Slashdot Mirror


EU Justice Commissioner Quits Facebook, Describing Her Experience as 'Channel of Dirt' (washingtonpost.com)

The European Commissioner for justice, consumers and gender equality shut down her Facebook account, describing her experience on the social network as a "channel of dirt." From a report: At a news conference Thursday in Brussels, Vera Jourova said that she received an "influx of hatred" on the popular platform and decided to cancel her account as a result. "I don't want to avoid communication with people, even with critical people," she said, noting her decision to leave Facebook was not to avoid public criticism. Her mailbox is filled with critical comments, she said, and she responds to those people who don't use vulgar language. "This is my nature, I speak to everybody who wants normal, honest, descent communication." Euractiv earlier reported on Jourova's remarks. At the same news conference, Jourova warned Facebook that it faces the prospect of sanctions from European member states if the company does not comply with consumer protection rules.

127 comments

  1. Qhy quit when you can ban it? by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

    Why doesn't Europe just fine Facebook $100B and then ban it from operating in Europe?

    No need to quit it.

    1. Re:Qhy quit when you can ban it? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      As a European I say that's a good plan.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Qhy quit when you can ban it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think it would be over hurt feelings? What an idiotic thing to say. Maybe you should grow a little grey matter under your skull. It's childishly simple to see this is about consumer protection rules.

    3. Re:Qhy quit when you can ban it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no one cares what europeans think except other europeans.

    4. Re:Qhy quit when you can ban it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if that were the case it's about a third more than live in the US, so FB probably care.

      Not sure why I'm replying to this stupid comment.

    5. Re: Qhy quit when you can ban it? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      "I don't like something, it should be banned."

      Brilliant logic there.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    6. Re:Qhy quit when you can ban it? by ArchieBunker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd argue that Facebook and Twitter do more overall harm than good.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    7. Re: Qhy quit when you can ban it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those numbers can be easily corrected.

    8. Re:Qhy quit when you can ban it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      fuck off you piece of shit fucktard and fuck your fucking mother too

    9. Re:Qhy quit when you can ban it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe shoud just instate a minimum monthly fee for accessing FB, like 5euro. That will sort things a bit.

    10. Re: Qhy quit when you can ban it? by datavirtue · · Score: 2

      Yeah... If you want "normal, honest, descent communication" then you should definitely leave Facebook.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    11. Re:Qhy quit when you can ban it? by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe she should just grow a little skin over those nerve endings.

      If only. TFA just goes to show that no matter how hard you work not to offend a "diversity leader", you will fail and offend them unacceptably. The right answer is to not set a foot down that path, and tell them to GTFO and come back when they have, as you say, grown a thicker skin.

      It's not like Facebook lacks controls on who gets to talk to you (other than advertisers). If you're constantly offended by people you've chosen to associate with, or people you must associate with, chances are in this century the problem is you. "If everyone you see is an asshole, look in the mirror."

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re: Qhy quit when you can ban it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And youâ(TM)d be right!

    13. Re:Qhy quit when you can ban it? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      She is not banning anything, she just unsubscribed. People need to grow thicker skins and not freak out every time someone criticizes socila media.

    14. Re:Qhy quit when you can ban it? by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      Uh....check your sarcasm detector man. The batteries may be out.

    15. Re:Qhy quit when you can ban it? by registrations_suck · · Score: 1, Troll

      Even if that were the case it's about a third more than live in the US...

      Soon, most of Africa may be living there too.

    16. Re: Qhy quit when you can ban it? by registrations_suck · · Score: 2

      "I don't like something, it should be banned."

      Brilliant logic there.

      Well, it seems to be the EU motto.

    17. Re: Qhy quit when you can ban it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One way or the other, Facebook still loses all those clients

    18. Re:Qhy quit when you can ban it? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Possibly. But she *is* a justice commissioner, whatever that means, and Facebook *is* coming in front of the EU Court.

      That said, it could reasonably be argued that she has valid experience with the Facebook environment, and has valid reasons based on actual interactions, i.e. evidence and expertise.

      Personally, I find her sentiments quite believable, based on the reports of many other women who have had publicly noticeable accounts on this or that internet forum. There's a question in my mind as to whether this is specific to Facebook, however, as many of the reports cited some other public media.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    19. Re:Qhy quit when you can ban it? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      What, are you suggesting that Facebook is a tax cheat like Apple?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  2. Boohooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

    Politicians nowadays are pussies, fucking up people's lives, but don't criticize! That will make them cry.

    1. Re:Boohooo by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That still doesn't make FecesBook not a bad thing.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Boohooo by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      No, but a hundred other reasons do.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
  3. Nothing New by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember the flame and channel wars on IRC and FidoNet. When a friend of mine signed up with his ISP (HomeNet) back in the 90s he laughed about their description of IRC in their brochure. "If you don't like being harassed, attacked, hacked and otherwise subjected to hate and vile behavior, stay off IRC. It's the Wild, Wild, West of the Internet." And that summed it up perfectly. I loved it!

    1. Re:Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You loved the hatred?

    2. Re:Nothing New by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      IRC was that way because of the anonymity (other services like Usenet required an email address, which back then was almost always based on your real name).. The Wild West was tamed as civilization and the rule of law rolled out. But this sort of bad behavior on the Internet will persist as long as people can interact anonymously.

      I firmly believe anonymity has benefits for democracy, but it has this unfortunate drawback as well. We need to come up with ideas for how to keep those advantages while discouraging the disadvantages. The real problems are the people who think this is justification for eliminating anonymity entirely, and the absolutists who defend anonymity to the point where they won't accept any compromise.

    3. Re:Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ayup - Facebook will soon go the way of Geocities, MySpace, Usenet and all the cruft that came before it...

    4. Re:Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used IRC a lot back in the 90s and haven't had the same experience. I guess it depends on which channels you were on...

    5. Re:Nothing New by PingSpike · · Score: 1

      I was watching the BBS documentary a couple weeks back. I never was part of this piece of history myself as I was to young. It made me laugh that almost the moment people hooked up to each other they started talking shit, trolling and having holy wars over the types of computers they had. Same as it ever was I guess.

    6. Re:Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I dunno. There's plenty of "verified" users on Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms that whose internet "bad behavior" rivals anything you'd find on an anonymous posting site like 4chan.

      They're allowed to get away with it because what they write aligns with the bias and prejudices of the owners of the platforms.

    7. Re:Nothing New by lgw · · Score: 2

      The real problems are the people who think this is justification for eliminating anonymity entirely, and the absolutists who defend anonymity to the point where they won't accept any compromise.

      I agree with you in general, though I've never used my legal name online in any way publicly visible, and I don't understand why anyone would. I like the Slashdot middle ground, when we're effectively anonymous, but there are at least some incentives to not pseudonymously be an ass.
       

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:Nothing New by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not to even mention servers. I've never seen this sort of stuff on IRC in significant numbers, largely because mods in major channels I frequented usually had direct talking line to server admins, who really weren't interested in tolerating pointless trolling. You didn't just get banned from the channel, you got thrown off the server.

      When nickservs became a norm, this became even easier to enforce. Want to go into those good channels with interesting stuff? Register with nickserv and be registered for a certain minimum amount of time. That killed something like 99% or so of trolls, because trolling is rarely something you are willing to create an account and then come back to it in a week just to troll. The rage has long cooled off by that time.

      Now artful trolling, that was generally appreciated. But that's nothing like the description given.

    9. Re:Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the people demanding that facebook etc be regulated (well done, women, as always... ruining everything) think there is a demand.. then they can start a social media platform that demands your real identify when you sign up.

      You can use that. We can use the fun places.

      No? Oh right... you want OTHER people to do it for you AND you want to force other control other people through the state... whether they interact with you or not.

    10. Re:Nothing New by thePsychologist · · Score: 1

      I firmly believe anonymity has benefits for democracy, but it has this unfortunate drawback as well.

      I think you are right, but even people who aren't anonymous are more nasty online than in person, just because there is a screen in the way.

      --
      "What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
    11. Re:Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We need to come up with ideas for how to keep those advantages while discouraging the disadvantages.

      Easy idea: Grow a pair.

      Testicles, ovaries, it doesn't matter which. Hell, you can even have one of both if you want.

      If you curl up into a ball and cry for days because of random assholes, how the fuck do you even survive in the real world, let alone on the Internet?

    12. Re:Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is absolutely zero reason to put global limits on general anonymity other than suppression. Individuals can choose to block or filter them on their own.

    13. Re:Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh hell yes. It was comedy gold.

    14. Re:Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on which IRC network you were on. DALNet and similar didn't have as much raw trolling as EFNet. EFNet was glorious. Everything else was kind of meh.

    15. Re:Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mIRC Power Pack - I was late to the IRC days, however when it came to getting together with the Q3/UT Clan there wasn't a better program out there that allowed us to chat/share files and join servers directly from chat via IP addresses.

  4. The important part of this article: by DogDude · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "I want #Facebook to be extremely clear to its users about how their service operates and makes money. Not many people know that #Facebook has made available their data to third parties or that for instance it holds full copyright about any picture or content you put on it."
    — Vra Jourová

    Too bad we don't have anybody looking out for regular people in the US.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re: The important part of this article: by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      Good idea. At the federal level have some sort of commission to protect our communications. Really good idea. Only question: how would we prevent a vile piece of filth from running it? I'd imagine then that the whole thing would fall apart.

