Slashdot Mirror
Tech Firms, Don't Fence Us In
Vitaly Friedman writes "A proposed broadcasting law by the European Commission that would regulate emerging media formats in the same way as traditional broadcasting companies draws fire from the companies who say they will be hurt by a one-size-fits-all mentality. From the article 'An alliance of companies, including ITV, Yahoo, Vodafone, Intel and Cisco Systems, warned that a European Commission proposal to impose rules for traditional broadcasters on new media providers could have "unintended consequences" and hurt investment.'"
Business week carrying this story. But it has a couple of snippets missing from the wired report:
1) Its not An alliance of companies, including ITV, Yahoo, Vodafone, Intel and Cisco Systems, warned that...., its an alliance of British companies (and British subsiduries of US companies)
2) The wired article makes no mention of what the actual rules are. From business week: Those rules include limits on hate speech, advertising and the kind of content that can be broadcast to children.
I'm not a big fan of censorship by any stretch of the imagination & I don't particularly support these rules - but I do find wired's reporting of this situation a little skewed (I wonder if wired thinks they'll be effected by this?)
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
As far as I understand it, the proposed rules simply say that any advertising, hate speech or other content rules already applied today for other media in Europe would apply for the same media when online. Where's the problem?
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Media and technology companies warned Tuesday that new European Union broadcasting rules could restrict the growth of emerging media formats such as video broadcasts through the internet and mobile phones.
This discussion is somewhat reminiscent of the development and standardization of GSM cell phones in Europe back in the 80's and early 90's. I'm sure many of the same arguments were made on both sides of the issue. Of course in the US it was decided to let the market sort out the best cell phone technology. Now here we are in the US with multiple competing mobile formats. It is a complicated undertaking for a consumer to decide which mobile operator to choose -- there are coverage maps, different network capabilities, non-overlapping phone models. Add to that the fact that despite all this "competition" the cost to the consumer is fairly high compared to Europe.
So, which is the best way to go? Mandate these sorts of things early on, or let the market evolve? As a died-in-the-wool capitalist I like the idea of letting the market choose the winner. Unfortunately sometimes you end up with what we have in today's US cell phone market - no clear winner and confusion for the consumers.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Is that online content doesn't know about borders. If I post a hate filled advertisement for children in the United States, will I find myself hauled before a French court?
No. European newspapers, broadcasters and other media organizations are the only ones affected, of course.
And likewise, European media happily plastered Janet Jacksons nipple everywhere on the net (as an example of US prudish overreaction, but anyway) without any rebuke from your FTC - and there's plenty of more serious material available in the EU that would be illegal had a US entity posted the same thing.
Any entity can only enforce regulations within their purview. That doesn't mean it's pointless.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
In other news, Hannibal Lector complains that anti-cannibalism laws unfairly restrict his choice of dishes.
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
That is the problem. Hate speech is the catch-all that can be used to shut down any speech which someone or some government entity determines to be offensive.
When promoting hate speech rules the people behind them will always use the most extreme examples of speech they can find. Yet when applied it never ceases to amaze me what gets branded under the category. You will also see groups label the speech of others as "hate speech". With the help of their sister groups they can repeat this claim enough to where people are so used to hearing it they start to believe it true.
Remove the "hate speech" exception and it might be a plausible rule, leave it there and suddenly you may find one day that you cannot speak out against your "righteous leaders"
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Europe has a much more deeper level of product regulations than the US. This is done for consumer protection.
...
Typically the extra rules you see in place in Europe are intended to either:
- Minimize or eliminate the possible damage to consumers caused by long term exposure to something which is contained in a product.
- Make sure that the consumer is informed of the possible negative long term effects of something contained in a product so that the consumer can do an informed choice.
Although things that harm you immediatly are forbidden in products in both Europe and the US, the difference of regulations in both places makes it so that for things that (might) harm you in the longer run, in Europe one or more of the following will happen:
- Its outright forbidden to sell products that contain it.
- Its outright forbidden to sell products that contain it to certain age groups (typically children).
- Manufacturers are mandated by law to inform the consumers of the possible negative side-effects of their products.
The law in the US is much more lax when it comes to both controlling access to products with possible negative long term effects and making sure that consumers know of those risks before actually buying a product.
Thus for example, there is a very well defined set of which chemical additives which are allowed on processed food products.
Another example is that (non-encrypted) public televisions broadcasters cannot broadcast "young adult" content before a specific hour and/or have to rate their content according to a standard "appropriated for age" table and provide those ratings when advertising that content and immediately before broadcasting it.
(Rules for subscription and/or cable broadcasters are usually less strict)
Which brings us to the OP:
- European legislators want to apply to all kinds of public broadcasters the same consumer protection rules already in place for those broadcasters that openly broadcast television by means of radio waves.
Thus things like providing timelly and appropriated information about the adequacy of their content to be viewed by kids.
What's the problem with that?
They're still perfectly free to setup direct-to-consumer online shops that show porn or whatever - consenting adults still have access to whatever they want to see while those parents that don't want their kids to see porn shows can more easilly know what to let or not their kids see.
PS: Note that for all the "regulations" in Europe versus "self-policing" in the US, there was still no problem whatsover with seing Janet Jackson's tittie on the tele around here (compared with some shows one can see after a certain hour of the day, seing JJ's breast in the open was positivelly mild) while in the US most broadcasters self-censured themselfs. No treats for anyone which guesses which place is in practice more open
I like the notion that a law could have "unintended consequences" and that this is somehow a novel concept. All laws have unintended consequences, it's the nature of the beast.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill