Twitter / Amazon etc are just using machines to process packets.
On the subject of liability. I believe that internet hosts should have BOTH liability protection from what others write AND the right to police their platforms. Not Ethier/Or. And if the shoe was on the other foot, you would agree. A right wing platform being forced to allow disagreeable content or lose liability protection seems stupid to you does it not?
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday January 16 2021, @02:35PM
Right now they're filtering out the lies Trump says. Next time they'll filter out inconvenient truths and legitimate political opposition. They're already in an extremely powerful (and lucrative) position where they can mine personal data per-user thus providing advertisers tools to influence consumer and political actions. We shouldn't give them even more power by removing the last restraint they're bound to.
What shoe? I'm not a Republican or a Trump supporter. In fact, if they just taken down the specific posts that called for the coup (which I believe Trump should be hanged for along with the other Republicans that join him) I would have been fine with that since there's specific laws about such calls for lawlessness. But kicking him out of a supposedly free speech platform that enjoys protections from liability based on the premise they don't filter content was taking things too far.
compiling...
(Score: 2, Touché) by hemocyanin on Friday January 15 2021, @07:00PM (8 children)
It's also worth noting that with bakers, there's more than one bakery. And if you go out and try to start a competing bakery, you won't have you're power, water, and phone shut down and your delivery van firebombed.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @07:41PM
ok boomer
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 15 2021, @08:04PM (5 children)
In today's world, in redneckistan, if you start a bakery that would make a gay cake [that might turn other people gay], you might have bad things happen including losing your life. We're talking about people who openly advocate overthrowing the government over their dislike of the election results. Murdering, torturing or raping elected officials. Don't be so sure of what would happen in these dangerous communities of 'christian' people.
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday January 15 2021, @10:13PM (4 children)
The last 10 years, and especially the last five, have been pretty mind bending. I always felt my tribe was on the left -- educated, secular, open minded, socially libertarian, egalitarian, anti-authoritarian types. It turns out that those values are not "left", though for a while the left parroted them, and that because my views have remained consistently with those principles, I am not a lefty. I had conflated adherence to liberal values with lefitsm and for that, I was mistaken.
What is interesting is that those you sanctimoniously label "redneck" -- at least the people I know to whom that would apply -- seem to be the ones these days who are open minded, socially libertarian, and anti-authoritarian. They're still religious and all, but so what? That's their right and as long as they aren't trying to force me to conform to their religious principles (like we saw in the 80s and 90s), I don't care. If they change into authoritarians again (and I would agree that such a possibility exists based on past performance and warrants monitoring), then I will care. Currently though, it is the left-authoritarians who are the greatest immediate threat to liberal values and so you lot have my focus.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2021, @11:59AM
"Left" and "right" is in illusion. An oversimplication that makes you think you know how things actually work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @03:15AM (1 child)
And, guess what? Still are! You always were a closet Republican, yearning to get out and show your true racist colors, hemo! Just own it!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @07:27PM
Nah, virtue signalling while defending trumpworld is his bag. Probably a troll account, how anyone with two brain cells could call themselves liberal, secular, ethical, etc while in any way supporting trump the wannabe dictator is beyond me.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday January 18 2021, @03:48PM
Maybe I should not use the term "redneckistan". It felt good in the moment. I'm sure like people throwing out TDS.
As for religious, I am definitely religious. Mainstream Christian views. Yet I can find nothing redeeming or appealing about Trump.
To see so many professing Christians hang on every word he says, uncritically accept every conspiracy theory that comes along, is astonishing. Then if they say anything about the gospel of Jesus Christ, which you don't seem to hear them speak of these days, they expect people to believe the gospel.
I don't have a problem with people having conservative views. I can even find some common ground here on some issues. But Trumpism is a religious cult from all appearances.
I do not have any special love for Biden, and didn't have any special love for Obama or Hillary. Although IMO they both have far better character than Trump and are far less dangerous.
The fact that up to the present time, people on SN still blame Democrats for Trump being elected is astonishing to me. I just don't know what to think they are thinking. And trying to overthrow the election because they don't like the outcome because of some astonishing conspiracy theory. But I don't seem to hear the words "deep state" these days. When I look at the right, strong words like "left authoritarian" don't really get a rise out of me now that I've heard so many insanely astonishing things from the right.