    2. Re:The important part of this article: by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      Not many people know that #Facebook has made available their data to third parties

            WHAT!? There are still people that do not understand this? What, the "special needs" community? If this is true (which I doubt - most people probably know but don't care), then I despair for the future of humanity.

              I actually didn't know about the "full copyright" part, myself, but I also never even considered posting anything to Facebook.

    3. Re:The important part of this article: by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Do you understand the basics of human management policies practised by your state?

      This is a place for nerds, so we generally have in depth understanding of nerd related issues. Most of us have no clue on same in humanities fields.

      Same applies to every non-nerd in the world and every field in the world. And they're in a huge majority.

    4. Re:The important part of this article: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because most people don't read the terms of service that they agree to so that they can use Fakebook, and the terms of service are deliberately vague and hard to understand. I believe that collecting and selling people's data should be totally illegal with 7 digit fines and 3 digit jail sentences! Fakebook, TWITter, and other data mining sites need to be shut down worldwide, permanently! The same with targeted advertising, telemarketing, political phone calls, and phone calls begging for money!

  5. anger at authoritarianism by ooloorie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "This is my nature, I speak to everybody who wants normal, honest, descent communication.

    I don't think people who send her nasty messages want to "speak" with her or debate her, they want to express their outrage at her policies. After all, she has all the power.

    At the same news conference, Jourova warned Facebook that it faces the prospect of sanctions from European member states if the company does not comply with consumer protection rules.

    And right on cue, she threatens to use that power to hurt people and companies she doesn't like, in the guise of "consumer protection rules".

    1. Re:anger at authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make the Internet a safe space for tender establishment debutantes or they'll outlaw it.

    2. Re:anger at authoritarianism by DogDude · · Score: 1

      "She has all the power"? What power, exactly, are you talking about?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:anger at authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She represents the constituents who put her in office and she is using the power they entrusted to her to enforce the desires of her constituency. If not, she'll be voted out next time. That you disagree with her does not make her wrong or an "authoritarian". By your convention, all people in positions of authority are authoritarians, which is rubbish. It is long time that Facebook was brought to heel, and most would agree.

    4. Re:anger at authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That isn't the issue - The issue is that a large portion of "internet users" can't seem to behave like adults. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter are now apart of countries foreign policy and we need to find ways to avoid rage enduing "internet outrage".

      Like it or not, this isn't the IRC of the early 90s. Tweets and Facebook posts have real world consequence now and we can't afford to pretend they don't.

    5. Re:anger at authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That isn't the issue.

      Yes, it is the issue.

      Platforms like Facebook and Twitter are now apart of countries foreign policy

      Yes, they are. These platforms form part of the public square. Except that private corporations are banning people they don't want in it, and tender establishment folk like Vera Jourova are perfectly happy to give them whatever liberty they need to continue this.

    6. Re:anger at authoritarianism by ArchieBunker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is the neck beard in you talking. Let me lay this out from a normal persons perspective. You can disagree or complain about her policies, but try to present your statements in a civilized adult manner. If you start off as a screaming lunatic of course she isn't going to listen to you. I'm guessing the majority of messages she received was the typical internet outrage and death threats.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    7. Re: anger at authoritarianism by LubosD · · Score: 1

      Actually no, EC commissioners aren't elected, they are appointed by national governments. I consider this the biggest democratic deficiency if the EU.

    8. Re: anger at authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Power of voodoo.

    9. Re:anger at authoritarianism by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      This is the neck beard in you talking.

      I didn't defend the conduct, I explained it.

      You can disagree or complain about her policies, but try to present your statements in a civilized adult manner. If you start off as a screaming lunatic of course she isn't going to listen to you.

      You obviously can send her angry messages as well. And she did listen: she closed her Facebook account, commented publicly, and then proceeded to use her office to threaten Facebook. I don't know whether that's the effect people wanted, but it certainly is an effect.

      Two more observations.

      First, Jourova throws around accusations of hate crimes and right wing extremism freely; she may be more sophisticated than the people who send her nasty messages, but she herself is an intolerant bigot as well.

      Second, the new normal is that if you are a celebrity (political, social, cultural, sports), you will receive abusive messages and you will have to face the fact that many people will dislike you and won't be quiet about it. That puts a natural lid on the cult of personality and celebrity that grew up during the 20th century and is probably a good thing.

    10. Re:anger at authoritarianism by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      She is an EU commissioner; that gives her a lot of power. Her decisions could cost Facebook billions, or shield Facebook from massive liabilities.

    11. Re:anger at authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like it or not, this isn't the IRC of the early 90s. Tweets and Facebook posts have real world consequence now and we can't afford to pretend they don't.

