Europe facing the danger of Internet censorship

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,533
Europix
Corporations are not democratic but through competition the free market provides a degree of "democracy" to the extent there are alternatives on the web.
It's a theory that is quit often countered by reality: competition in a totally free market doesn't provide any degree of "democracy" but on the contrary, as it's leading to monopolist corporation.

Check a bit the usage of Google vs other browsers, add to that that results in browsers are rendered by algorithms You don't know how they work. For example.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,533
Europix
Politicians say no, critics of Article 13 say yes. But can one believe the politicians?
You might want to check besides politicians (BTW, they don't agree, all of them: one of Your links is in fact the personal page of somebody that one could qualify as "Eurocrate" ...), beside the critics those promoting the idea, those that are agreeing with the article 13 too.

Regarless how lethal or benign would/could be that article, it seems everyone is forgetting it's about "droits d'auteur" (authors/creators rights). And I use that specifi denomination, because it's far from being the same thing as "copyright".

Let me ask You a personal question: will You be happy if i take one of Your artistic photographies and I use it to make good money out of it, without having any obligation towards You? Not even the mere compensation of mentionig it's not me the author but You?

Because it's about that, the infamous 13 article.
 
Apr 2012
261
Iowa, USA
The internet was never "democratic" it has been open-at least in the west. Ever since the "right" to be forgotten the writing has been on the wall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sparticulous

sculptingman

Ad Honorem
Oct 2009
3,653
San Diego
The Internet has been the most destructive force to democracy.

Its primary effect has been the balkanization of people's attitudes, mores and beliefs WITHIN cultures that had been fairly unified in a world in which some level of curation made it difficult to disseminate imbecility, lies, disinformation, and ideology counter to thr prevailing social norms.
Brexit- was an imbecility borne of malicious manipulation of the internet by an adversary of NATO- so was the Catalan Independance movement- Right wing and fascist movements all over the world have been fueled by the ease with which corporate algorithms seeking to maximize advertising profits can be subverted to divide populations of voters into voting against their own best interests.

The Internet has been weaponized. If you imagine that the internet you see is 'free' and un-manipulated, then you simply do not comprehend how the internet works. The Internet You see is entirely different from the internet I see. Your access to information is not free and unfiltered- it is very stringently Narrowed, and Focused on just those things you show a tendency to click on. This Fuels you to be shown, and to view, ever more distilled versions of your own innate and perhaps previously unsuspected prejudices.

It does the exact opposite of bringing people together to a consensus- we, each, end up with entirely isolated and concentrated worldviews that are incompatible with those of our neighbors- and this serves the forces of kleptocracy and despotism, because the fragmentation of public opinion, belief, and understanding results in the paralyzation of the body politic to form any kind of consensus, not only on what is of threat- but even of what is true. And that prevents anything from being done.

Today- Vladimir Putin is waging a war across the west- actively trying to undermine the ability of western democracies to address their own internal crisies and the divisions his actions have exacerbated. He helped fund Marine Le Pen- and the Catalan movement,- and UKIP. He is using the Internet to sabotage democracies so that they can not even come to consensus about their OWN economies- much less act in concert to try and stop Putin from doing whatever he wants.


There is NO freedom of speech on the internet- there is ONLY the freedom to anonymously misinform.

In the US we have a first amendment- it grants freedom of speech and of the press- but Nowhere does it grant the right to speak anonymously.

The founding fathers lived in a world where what you might have to say was attributable to You.

The internet desperately NEEDS a curator. Some means to suppress lies and disinformation, and bring reliable, verifiable information to the for.

We, as a species, do not NEED the "freedom" to spread Flat Earth conspiracies.

Step one to fixing the internet would be total and absolute attribution of all content. Anything anyone posts- any funding they might get to post it- fully disclosed up front on every site, tweet, blog, or utube video.

No more astroturfing- no more spoofing- no more 'usernames'- if you don't want people to know that YOU posted something- then the only solution would be to Not post it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukeofjive

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,558
Las Vegas, NV USA
We, as a species, do not NEED the "freedom" to spread Flat Earth conspiracies.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,185
Italy, Lago Maggiore
You certainly do not live in Denmark. Here, all communication with the state, the municipality and the health service takes place over the Internet.

Even divorce happens on the state's website.

If you can document that you are mentally handicapped, then you can get letters from the above. Nevertheless, you still have to communicate with them yourself over the Internet.

It is the same with banks, unions and insurance companies. Well, everything and everybody.

The reality is that if one's internet connection is down, one is completely cut off from society.

In addition, I have to admit that it is very rare that I buy something in a real store.

So no, in my world it is not an opportunity to cut off my connection to the internet.
The Danish context is the Danish context, in Italy it would be impossible [we Italians, we are too traditional and too physically social, we want to meet real persons, physically]. Anyway my personal opinion is that Denmark is following a wrong direction. The net should be an available option not the base of the whole society. In other words you are limiting yourselves.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,185
Italy, Lago Maggiore
But another question is whether, say, Twitter should continue to have the freedom to ban as freely as they currently do as a cooperation. Twitter is now ubiquitous, and governments around the world make regular use of Twitter to comment on issues (Trump uses it to announce policy). To deny people access to Twitter is becoming more consequential than it once was, and this trend may continue. This should, ideally, open up the possibility of regulations.

