Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU To Give Internet Firms 1 Hour To Remove Extremist Content (go.com)

Posted by msmash on from the further-crackdown dept.

European authorities are planning to slap internet companies like Google, Twitter and Facebook with big fines if they don't take down extremist content within one hour. From a report: European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said in a speech Wednesday that the Commission is proposing the new rules as part of efforts to step up the bloc's security. He said that removing material within an hour is important because it's "the critical window in which the greatest damage is done." The EU's executive body said "propaganda that prepares, incites or glorifies acts of terrorism" must be taken offline. Content would be flagged up by national authorities, who would issue removal orders to the internet companies hosting it. Those companies would be given one hour to delete it. The proposal, which still needs approval from EU lawmakers and member states, would be a departure for the EU, which until now has allowed online companies to a take a voluntary approach to battling extremist content. The one-hour rule was among a series of recommendations the Commission made in March to fight the spread of extremist content online.

15 of 238 comments (clear)

  1. Censor what WE say is unacceptable ... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, good luck with that!

    1. Re:Censor what WE say is unacceptable ... by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem is extremist ideas can be created in very insidious ways. Much like the Fat Tony from the Simpsons approach...

      Fat Tony: Bart, um, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?
      Bart: No.
      Fat Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
      Bart: Uh uh.
      Fat Tony: And, what if your family don't like bread? They like...cigarettes?
      Bart: I guess that's okay.
      Fat Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?
      Bart: Hell, no!

      The normal arguments from extremists depending of their audience will work to push the gray areas where parts of the ideas are reasonable, then slowly push the gray areas into the extremist territory. But with an argument with a large gray area, where does one draw a line.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re: Censor what WE say is unacceptable ... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Yeah...I"m wondering who is the judge of what is extremist and must be removed?

      I mean, ok, if it is islamic jihad saying "blow xyz up"...that's pretty easy.

      But if it is some one that gets on and says something racist, or sexist, or some other -ist of the day.....do they compel them to take it down, when it isn't actually promoting violence or damage to someone or some group?

      I know other parts of the world don't have a 1A in their constitutions, but it should be something that most all strive towards, and especially on the internet...it has long been a way for anyone to hook a computer on and have an equal voice in the world.

      It may not be popular or in good taste what they say, but all speech needs to be protected as long as it isn't inciting direct violent, etc......

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Censor what WE say is unacceptable ... by vtcodger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's see if I have this straight. It's 0313 on Sunday morning during the August holidays and the security guard -- the only living entity in the facility -- gets a call from some dude who claims to be European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and is told to remove a racist slogan from somewhere on some website. The ISP now has 1 hour to verify the call isn't a prank, identify the right file, trace through a bunch of obscure Javascript, and get the proper web site off the air. Riiiiiight. No problem there. What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    4. Re:Censor what WE say is unacceptable ... by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bingo, you got it right there. Nothing what so ever to do with extremist content. One hour notice, to pull any political comment and then weeks to put it back up only to have to pull it back down again an hour latter. What is the directive about, bulk 'er' accidental mass political censorship.

      Want to pull something from the internet, do it in court you cunts. If it really was illegal, not only will you get the content pulled but get to hand out a custodial sentence for a criminal act but oh no, that is not what you want, nothing at all to do with crime, oh know wait it is, electoral crimes. Basically using the offices of government to actively and routinely censor the opposition and the public.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  2. Oh please by registrations_suck · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why not just require companies to allow EU officials to log in and delete content they don't approve of themselves?

    Go one better. Allow citizens to flag content as offensive and if the annointed EU officials don't log in and delete it within an hour, sentence them to shubbery hunts.

  3. The Great Firewall by Zorro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of Europe.

  4. Sucks for the News Media by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "propaganda that prepares, incites or glorifies acts of terrorism" I guess most of the news will have to be taken down. This seems really easy to abuse. But Europe has a narrower version of free speech, so it's really no surprise.

  5. Who gets to decide what is extreme? by Nkwe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, that is what I thought.

    Personally I think it is insane that a search engine or indexing company should be in any way responsible for pointing to content that is publicly available on the Internet. I can see take down orders to ISPs hosting content (assuming the content is illegal in the jurisdiction where the servers are), but going after people telling you where the content exists is scary.

    It's a slippery slope and not that far from making the statement "If you go to the library, you can learn out to build a bomb" illegal.

  6. 2 much better laws by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They can't define "extremist content", but it's banned.

    2 much better laws, with the same lack of logic:

    1) Everything bad is banned.

    2) Everything good is required.

  7. Critical Hour by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "He said that removing material within an hour is important because it's "the critical window in which the greatest damage is done...Content would be flagged up by national authorities, who would issue removal orders to the internet companies hosting it. Those companies would be given one hour to delete it."

    So the hour after national authorities find it is this critical window? Everything before that is fine? The greatest damage is only done after the national authorities have flagged it?

    1. Re:Critical Hour by omnichad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And if you remove it at 59:59, it has almost all the impact of that window while 100% compliant. Doesn't make any sense at all. It's allowed to be online for the whole critical window, so what's the point?

  8. And this is how Free Speech dies... by GregMmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It sounds good, but who defines "extremist content" or worse "incites acts of terrorism". It might be clear to you and me what this would be, but how about if you don't agree with what people say who are in control of this definition? You don't think a huge government entity will use it's power to remove content against it's view or agenda? Especially since in their point of view it could "incite acts of terrorism". How about the term "hate speach"? Say something someone doesn't like and it's "hate".

    I hope people wake up soon. Rarely do rights get given back by a government body. They usually have to be ripped from their cold dead hands.

    1. Re:And this is how Free Speech dies... by ljw1004 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It sounds good, but who defines "extremist content" or worse "incites acts of terrorism". It might be clear to you and me what this would be, but how about if you don't agree with what people say who are in control of this definition?

      Just to note, you don't need a definition if instead you have a decision procedure.

      That's basically true of much of common law, and why a lawyer will so often tell you "I can advise you on how to mitigate risk based on precedent but the only way to get a definitive answer for your question is to take it to court".

      I think DMCA is a good example of this. It talks about "infringing material" but the DMCA law as written is actually independent of the details of what counts as infringing. Everything is expressed in terms of the process of sending a takedown letter, then responding, then going to court should there be disagreement. (It didn't touch upon how to deal with DOS takedown-letter attacks, nor how an SLA for responses, but in the light of DMCA then I bet the EU will at least think about these).

      So what it would ultimately boil down to is this: the people who control the definition would be (1) the nation's supreme court, albeit with the narrow remit of having to stick with the intent of the vague words in the statute rather than complete freedom to define it any way they want, and with the various institutional checks and balances that countries have built up over the centuries to stop the supreme courts getting far out of line, and with the ultimate sanction of popular revolt if they do, (2) the practical business considerations that encourage companies to use caution rather than pushing at the edge of the definition, (3) the practical business desires to make money even when that does push at the edge of the definition.

      If the bottom line is you think we shouldn't have any laws unless there's a 100% objective unarguable measurement to determine things -- that would be an interesting thought experiment, but it's far removed from how things are today.

  9. Re:Disband the E.U. by admin7087 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The countries the AC has listed are governed by right-wring governments, one of them more or less a dictatorship, and all of them take down terrorist content and incitements to violence as fast as they can right now, without the need of any EU directive. Turkey has put tens of thousands of citizens into prison under vague terrorist accusations and there are currently, as we speak, EU actions against Hungary and Poland, because their governments have stifled the press and interfered with the judicial system. Last but not least, the UK has enacted extensive internet surveillance laws and is known to barely protect journalists. In a nutshell, these countries belong to those within the EU that are for more censorship, not against it.

    So yeah, the AC's post makes zero sense., even if some US Slashdot mods don't understand that.