      They do. For example, in this case, they hurt the feelz of a bigoted, authoritarian Eurocrat and caused her to deplatform herself. That's a consequence... a good one.

      The issue is that a large portion of "internet users" can't seem to behave like adults.

      They complaint of every authoritarian in history.

    12. Re:anger at authoritarianism by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      She represents the constituents who put her in office

      She has no "constituents". She is unelected.

      That you disagree with her does not make her wrong or an "authoritarian". By your convention, all people in positions of authority are authoritarians,

      No, what makes her an authoritarian is that she wants to interfere with free speech and freedom of association. The fact that she does this from a position of authority makes it worse, but she will continue to be an authoritarian after she retires and loses her power.

    13. Re:anger at authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't have anything to do with authoritarianism. It's the nature of public exposure.

      Doing a good job isn't noteworthy, it's what you're expected to do. You raise attention when people aren't happy with your performance. You don't think twice about your garbage man until something goes wrong; same thing applies when the garbage is public policy.

    14. Re: anger at authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you stand in a public square and shout abuse and threats at people the police usually arrest you. If we accept the need to enforce order in public spaces, and for people to have some basic manners, than why not in online spaces as well?

    15. Re:anger at authoritarianism by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      You obviously can send her angry messages as well. And she did listen: she closed her Facebook account, commented publicly, and then proceeded to use her office to threaten Facebook. I don't know whether that's the effect people wanted, but it certainly is an effect.

      Stating that a company must follow consumer protection laws is threatening just as stating that I cannot stab people who merely annoy me is threatening.

      Stop threatening me.

      First, Jourova throws around accusations of hate crimes and right wing extremism freely; she may be more sophisticated than the people who send her nasty messages, but she herself is an intolerant bigot as well.

      Paradox of tolerance. No sympathy for those who advocate for or commit hate crimes, and little tolerance for right wing extremism. If you want to avoid censure, don't suck.

      Second, the new normal is that if you are a celebrity (political, social, cultural, sports), you will receive abusive messages and you will have to face the fact that many people will dislike you and won't be quiet about it. That puts a natural lid on the cult of personality and celebrity that grew up during the 20th century and is probably a good thing.

      Celebrities can afford personal assistants to junk that garbage. Celebrities can afford to junk email and Facebook because people want to talk to them one-on-one, not necessarily the other way around. The Internet looney bin is replaced with the much smaller, traditional looney bin once you move to a largely snail-mail only communications methodology.

      Which she did.

      Kudos.

    16. Re: anger at authoritarianism by lgw · · Score: 1

      Power of voodoo.

      Who do?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    17. Re:anger at authoritarianism by lgw · · Score: 0

      You can disagree or complain about her policies, but try to present your statements in a civilized adult manner.

      "Outrageous misogynist hate speech" occurs when a man disagrees with a woman, in any way, on any topic. By the new rules, it's not technically possible to "disagree or complain in a civilized adult manner" unless you're higher on the privilege scale, e.g., a lesbian woman of color cannot legitimately offend a straight white woman, and the latter must accept all criticism without complaint.

      This shit was all more straightforward when it was "serf, Baron, Count, King" instead of the subtle modern privilege scale. A serf can't criticize a baron, and a baron must accept all criticism from the king. Serfs cannot exclude the king from any gathering, but the king can exclude serfs from every gathering. Exact same rules set as today, but the titles made it all so much more clear.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    18. Re:anger at authoritarianism by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      This is factually false. It's well documented psychological fact that people are much more hateful to people they only communicate to through text online than they are in a face to face situation. There are very strong unconscious triggers that adjust behaviour when in face to face situation, without any conscious input, and often even awareness of behavioural change having occurred.

    19. Re:anger at authoritarianism by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Technically she is elected. Just not by the people, but by the political aristocracy in EU. And not individually, but as a group of all commissioners, in a take it or leave it vote.

      There are so many degrees of separation from democratic plebiscite in this selection process, it pretty much meets the criteria for "unelected".

    20. Re: anger at authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you don't dare to people.

    21. Re:anger at authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lunatics are you and her. You guys are advocating the use of violence against peaceful people. That's wrong and if you can't see that go fuck yourself. You can't be reasoned with. Your not worthy of life and anybody in there right mind would off you at first opportunity and that would be self defense. Remember you are the one initiating the violence. Nobody is forcing you to utilize Facebook. I'm not a fan of it nor other services and I don't utilize them. You attempt to regulate them is the use of government (ie violence) against a non-violent even if despicable entity. The majority has (or really a minority in most cases given a large percentage of any population can't participate) no right to institute moral codes. The only morally correction position of the majority is to restrict violent actions like: Dumping toxic waste, murder, real rapes/assaults (and you can't vote to remove the power of a group to consent simply because you think that certain people aren't "ready" for some arbitrary responsibility either, same applies to ages for drivers licenses, but those are immoral and not connected to actual violence), etc.

    22. Re:anger at authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exact same rules set as today, but the titles made it all so much more clear.

      They are trying to list in order of importance.

      Orientation scale: LGBTQ. Which is why there's so much trans bashing in the lesbian community.

      Demographic scale: Rarest to highest ethnicity in the United States, but applied worldwide. A chinese man in china can bash a white man in China for being white.

      There's special rules too. You get bumped up a rank if you have a bright, unnatural hair color, call yourself a feminist, and get several ranks if you vote democrat straight ticket.

    23. Re:anger at authoritarianism by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      You can disagree or complain about her policies, but try to present your statements in a civilized adult manner.

      "Outrageous misogynist hate speech" occurs when a man disagrees with a woman, in any way, on any topic.

      You just proved my point. You have no idea how to talk with other humans.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    24. Re:anger at authoritarianism by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      You sound like a totally sane and rational individual. I can't understand why anyone would be uncomfortable in having a conversation with you. Please seek mental help before you harm anyone.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    25. Re:anger at authoritarianism by butchersong · · Score: 1

      Yeah pretty much... being an EU commissioner with the stated goal of enforcing equal outcomes among genders across all areas of society is pretty much some of the best internet troll bate imaginable. I really despise the tone of most communication on social networks so I'm not defending it but it was certainly predicable.

    26. Re: anger at authoritarianism by Cowardly+Lurker · · Score: 1

      You do.

    27. Re:anger at authoritarianism by DogDude · · Score: 1

      She wants to regulate a business that is causing massive societal damage. This story about people wanting reasonable regulations being "power hungry" is a wacky, wacky story that Trumpers have been repeating for decades. It doesn't seem to be true, nor does it make any sense. Corporations are an artificial entity created by the state, and as such, they need to be regulated by the state.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    28. Re:anger at authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is what she does. As all marxists she is dangerous to us all. She and her alikes do not want to talk unless of course one agrees with them in which case appreciation of her achievements is also acceptable speech. That mainstream does not see it is does not surprised me all that much. After all it was ok to keep jews in ghettos too some time ago and nobody sane could argue against it in the open.

    29. Re:anger at authoritarianism by umghhh · · Score: 1

      This power : "At the same news conference, Jourova warned Facebook that it faces the prospect of sanctions from European member states if the company does not comply with consumer protection rules."
      There is nothing really stopping EUcracy from doing what it wants - as it chief said many times and as has been proven time and again - even if people of Europe raise against this cancer they can safely be ignored. Referendums can be repeated as many times to see the proper result coming.

    30. Re:anger at authoritarianism by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      You...don't sound like what I remember of the famous character "Archie Bunker". Just saying.

    31. Re:anger at authoritarianism by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Stating that a company must follow consumer protection laws is threatening just as stating that I cannot stab people who merely annoy me is threatening.

      And expressing concern about a business is just being friendly, right? "Nice restaurant you have there, shame if anything were to happen to it!"

      Paradox of tolerance. No sympathy for those who advocate for or commit hate crimes, and little tolerance for right wing extremism. If you want to avoid censure, don't suck.

      The question is whether government should criminalize speech that is not accompanied by a crime. The EU and you obviously think government should. I think you are reprehensible authoritarians and I hope decent people will ostracize you for your beliefs. But there is no "paradox": despite the offensiveness of your beliefs, I'm not calling for them to be criminalized.

    32. Re:anger at authoritarianism by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      She wants to regulate a business that is causing massive societal damage. Corporations are an artificial entity created by the state, and as such, they need to be regulated by the state.

      You couldn't have stated the economic beliefs of fascism more clearly.

    33. Re:anger at authoritarianism by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      And expressing concern about a business is just being friendly, right? "Nice restaurant you have there, shame if anything were to happen to it!"

      As if there was no pre-existing dispute with the EU concerning Facebook's compliance with consumer protection laws. Oh wait, there is!

      The question is whether government should criminalize speech that is not accompanied by a crime. The EU and you obviously think government should. I think you are reprehensible authoritarians and I hope decent people will ostracize you for your beliefs.

      Nice strawman that you've built. Now please connect the consumer protection laws like the GDPR to criminaliation of speech. Because if you cannot, you cannot say that that is what I think (not that you could anyway), and I hope decent people will ostracize you for your logical fallacy.

      BTW, you're a bigot for claiming that I should be ostracized, so welcome to the club that you placed me in.

      But there is no "paradox": despite the offensiveness of your beliefs, I'm not calling for them to be criminalized.

      See above. Now throw out the strawman and return to reality.

    34. Re:anger at authoritarianism by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      As if there was no pre-existing dispute with the EU concerning Facebook's compliance with consumer protection laws. Oh wait, there is [phys.org]!

      Yes, and it is inappropriate for an EU official who is in charge of implementing those laws to talk about implementing them as part of a private spat with the company.

      Now please connect the consumer protection laws

      Jourova wants to criminalize speech she doesn't like; that's why many people despise her and abuse her online. And then she implied a threat against the company on whose platform she was verbally abused under consumer protection laws. The link seems pretty obvious.

      BTW, [my opinion is that] you're a bigot for claiming that I should be ostracized, so welcome to the club that you placed me in.

      Everybody is entitled to their opinion. But hopefully we'll succeed at stopping people like you in implementing your policies in the US through the political process.

    35. Re:anger at authoritarianism by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Well, if you want government out of business, then we should just get rid of the government-created idea of a corporation, then, right? Are you suggesting some other alternative, or are you just a fan of using words that you don't really understand the meaning of?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    36. Re:anger at authoritarianism by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      You can disagree or complain about her policies, but try to present your statements in a civilized adult manner.

      Definitely a good idea.

    37. Re:anger at authoritarianism by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Well, if you want government out of business, then we should just get rid of the government-created idea of a corporation, then, right?

      I think that would be great. Corporations are much better created and run by voluntary private agreements.

      Are you suggesting some other alternative, or are you just a fan of using words that you don't really understand the meaning of?

      Oh, I understand fascism quite well given that my family suffered greatly under it.

    38. Re:anger at authoritarianism by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Yes, and it is inappropriate for an EU official who is in charge of implementing those laws to talk about implementing them as part of a private spat with the company.

      What private spat would that be?

      Jourova wants to criminalize speech she doesn't like

      Citation needed.

      And then she implied a threat against the company on whose platform she was verbally abused under consumer protection laws. The link seems pretty obvious.

      No, she really did not. She expressed the entirely lawful requirement that Facebook needed to change its ToS to comply with the GDPR. The link to "threats" and "criminalizing speech" is not obvious because neither the article no anything that you have posted supports that conclusion.

      , [my opinion is that] you're a bigot for claiming that I should be ostracized, so welcome to the club that you placed me in.

      Everybody is entitled to their opinion. But hopefully we'll succeed at stopping people like you in implementing your policies in the US through the political process.

      If it's so important to insert "in my opinion" into the accusation of bigotry, why did you not do that in your own?

      BTW, American IP and technology lawyer here. You won't succeed. I don't even have to support FOSTA-SESTA to see that the Republicans (not "people like me") are going to criminalize speech in ways that you haven't even begun to properly fear.

    39. Re:anger at authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a problem with Facebook and Google. They collect data of people who never made a profile or never agreed that these companies make ghost profiles. That's is the consumer protection the people want.

      Politicians in Europe, both national and in the EU have a problem with unhappy people. People no longer want the open border policy. People no longer want the lawlessness for illegals. People no longer want politicians who beat around the bush or simply claim that all people who don't agree are either stupid or racists. For far too long the will of the people have been ignored. In several countries large parties are kept out of coalitions, sometimes even the largest parties. Despite the voters of these parties have been ridiculed for decades in an attempt to fight the popularity of these parties, they remain popular and seem to be growing.

      There have been many talks about how to deal with the popularity of 'populist parties that are supported by the Russians' for a long time now. And some politicians want to take the opportunity of the privacy problems people have with social media to muzzle the politicians they don't like on social media.
       
      Also note that there are many politicians with high functions in the EU who are communists or green (crypto communist). They think that political correctness as used by both the USSR and the Nazi's is the right thing to do if done by the right people. There are also plenty of social liberals who used to be classic liberals who now seem to be fine with regulating speech to stay in power for longer. Free speech has always been a problem with some liberals since the French revolution.

    40. Re:anger at authoritarianism by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      If it's so important to insert "in my opinion" into the accusation of bigotry, why did you not do that in your own?

      I did: I think you are reprehensible authoritarians and I hope decent people will ostracize you for your beliefs.

      BTW, American IP and technology lawyer here.

      That certainly explains your political positions, your affinity for European authoritarians, and your ignorance about Europe. (Though I get the impression that your law school short changed you on rhetoric and logic.)

      I don't even have to support FOSTA-SESTA to see that the Republicans (not "people like me") are going to criminalize speech in ways that you haven't even begun to properly fear.

      As far as I can tell, that's a bipartisan effort, and also has been largely driven by feminist anti-sex hysteria and lawyers (people like you) looking to criminalize more and more of American life.