This is an other matter and it's related to the general principles ruling associations
. Also a social network [or a forum like Historum] is an association, virtual, but it's an association.

Now, generally speaking, at international levels usually laws and rules protect in some way the members of an association from abuses coming from the association itself. But the level of this protection is linked to the kind of membership. In good substance, more you contribute to an association, more rights and protection you acquire in it. This is almost everywhere a general principle about associations. What does this mean? If you pay you can expect to be protected, because you have bought your membership and the participation to the life of the social network is a service you have paid. In case of free membership you "pay" the service you get [to be allowed to participate to the life of the social network, IOW to be member of it] with your contents, inviting friends, with your activity ... But this means that if, for any reasons, your contents are not in agreement with the editor line of the social network or are not of the quality / quantity expected by the SN for a common free member ... the SN can ban you, without any legal consequence.

Only politics, intervening with a dedicated law, can change the status of social networks to "public associations" [or something similar]. If this would happen, to be member of a social network would be an inviolable right and only because of legal reasons the SN could ban you. But I doubt we will see this happening.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,899
The Internet has been the most destructive force to democracy.

Its primary effect has been the balkanization of people's attitudes, mores and beliefs WITHIN cultures that had been fairly unified in a world in which some level of curation made it difficult to disseminate imbecility, lies, disinformation, and ideology counter to thr prevailing social norms.
Brexit- was an imbecility borne of malicious manipulation of the internet by an adversary of NATO- so was the Catalan Independance movement- Right wing and fascist movements all over the world have been fueled by the ease with which corporate algorithms seeking to maximize advertising profits can be subverted to divide populations of voters into voting against their own best interests.

The Internet has been weaponized. If you imagine that the internet you see is 'free' and un-manipulated, then you simply do not comprehend how the internet works. The Internet You see is entirely different from the internet I see. Your access to information is not free and unfiltered- it is very stringently Narrowed, and Focused on just those things you show a tendency to click on. This Fuels you to be shown, and to view, ever more distilled versions of your own innate and perhaps previously unsuspected prejudices.

It does the exact opposite of bringing people together to a consensus- we, each, end up with entirely isolated and concentrated worldviews that are incompatible with those of our neighbors- and this serves the forces of kleptocracy and despotism, because the fragmentation of public opinion, belief, and understanding results in the paralyzation of the body politic to form any kind of consensus, not only on what is of threat- but even of what is true. And that prevents anything from being done.

Today- Vladimir Putin is waging a war across the west- actively trying to undermine the ability of western democracies to address their own internal crisies and the divisions his actions have exacerbated. He helped fund Marine Le Pen- and the Catalan movement,- and UKIP. He is using the Internet to sabotage democracies so that they can not even come to consensus about their OWN economies- much less act in concert to try and stop Putin from doing whatever he wants.


There is NO freedom of speech on the internet- there is ONLY the freedom to anonymously misinform.

In the US we have a first amendment- it grants freedom of speech and of the press- but Nowhere does it grant the right to speak anonymously.

The founding fathers lived in a world where what you might have to say was attributable to You.

The internet desperately NEEDS a curator. Some means to suppress lies and disinformation, and bring reliable, verifiable information to the for.

We, as a species, do not NEED the "freedom" to spread Flat Earth conspiracies.

Step one to fixing the internet would be total and absolute attribution of all content. Anything anyone posts- any funding they might get to post it- fully disclosed up front on every site, tweet, blog, or utube video.

No more astroturfing- no more spoofing- no more 'usernames'- if you don't want people to know that YOU posted something- then the only solution would be to Not post it.
Advocating for censorship.... and adding conspiracy theories.... the catalan indepedence movement created/manipulated by Putin ? lets be serious

Lies and disinformation are being mostly spread by established media (oh those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, oh those poor kuwaiti babies, oh those 10 000 people slaughtered in Timisoara by Ceaucescu and the list goes on...) ... The internet has been quite useful in calling those out.....

The presence of some annoying and crazy sites/propaganda on the internet is no reason to shut it down, no more than the presence of a few crooked doctors is a reason to shut down all health services
 
Nov 2018
351
Denmark
The Danish context is the Danish context, in Italy it would be impossible [we Italians, we are too traditional and too physically social, we want to meet real persons, physically]. Anyway my personal opinion is that Denmark is following a wrong direction. The net should be an available option not the base of the whole society. In other words you are limiting yourselves.
Agree broadly, many people are more or less incapacitated because they for one reason or the other are unable to make use of the increasing digitization. This applies to both young and old. And it is actually a democratic problem that so many are left behind.

But for us who understand how to use the possibilities, it is much easier.

E.g. in the old days when you had filled your tax papers and sent them, you had to go to the tax office to get them corrected if you had made a mistake.

Now you can edit them at any time and your tax payments are automatically changed.

And with regard to physical contact with public employees. Yeah, okay, it can sometimes be very interesting.:mad: