Europe facing the danger of Internet censorship

Aug 2010
16,038
Welsh Marches
To a point, they already do though. Some content is not accessible from some countries and accessible in others, e.g. BBC content is sometimes not available in the UK but can be viewed in the US.
Yes, I accept that, but if there is an EU-wide regime and it is implemented in slightly different ways in different European countries, it would be impractical for those running major platforms to make a distinction between 27 (?) different countries, and the obvious procedure would be to apply measures according to the most rigorous specification; these people will naturally play safe in the way that saves them the most possible expense. That is all I was suggesting.
 
Oct 2013
14,071
Europix
You have a totally unrealistic view of what is involved if you think that a platform like thta could resolve the whole matter in advance by simply 'passing agreements with copyright holders.'
It wasn't the question, Lins.

But I'll rephrase it: why "net majors" campaign on the "EU censorship card" and not on the nonfeasibility?

Why all this campaign is finally about "we cannot respect copyright regulations", regulations that are respected all over, with the exception of "net majors"?
 

GogLais

Ad Honorem
Sep 2013
5,222
Wirral
Just take a platform like youtube, it hosts a vast amount of content, and if it becomes legally responsible for any infringement of copyright by anyone posting on it (rather than the poster being responsible and having to answer to any complaints), it will have use programmes based on algorithms to remove anything that might possibly infringe copyight, there is no way that they would be able to employ people to watch everyone and make a judgement, diftinguishing between piracy, parody, fair comment etc. So this means that EU citizens will be prevented from accessing a massive amount of material that is available to people in other parts of the world, on a very uncertain basis, because the owners of the site will always play safe to avoid possible costs. You have a totally unrealistic view of what is involved if you think that a platform like thta could resolve the whole matter in advance by simply 'passing agreements with copyright holders.'
YT is a multi billion dollar business. The argument that it might be difficult or expensive for it to control what it hosts cuts no ice with me. There might be other reasons to oppose this so-called (for me it’s not the right word) censorship but not this one. No social media platform or company should so big that it can do or not do what it likes.
 
Aug 2010
16,038
Welsh Marches
It wasn't the question, Lins.

But I'll rephrase it: why "net majors" campaign on the "EU censorship card" and not on the nonfeasibility?

Why all this campaign is finally about "we cannot respect copyright regulations", regulations that are respected all over, with the exception of "net majors"?
If one takes youtube, they have actually campaigned on the feasibility issue, pointing out that censorship will be an inevitable result of that; and the problem becomes acute with 'net majors' that serve as platform for a huge mass of material that is posted by independent producers, since if they (rather than the producers) become legally responsible for any copyright infringement, they will have to check by machine (using algorithms) rather than by human agency and weed out anything that shows the mere possibility of copyright infringement. The inevitable result of this is that EU citizens will be deprived of access to a great deal of matter that is available to people who live elsewhere, very often without any copyright issues actually being involved. This is not a matter of censorship of particular views, but it will have the effcet of impeding the small creators above all who are most likely to put forward alternative views.
 
Last edited:

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
33,087
T'Republic of Yorkshire
YT is a multi billion dollar business. The argument that it might be difficult or expensive for it to control what it hosts cuts no ice with me. There might be other reasons to oppose this so-called (for me it’s not the right word) censorship but not this one. No social media platform or company should so big that it can do or not do what it likes.
In order to do it properly, it would require human eyeballs and judgement on every piece of video that was uploaded. And you would need those people to be trustworthy, otherwise you need more people to oversee them.

Over 400,000 hours of video are uploaded to Youtube every day. You're talking about hundreds of thousands of full time moderators and overseers to review it all. It's simply not practical or affordable.
 
Likes: Baldtastic
Aug 2010
16,038
Welsh Marches
YT is a multi billion dollar business. The argument that it might be difficult or expensive for it to control what it hosts cuts no ice with me. There might be other reasons to oppose this so-called (for me it’s not the right word) censorship but not this one. No social media platform or company should so big that it can do or not do what it likes.
You are simply not looking at what I was saying, it is of course perfectly possible for a platform like youtube to control what is hosts in accordance with such regulations, but it is only possible for it to do so by using programmes based on algorithms, and that will have very haphazard effects. I have never claimed anyhwere that this involves the censorship of specific views, but it does involve the pre-censorship of material that is posted on such a site, and one has to take account of the consequences of that.
 
