I'm sorry Lins, but all that (and the entire campaign against that law) is extremely typical for a strong tendency: we're told how dangerous is the lion, we're warned to watch out, to defend ourselves from the lion a mile from us, while the pack of hienas is already in our back, at one foot, jumping on our back.The problems associated with this are not directly connected with the sort of censorship that is being discussed elsewhere in this thread, some of them are well-expressed here:
(from: Article 13 is back on – and it got worse, not better )
- France’s and Germany’s compromise on Article 13 still calls for nearly everything we post or share online to require prior permission by “censorship machines”, algorithms that are fundamentally unable to distinguish between copyright infringement and legal works such as parody and critique.
- It would change the web from a place where we can express ourselves (with some moderation applied after-the-fact on platforms) into one where big corporate rightholders are the gatekeepers of what can and can’t be published in the first place. It would allow these rightholders to bully any commercial site or app that includes a posting function.
- European innovation on the web would be discouraged by the new costs and legal risks for startups – even if they only apply when platforms turn 3 years old, or achieve some success. Foreign sites and apps who can’t afford armies of lawyers would be incentivised to just geoblock all EU-based users to be on the safe side.
(That laws can be passed in such a way in the EU is one of the things that makes me heartily glad that the UK is leaving it; such a law would get much better scrutiny in any national parliament, and is unimaginable in the USA.)
Quite true. So the question is are they a sort of public forum? If so then speech should be protected. I imagine that in such a circumstance copyright infringement becomes a problem so by retaining the prerogative to censor content they can dodge liability.these silicon valley companies exercise a great deal of power, and can act as a cartel (deliberately or in effect)
I know. It was me who started that thread ---We’ve had a thread about this already.
The EU proposes that robots should decide what can and cannot be shared on the Internet. Article 13 requires that all content uploaded to the Internet be monitored by robots and possibly deleted if similarities with existing copyrighted content are found.As far as I’m aware Article 13 relates to copyright and not censorship. If someone wants to tell me why it is about censorship then fine.
Everyone else. GAFA, Internet providers, bloggers, I suppose sometimes even me.Who are the hyenas?
And that plea of Wiki is quit disingenuous in it's examples.In protest against the planned law, the German Wikipedia closed for today. Here is my translation of the explanation displayed by Wikipedia:
why can't you use Wikipedia as usual? The authors of Wikipedia have decided to shut Wikipedia down today in protest against parts of the planned EU copyright reform. This law is due to be passed by the European Union Parliament on 26 March.
The planned reform could lead to a considerable restriction of the free Internet. Even the smallest Internet platforms would have to prevent copyright infringements by their users (Article 13 of the planned law), which would in practice only be possible by means of error- and misuse-prone upload filters. In addition, all websites would have to acquire licences for short text excerpts from press products in order to comply with a newly introduced publishers' right (Article 11). Both together could significantly impair freedom of expression, freedom of the arts and freedom of the press.
Although at least Wikipedia is explicitly excluded from Article 13 of the new Copyright Directive (but not from Article 11), Free Knowledge will suffer even if Wikipedia remains an oasis in the filtered desert of the Internet.
Some five million people in a petition, 145 civil rights and human rights organisations, business and IT associations (including Bitkom, the German Start-up Association and the Chaos Computer Club), Internet pioneers such as Tim Berners-Lee, journalists' associations and creative professionals are also protesting against the current version of the reform.
If I am understanding right, it seems like your argument is somewhat similar to the argument that private companies can do what they wish with their platforms. But also bringing into it that users have no "right" to use the platforms free of charge and perhaps any way we wish?Everyone else. GAFA, Internet providers, bloggers, I suppose sometimes even me.
Internet brought a lot of things and changed radically the human society. The societal organisation was left behind by this reality, and in a lot of domains we're living in a "no man's land", be it in terms of legislation, education, mentality.
One of the things internet brought is the supremacy of the English language. And that caused some trouble in perceptions and mentalities.
The most obvious is the word "free".
We all became accustomed to have free internet, to have free information, to have access. We all consider it an inalienable right, that must be preserved wathever the cost.
But there's a very big "but": "free" has two meanings, extremely different, and (at least in the languages I know) there are two different words designing the two meanings, the two concepts.
"Free", as in libre/frei is a totally different thing from "free" as in gratuit/kostenloss. Freedom isn't synonymous with free of charge.
A good part of the campaign against the new legislation is disingenuous as it's equivalting free (freedom) with free (free of charge).
PS: my next answer to tanmuz is a continuation to this answer and will contain an example in that.