Well, my position has been that platforms have been built on the knowledge that they're heavily used for content theft but that they're shielded from liability for it unfairly. (See Section 230 here in the US). And I think the tech industry is a pox on our news media and the money they need to do real investigative work. (See Apple taking like a solid 50% revenue on their news service.)
I'm reasonably happy the EU is interested in shifting profits back away from big tech, and confident the Internet will adjust and survive the reduced viability of the large content platforms.
As a fan of decentralization and quality journalism, and no ties to any company affected positively or negatively by these decisions, I'm on board.
> platforms have been built on the knowledge that they're heavily used for content theft
Yes, and most providers have usually done a good job at reducing content theft on their platforms, to the extent of their capabilities.
The only thing that has changed is that now they can be punished for not meeting someone elses subjective standard.
> I'm reasonably happy the EU is interested in shifting profits back away from big tech
If that's what you believe, then I understand your position. Sadly, you could very well be completely mistaken. Google, Facebook & Co. already have their filters; they can prove that they're trying their best.
It's only the smaller communities that will be affected, and they won't have the money for dozens of well-paid machine-learning specialists to build them content filters. We'll see how long it takes for google to sell access to their services.
Of course, if you think I'm mistaken, I'd love to hear your reasoning (I'd also really love to be proven wrong on this topic)
Machine learning based moderation has time and time again proven to be woefully inadequate. Human intervention is required, and Content ID does not meet the requirements of this new article. And I would argue the amount of cash Google and Facebook stockpile rather than hiring human moderators reflects that they are doing far from "their best".
Platforms that have human reviewed content or where people self-host their own content will have no issues with this change, and platforms will be likely significantly less profitable if they truly move to comply with the law, as it will require armies of humans, or massive liability costs.
There is no way this new law actually protects little guys. All the exemptions for small platforms go away once that platform exists for 3 years. After that you turn into another Google and Facebook. So is the EU somehow expecting a new market to open up for alternative players who only expect to be around for 3 years, before closing up shop? Who is going to invest in that? How is it going to make "big tech" less powerful when it is explicitly an on-ramp to bait and switch more "big tech" into existence?
The directive is idiotic, self contradictory, and cannot possibly do what they say it will.
It is stunning that critical thinking is now so bad that they can convince a majority of MEPs this is not a complete fantasy.
RIP EU. This is the last straw. Selling off free expression for cheap Russian gas. Motherfuckers. If I hear one more "muh russian internet manipulation" peep from these twats...
> It is stunning that critical thinking is now so bad that they can convince a majority of MEPs this is not a complete fantasy.
I don't think MEPs are dumb or incompetent for anything other than choosing the wrong people to advise them on technical issues. Consider that not everyone necessarily understands how internet content even works.
Politicians don't even seem to understand that you can't "just scan content that infringes on copyright"; that you have to scan the content precisely to find out if it does so.
What worries me is how they don't admit that they don't understand the situation. That they blindly believe that they can get a rough understanding of things and create good laws easily.
What worries me even more is how they ignored the clear protest from large parts of the population and just powered through it as fast as they could. It's the same as with GDPR; they only hurt the small guys because they don't understand what they're even making the law for.
> I'm reasonably happy the EU is interested in shifting profits back away from big tech
This is not going to happen. Regulations are very likely to favor incumbents as their high rate of profit can more easily accommodate them. Incidentally this is the reason why sometimes big companies are in favor of laws that seem to be bad for them: they are worse for the competition.
Hey, I hate google almost as much as people who eat while on the computer, but I still think this law is dumb. Many have already pointed out how it actually plays directly into the hands of Google and other big tech.
I don't understand this view at all. Why would a company that benefits this law spend so much money trying to prevent it from passing? Surely by now we recognize that big tech will always move in the direction of its own profits, so shouldn't we look at what they're aiming for, and recognize that is their best case scenario?
I would argue that the people who make policy decisions at Google are incredibly smart. If this was going to cement their monopoly, wouldn't their resistance to it be... Muted at best?
> I don't understand this view at all. Why would a company that benefits this law spend so much money trying to prevent it from passing?
A couple of Devil's Advocate suggestions for you:
- Their self-interest is enlightened enough to see that there is long-term benefit in the playing field being at least somewhat even, e.g., because unassailable monopolies become lazy and eventually collapse under their own weight.
- The people who run Google were startup founders once, and many of their employees and products were once startup founders/startups, so they know that a healthy startup ecosystem is to their benefit.
I neither strongly believe nor disbelieve the truth of these positions. Nor do I know if they are any part of Google’s thinking behind its campaigning.
I'm just suggesting them as possibilities that might help you make your own position more robust.
I'm reasonably happy the EU is interested in shifting profits back away from big tech, and confident the Internet will adjust and survive the reduced viability of the large content platforms.
As a fan of decentralization and quality journalism, and no ties to any company affected positively or negatively by these decisions, I'm on board.