      Fortunately, the plurality of Americans, including myself, are independents, and the majority of Americans despise Washington and lawyers. So I have hope. But if the US spirals down the same drain as Europe, I can always emigrate again.

    41. Re: anger at authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems that he talked with you just fine. You seem to have no clue how to listen.

    42. Re:anger at authoritarianism by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Corporations are much better created and run by voluntary private agreements.

      A "corporation" is a government-created entity. It cannot be created arbitrarily by private individuals.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    43. Re:anger at authoritarianism by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      A "corporation" is a government-created entity. It cannot be created arbitrarily by private individuals.

      If you want to define "corporation" that narrowly, be my guest. I still agree with you that "we should just get rid of the government-created idea of a corporation".

      Private businesses can operate under private contracts and reproduce all the desirable aspects of what you call a "corporation" through such contracts. As a bonus, the ability of government to regulate such webs of private contracts is greatly diminished.

    44. Re:anger at authoritarianism by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      The solution is simple: remove legal protection from these companies and hold them responsible for anything that appears on their web sites

      Invalidated your entire argument in when posting under another article.

      Though I get the impression that your law school short changed you on rhetoric and logic.

      You're apparently insufficiently qualified to judge that.

    45. Re:anger at authoritarianism by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      I did: I think you are reprehensible authoritarians and I hope decent people will ostracize you for your beliefs.

      See, the "accusation of bigotry" language would refer to an earlier instance where you'd called someone a bigot. You did, but not me:

      "Jourova throws around accusations of hate crimes and right wing extremism freely; she may be more sophisticated than the people who send her nasty messages, but she herself is an intolerant bigot as well."

      Try again.

    46. Re: anger at authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do what??

    47. Re:anger at authoritarianism by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Given your comments, it's clear that your claims of being a lawyer are either a lie or that you are a incompetent. I think there is nothing more to say.

    48. Re:anger at authoritarianism by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      See, the "accusation of bigotry" language would refer to an earlier instance where you'd called someone a bigot.

      Well, and in the case of Jourova, there was no need to point out that my statement represented my opinion. In responding to you, I highlighted that neither of our statements about each other is a statement that represents an objective truth, something you seem to have forgotten.

      Try again.

    49. Re:anger at authoritarianism by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Private businesses can operate under private contracts and reproduce all the desirable aspects of what you call a "corporation" through such contracts.

      Individuals cannot operate under private contracts that absolves them of financial and legal responsibility, and allows them to act as a single financial entity. A government has to do that.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    50. Re:anger at authoritarianism by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Individuals cannot operate under private contracts that absolves them of financial and legal responsibility, and allows them to act as a single financial entity. A government has to do that.

      You haven't thought that through. In any case, as I was saying, I agree with you that "we should just get rid of the government-created idea of a corporation". We'll just have to agree to disagree on what the consequences would be.

    51. Re:anger at authoritarianism by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Well, and in the case of Jourova, there was no need to point out that my statement represented my opinion.

      Oh, really? Why was there no need then?

      I highlighted that neither of our statements about each other is a statement that represents an objective truth.

      That's some bullshit handwaving right there.

      Try again.

      You first. Making an illusory distinction between examples is simply sad. Justify it.

    52. Re:anger at authoritarianism by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Given your comments, it's clear that your claims of being a lawyer are either a lie or that you are a incompetent. I think there is nothing more to say.

      Good enough that you're stumped to justify adovating for "free speech" in the case of Europe yet authoritarianism oppression of networks distributing speech in the U.S.

      Explain yourself.

  6. Karma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EU will learn Karma, if not Europe is lost.

  7. Strange bedfellows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...[c]ommissioner for justice, consumers and gender equality...

    Why would you lump all of those together? What do "consumers" and "gender equality" have to do with one another, and isn't "justice" a big enough thing that it would qualify for its own commissioner?

  8. Elitist announces they're quitting Facebook by scourfish · · Score: 1

    This shouldn't be newsworthy. Egotistical, "This platform is cancer, I'm quitting for good to show everyone how I'm more enlightened than them" manifestos happen all the time.

    1. Re: Elitist announces they're quitting Facebook by nitehawk214 · · Score: 0

      Except this is a politician threatening to fine or ban Facebook if they don't deal with all the meanies that hurt her feelings.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re: Elitist announces they're quitting Facebook by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      No, its a situation to ban Facebook for infringing on consumer protection laws, not because of her feelings as you stated.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    3. Re: Elitist announces they're quitting Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook? I think my grandma had one, but bookworm got into it a long time ago...

    4. Re: Elitist announces they're quitting Facebook by lgw · · Score: 1

      When an angry politician weaponizes regulatory oversight, it's always legitimate and never mean spirited, right?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Elitist announces they're quitting Facebook by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

      The truly enlightened individuals (such as myself) never drank the FB koolaid in the first place.

