Slashdot Mirror
EU Gives Ultimatum To Facebook and Twitter: Obey Us Or We'll Start Regulating (theregister.co.uk)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Register: The EU Commission has fired a shot across Facebook and Twitter's bows, having issued a proclamation decreeing that "social media platforms" must do more to remove "illegal content inciting hatred, violence and terrorism online." Although what is said in the EU proclamation is nothing new -- indeed, in the UK, the measures proposed by the EU's talking heads have been standard practice for years -- what matters here is not what is being said publicly, but instead the threat of what might happen unless Facebook appeases the bloc's leaders. The EU said that platforms should appoint dedicated points of contact for police forces and other State agencies to talk to about illegal content; appoint trusted content moderators ("flaggers," in EU-ese); and invest in "automatic detection technologies." In addition, illegal content should be deleted within "specific timeframes."
All straightforward; nothing new there, at least from the British perspective. Yet the threat is in the EU's later words: "Today's communication is a first step and follow-up initiatives will depend on the online platforms' actions to proactively implement the guidelines. The Commission will carefully monitor progress made by the online platforms over the next months and assess whether additional measures are needed."
All straightforward; nothing new there, at least from the British perspective. Yet the threat is in the EU's later words: "Today's communication is a first step and follow-up initiatives will depend on the online platforms' actions to proactively implement the guidelines. The Commission will carefully monitor progress made by the online platforms over the next months and assess whether additional measures are needed."
What is so difficult in understanding: the EU has more or less the exact same free speech laws like the US.
There are very few restrictions regarding hate speech.
USA has _similar restrictions_ regarding hate speech ... they are just in different law book.
For your daily way of life there is no noticeable difference in EU or US treatment of citizens public posts.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
By that logic free speech is unacceptable in the US as well, since sometimes speech can be a crime. Fraud, credible threats, harassment, leaking state secrets, causing injury or death through panic... There are all sorts of ways that speech in the US can get you into legal difficulties.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Didn't the USA take the title when it dropped nukes on the Japanese?
How many people do you think were killed by those 2 bombs? They weren't even the deadliest bombing runs of the war.
Do you include the many thousands/millions that didn't die from invading Japan? Seriously, check out Operation Downfall. For some perspective, Olympic estimated 766,700-815,548 personnel while Normandy landings had 156,000.
That radical party also silenced opposing opinions. You know who's doing that now? Hint: it's not AFD.
The fact that you can overlook that is precisely how Nazis got a hold of the nation. When "the good guys" do bad things, people forgive or even defend them. After all, they're "the good guys" who will make everything better and will never abuse their power.