Last edited:

GogLais

Ad Honorem
Sep 2013
5,222
Wirral
In order to do it properly, it would require human eyeballs and judgement on every piece of video that was uploaded. And you would need those people to be trustworthy, otherwise you need more people to oversee them.

Over 400,000 hours of video are uploaded to Youtube every day. You're talking about hundreds of thousands of full time moderators and overseers to review it all. It's simply not practical or affordable.
It’s not a given that YT has to be able to cope with 400k hours per day. I’m just arguing that what the internet giants can or cannot do shouldn’t be the deciding factor in this discussion.
 
Oct 2013
14,071
Europix
Yes, I accept that, but if there is an EU-wide regime and it is implemented in slightly different ways in different European countries, it would be impractical for those running major platforms to make a distinction between 27 (?) different countries, and the obvious procedure would be to apply measures according to the most rigorous specification; these people will naturally play safe in the way that saves them the most possible expense. That is all I was suggesting.
My friend, as usual, You are rational, logical.

But I cannot say how much I disagree with You on this.

IDK if You gave a thought at what You are saying there:

I run a chocolate business that is going extremely well, I'm a the moment were I'm consolidated in the European market, I'm preparing for go for the North-American market and the South-Eastern Asian market.

But as I have to respect different legislations, it becomes complicated (and costly).

So I decided to ... to what? Campaign against regulations that disadvantage me? Force states to change their legal frames, to create exceptions, to disregard other constitutional rights?

Utube, as other majors are economic actors. So, as they're became that big, as for them to adapt is too fastidious, too costly we will go for asking the political, legal actors to adapt?

Lins, Brexist was about British people regaining it's sovereignty. From EU. Regaining it from EU to giving it up to private companies?
 
Likes: GogLais
Aug 2010
16,038
Welsh Marches
I was merely referring to the fact that different EU countries may implement this directive in somewhat different ways, and that a firm like youtube will almost certainly respond by tailoring their actions to the most restrictive if there is any difference to save themselves unnecessary trouble and expense. It doesn't matter to me what legislation is passed in the EU with regard to the internet because the UK won't be affected by it, but I suspect that many people in EU countries will be disconcerted at being deprived of access to a good of material to no very good purpose in many cases.
 
Oct 2013
14,071
Europix
and one has to take account of the consequences of that.
Yes. And what would be that?

Allow me to take the long road for responding:

I consider this forum being formed by a community that is well over the average in terms of intelligence, knowledge, culture.

And (to my honest astonishment) I found myself in the position (at least it was my impression) of saying, mentioning, bringing new things, new sources, les known/unknown/interesting aspects. Tho, especially for a Sunday pseudo-historian like me, that would (should?) be the last thing to expect.

Why, Lins, why?

Because I don't use YouTube but rarely. I never use Facebook, Tweeter, Instagram. I use Google's search engine just now and then, I don't use Google Books or Amazon. I don't rely on Yahoo news.

I use other search engines, browsers and never only one. I use the "direct sources" like the multitude of online libraries. I use to go directly on the news agencies, on the journals, TV sites.

We talk about EURSS. Ok.

What was exactly about those Communist societies?

It was about one news agency. About Pravda, with the alternative of Komsomolskaja Pravda.

One source.

Where is the difference in today's internet, Lins? You tube, Google, Facebook, Microsoft ... where are the alternatives?

Where is the actual difference between sourcing You from Pravda or Pravda and sourcing You from Google and Google?

One of the consequences could be very well that the majors cannot (objectively) adapt, and fail.

And maybe we, and others, will have to go for smaller sites, that like Historum for example, are small enough to have a human moderation, were is not a machine deciding on a human's behavior but another human.

And maybe, there will be a YouTube, and a SmallTube, and a BlueTube.

In other words, alternatives.

Real alternatives, not just Pravda and Komsomolskaja Pravda.