  9. She's not doing it right by The+Snazster · · Score: 1

    In the words of a great man: "Life is like a sewer, what you get out of it depends on what you put into it." I value Facebook as it has gotten me back in touch with people who were once central to my life and that I had lost contact with. Even if we only share a few vacation pics or anecdotes, it's comforting to know where they are and that they are doing well. My friends and family account is a nice plus in my life . . . and, of course, I don't post anything that would hurt anyone, let alone me, if it were posted in the local newspaper. I also maintain an account relating to me as an author and which therefore must be open to the public. Again, I find it to be a good thing with casual readers, fans, and even critics being extremely civil. On the other hand, I am not a politician and don't post about my views in that regard. There is no way to avoid some ugly in any medium if you are going to do that. I'd go so far as to say that public officials, unless they find some magical way to make everyone happy, should probably avoid Facebook and other social media or keep it private and limited to family and friends. In their public internet they might consider confining themselves to a moderated web site, much as they are likely to bring bodyguards in public appearances, as they can be targets for the deranged, even when they are playing a practice game of baseball.

  10. commentsubject by Falos · · Score: 1

    >>I don't want to avoid communication with people

    You don't need facebook to do that.

    To hell with any site, service, or so help me God, a fucking civic office that uses a socnet as their formally sanctioned primary (if not their ONLY) channel of communication and official announcement.

  11. You put yourself out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its like any social network for high profile people. You put yourself out there, not everyone is going to be positive about you. As a old saying goes "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".

  12. She's not wrong, but... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I fully support someone that thinks "Facebook is dirt, I want nothing to do with it."

    But when a politician says this, they mean "Facebook is dirt, nobody should be allowed to use it." Especially if those somebodies have something mean about the politician.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:She's not wrong, but... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      But NiteHawk214, Facebook is dirt, and nobody should be using it. It's a metastatic cancer on our civilization and should be excised with great prejudice.

    2. Re:She's not wrong, but... by DogDude · · Score: 1

      No YOU said that. You are misrepresenting what this person said. You seem to be conflating all politicians with the Orange Asshole.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
  13. I bet she is getting crap by Revek · · Score: 1

    The EU is making some terribly bad mistakes. They are going to turn the internet in Europe into a snooze fest of unimaginative content. She probably feels since she deleted it that the hate has went away. Stop making tech related laws without the input of you're populace and you might not be so unpopular.

    1. Re:I bet she is getting crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not unpopular, that's just a daydream of the shortsighted.

  14. Little late there by DarkRookie · · Score: 1

    I figured this out back in 2011.
    How about you?

    --
    The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
  15. Aren't you sooo cute!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are wearing your big-boy pants (no more diapers for you) and you have even figured out that much of social media is antisocial.
    If you ask nicely, Mommy will give you a treat.

  16. If it had been a man 'quitting' facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Slashdotters would've supported him. But because it was a woman, they treat her like a whore.

  17. The Whole EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whole EU is a sewage

  18. That's odd by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

    There sure are a lot of posts here defending Facebook and blaming the woman for not enjoying the experience, despite the many, many, many previous posts on /. where people said nobody should use Facebook because it's trash.

    When did /. fall in love with the privacy invading trash fire that is Facebook?

    1. Re:That's odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not your CmdrThac0's /.

    2. Re:That's odd by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Judging from the anger at Linus Torvalds for saying "Wouldn't it be great if people were nice to each other for a change?", I'd say that the reason is the readership of Slashdot has changed from the people who get abuse, to the people to dish it out, and want to continue dishing it out with impunity.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:That's odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last "Facebook" aka The Tower of Babel, God stepped in and did us all the favor.

    4. Re:That's odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Internet sucks these days.
      I thought it would make communication better. Bring us closer.
      I was never so wrong about anything else in my life.

  19. Social media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess there is no more social in social media, if there ever truly was. These are platforms for narcissists and navel gazers.

  20. Thick skin is needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wrote a comment on a social media site praising the present Liberal Party leader and PM of Canada, Justin Trudeau. I received mostly positives but one came in calling me a cuck and the PM several other terms. What one learns soon enough is that some folks donâ(TM)t much agree with my world view and has nasty aggressive fascistic ways to describe their aversion to what I like. Knowing that keeps one grounded .if one did not get the aggressive and nasty invective it would be easy to float around thinking everything is basically okay but knowing the vituperative also allows one to keep aware of a real enemy not afraid to strike as it were. The rise of Trumpism internationally where these creatures are unafraid to say things that would have been eye popping ten years ago does say something about the world today where they feel their vicious hatreds are officially sanctioned in some countries formerly polite and tolerant.