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday January 16 2021, @08:06PM
How many people did you get killed for your reputation to be that bad?
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ElizabethGreene on Friday January 15 2021, @05:46PM (13 children)
I'm deeply conflicted on this. As a libertarian, I believe companies do have the right to choose who they do business with. I am also a child of the "Information wants to be free." I have great difficulty accepting that censorship is good for me whether it's done by Net Nanny, Facebook, Twitter, or the great firewall. The part that is unclear is where we cross the line from free choice to censorship. The issue is further confused because services like AWS and Twitter have long hidden behind Section 230's "We're just a platform" protections. If they are making value decisions about what content is relevant and acceptable for their customers to share then that greatly stretches the definition of platform.
I believe the EU is right to have the discussion.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 15 2021, @06:09PM (8 children)
If there really is a market to host such objectionable content, then won't the invisible hand . . .
* buy a bunch of land
* build a large data center on it
* secure multiple independent redundant major electrical service
* secure multiple independent redundant internet backbone connections
* install hundreds of thousands of Linux servers
* install lots of heavy duty cooling equipment
* build security
* hire security personnel
* hire IT personnel (smarter than those who wrote Parler)
* repeat above procedure to have data centers in multiple regions and internationally
Nobody is stopping Parler from doing this. Parler could even do as Amazon, and rent out servers to others who want to host such repugnant content.
Free speech does not mean others have to listen.
Free speech does not mean others have to host it or allow it on their property.
On a different thought.
Why shouldn't platforms have BOTH liability protection from what others write AND the ability to police for objectionable content? Why should it be Either/Or?
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Friday January 15 2021, @06:37PM (7 children)
How far would these internet separatists need to go? Is it okay for payment processors like Visa and Paypal to block access to them too?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 15 2021, @06:48PM (4 children)
Interesting. I hadn't even thought of that one.
If they are that much of a leper colony, maybe they should rethink?
If they could build international data centers, maybe they could also build a global payment processing network and get every local neighborhood bank and merchant to sign on.
Others have built their internet or payment processing properties at significant expense.
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 3, Informative) by ElizabethGreene on Friday January 15 2021, @06:53PM (3 children)
This isn't hypothetical. I'm thinking of the banking blockade against WikiLeaks, specifically. IIRC Visa still has 6 figures of donations for them they won't release.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 15 2021, @07:09PM
I get that. And I've heard of others that Visa / MC won't process payments for. Some of which I find questionable.
Thinking about it some, I believe the payment processors are the ones with the real power. Much more so than the obstacle of building a data center. Even a small one. Or finding a hosting platform. CloudFlare is pretty neutral, but sometime back, even CloudFlare deplatformed 8chan. I don't know anything about 8chan, but from the discussion it must have been pretty bad.
Parler probably conflicts a lot of people. Free speech is great, on your own dime, on your own property or that of some other willing property owner. And to a willing audience. But somewhere there is a line when we're talking insurrection and overthrowing the government -- especially because they don't like the outcome of the democratic process of elections. Somewhere in there is a line beyond just free speech.
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday January 15 2021, @07:12PM (1 child)
Also, banks refusing to do business with gun retailers and even insurance companies are getting into the mix with AIG dropping coverage for Curt Schilling.
I am quite libertarian as well, but one of the roles of a limited government is to prevent monopolists and oligarchs from taking over control. So we need to figure out how to prevent this from going further in a way that protects as many freedoms as possible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @03:30AM
Well, hell's bells! I wouldn't cover him either! If you are that much a risk, that much of a loser, then you will not get insurance!
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday January 15 2021, @07:30PM
Nothing is stopping Parler from accepting personal checks sent by USPS. If they can't find a bank to do business with them (which really shouldn't be that hard, with that much money at stake), they can always go to check-cashing stores.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @07:31PM
it is, *if* the seditious whores in congress get rid of the money laundering (non-crime bs for lazy pigs to protect the banks. you know the people who actually do the actual money laundering) laws and the monopoly on legal tender granted to the international criminals at the federal reserve. Then, people can easily accept monero or other currencies.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday January 15 2021, @07:09PM (3 children)
Free market and other libertarian principles work in the absence of a monopolistic system. When a monopoly arises though, those principles fuel the disease rather than counter it. It's like an auto-immune disease -- our immune system is awesome and gives us the ability to live, until it doesn't and turns its weapons against us. When you have related but different monopolies colluding as we saw with Parler, it should be pretty obvious that there is a complete break down not so much in the free market idea that companies should be free to do what they want, but in what free market concepts are thought to provide: competition and choice. If we focus on the "competition and choice" aspect of free markets, there shouldn't really be any cognitive dissonance -- there is no free market when there is only one player. A monopolistic "free market" system is indistinguishable from a communist state monopoly, it's just wrapped up in different propaganda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @10:56PM (2 children)
So libertarian until someone chooses to use their liberty to not interact with you? Got it *rolles eyes*
Build your own! Or do you prefer forcing the baker to bake that gay cake? What if it is the only baker in town? UNFAIR MONOPOLY!?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ElizabethGreene on Saturday January 16 2021, @12:57AM (1 child)
The Bakery case is an interesting one if you dig past the scab. The court found that asking an artist to use their skills in producing a one-off custom good is substantially different from a commodity goods. That's irrelevant in the Parler, Twitter v. Trump, and Wikileaks discussions though, as Political ideology is not a protected class like sexual orientation, age, or gender.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @07:31PM
Yup, which is why I keep suggesting that if someone feels unfairly discriminated against then they should get a court case and try to jave lrecedent set. Or get a politician to put forth legislation to add protections.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @06:18PM
Corporate speech is entirely the result of bench law, and if it was ever seriously challenged it would probably fall. The dictionary act was never intended to carry the weight of constitutional amendment, though the courts have largely treated it so. And by doing that they have enabled foreign interference in domestic politics in conflict with the article 1 emuluments clause.
Public corps are international because they are compelled by federal statutes to serve the stockholders. And those stockholders are not required to be citizens, and the corporations have no control over the interests that actually possess the stock. IOW public corporations are REQUIRED by law to operate in the service of non-domestic capital interests. These are not just foreign business's but actual government institutions, such as national pension funds, and foreign national banks.
And it isn't; nor was it ever; reasonable to conclude that the founders wished it to be so, since the revolutionary war was actually started as a result of foreign corporate interference. Foreign trade corporations did exist in 1776, and that is exactly who the exchequer was going to give John Hancocks cargo too. A little hot tar later, and you have the continental congress. Fighting against foreign corporate interference in domestic trade is what created this country.
So no, corporations didn't have that right in 1789, nor did the dictionary act grant it. The courts have, out of convenience, created a monster out of one line of legislation over a hundred years ago.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @07:15PM (1 child)
The baker case has been grossly misrepresented. The ruling wasn't that the baker didn't have to bake a cake, but only that they didn't have to provide custom decorations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @03:33AM
Yeah, but when that baker spilled Hot Holey Coffee on the poor victim, after having been warned several times that the coffee (cake) was too damned hot, then the court case makes sense, and all these calls for tort reform are moot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @03:18PM
So what you are saying is that twitter users and shit-eating pestilence spreading flies... Yeah, pretty much.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @03:22PM (7 children)
The EU politicians see just how much power can be wielded by foreigners outside their reach or control (Californis companies). If they can do this to the President of the mighty USA, they can easily do it to them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Friday January 15 2021, @03:29PM
And they're correct to be afraid. Companies don't have long term loyalties. They barely have long term interests.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @03:38PM (5 children)
It still makes me wonder why those type of companies exist in the US, but don't seem to get developed in Europe. I doubt it is the innovation or effort to start a company like that in Europe, but more like there are road blocks in the way that allow these companies to grow beyond a specific stage in Europe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @04:16PM (1 child)
Even China is starting to develop relatively large social media platforms, platforms that are being used in America. Think Tiktok among others. Even consider Amazon competitors like Alibaba for online retail. Come to think about it China (and Asia) is beginning to get better at a lot of things that Europe isn't really catching up with. Think semiconductors.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @04:32PM
and the more I think about it this seems to extend to tech in general. Think apps in general such as payment apps.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @04:40PM (1 child)
Europe is too socialist, and that means stagnation. There is no ability to hire and fire as needed (rigid labor laws), too many other regulations for businesses to meet, and the expectation that the govt is the entity you look towards to "provide" for you in life. Plus crazy taxation that doesn't let you keep nearly as much of the money as the US does. Europe's outlook is static, cautious, and status quo. It prefers predictable mediocrity instead of daring to risk for better. If this sounds like I am bragging as an American, we are headed to becoming you if our new trends continue. Socialism is very popular right now with our govt and business elite. The reason why is exactly because it IS about maintaining the status quo... for our present wealthy ruling class. Rigid control rather than freewheeling capitalism keeps the aristocracy from being replaced.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2021, @12:07PM
If you think that US aristocracy changes often you are rather naive.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by choose another one on Friday January 15 2021, @04:42PM
I think it is the growth beyond "national" size.
The EU likes to present itself as a homogenous "market" or trading block, but in reality it is still very fragmented.
Create a platform in, say, France and try to grow beyond France.
Once you get beyond Belgium, you hit the language problem, no problem, we'll make it fully multilingual and unicode compliant.
[several years later...]
Solved the language problem, now you got the culture problem, plenty of Germans, Italians, Spanish, etc. won't use it because it is a French platform, even if it's not in French anymore. OR if they _do_ use it you get too big and called a monopoly by all the smaller German, Italian, Spanish, etc competitors you just crushed.
Oh, and still got the free-speech problem too, all the EU has "free speech" enshrined in law. Differently. Germany, for one, has a bloody great "everything Nazi" exception to free speech. Some states have blasphemy laws, sometimes only protecting certain religions, other states view blasphemy as acceptable. Run your platform across the "single market" and you could be sanctioned in one state for refusing to remove content and sanctioned elsewhere if you do remove it.
Far easier (and therefore more likely to succeed) to start in the US, a homogenous market with a single language (for now) and then grow so big that EU users can't ignore you. Same applies to China to some extent, but many users in the EU can cope with English, Mandarin not so much.
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Friday January 15 2021, @04:09PM
Come back, all is forgiven. You were right, after all.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @04:10PM (2 children)
Why doesn't the EU start its own competing social media platform?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @05:49PM (1 child)
They could start by declaring all.other platforms illegal.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Friday January 15 2021, @06:21PM
Or try alt.other.platforms.illegal
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday January 15 2021, @06:10PM (2 children)
I swear, whatever this EU committee is called, their entire job seems to be to complain about how US tech companies do things and try to impose unreasonable restrictions on them. See also "right to be forgotten", threats of "national Internets", etc., etc.
Not that we're a lot better, since "regulation" is apparently a curse word in the minds of half the US, and we can't even get a Net Neutrality law to stick.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Troll) by DannyB on Friday January 15 2021, @06:27PM (1 child)
The job of the US DOJ is to punish companies for breaking the law.
The job of the EU is to punish companies for being successful.
That may explain why no big tech social media platforms seem to be able to arise in the EU.
Silicon Valium has too much power. (compared to the rest of the power grid)
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2021, @12:12PM
A monopoly company is being successful. Literally. Therefore it should not be punished. Right?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 15 2021, @06:25PM (2 children)
Judge Not Impressed By Parler's Attempt To Force Amazon To Put It Back Online [techdirt.com]
Maybe if your users' content is so bad nobody will host it, you should rethink your message. Or rethink the users you wish to attract.
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @08:02PM (1 child)
The whole point of the right to freedom of speech is to protect unpopular speech, because popular speech doesn't need protection. All you are advocating is for Parler to do to their users what AWS is doing to them.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 15 2021, @08:10PM
Elsewhere in this thread I suggest that Parler could build its own data centers and not be beholden to anyone.
If there is a real market for such "speech" then the invisible hand would build it?
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @07:45PM
US Attorneys General ordered Facebook to censor their content [kiwifarms.net]
The EU's Internet censorship board is already in place. [catbox.moe] Not coincidentally, it's the ISIS recruitment network in Europe.
The British foreign office is running a front for Hamas. [archive.org] They are the human intelligence inside the tech companies.
Here are two maps of their network: one [catbox.moe], two [catbox.moe].