EU pushes forward on law against hate speech, illegal content. Hosting companies required to take websites offline

[Alpha1]

I was wondering why Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Spotify have recently become so extremely active on the matter of hate speech, fake news, etc. For example Google has turned its algorithms up-side-down to punish or remove sites with abuse, hate speech, harmfulness, fake news. So I did some digging and shockingly what I found is bound to become another GDPR type situation.

The EU is pushing forward on 'Tackling illegal content'.

1. September 2017 - EU commission releases: Communication on Tackling Illegal Content Online - Towards an enhanced responsibility of online platforms
2. March 2018 - EU Commission releases: Recommendation on measures to effectively tackle illegal content online. Attached to this post.
   This recommendation is currently a non-binding legal form, which means that Member States are recommended to implement it.
3. April 2018 - France's President has stated that France will address hate speech and illegal content.
4. New proposals are beign worked on to implement the recommendation into a EU Directive

If you read what this concerns, then its clearly bad news. It not only bans all illegal content (hate speech, etc) and forces platforms to deal with it, its also forces web hosts to remove reported websites. It seems even worse to me because instead of fines it threatens with taking the site offline and 'illegal content' is rather vague.

Here is what it entails:
The Commission's work is motivated by concerns that the removal of illegal content online continues to be insufficiently effective – incitement to terrorism, illegal hate speech, or child sexual abuse material, as well as infringements of Intellectual Property rights and consumer protection online need to be tackled across the EU with determination and resolve.

In setting out clear legal guidance in the form of a Recommendation, the Commission has made clear which types of processes platforms should put in place, in order to speed up the detection and removal of illegal content, and thus curb the spread of such material, while also offering a set of robust safeguards.

Online platforms need to exercise a greater responsibility in content governance. The recommendation proposes a common approach to swiftly and proactively detect, remove and prevent the reappearance of content online:

• Clearer 'notice and action' procedures: Companies should set out easy and transparent rules for notifying illegal content, including fast-track procedures for 'trusted flaggers'. To avoid the unintended removal of content which is not illegal, content providers should be informed about such decisions and have the opportunity to contest them.
• More efficient tools and proactive technologies: Companies should set out clear notification systems for users. They should have proactive tools to detect and remove illegal content, in particular for terrorism content and for content which does not need contextualisation to be deemed illegal, such as child sexual abuse material or counterfeited goods.
• Stronger safeguards to ensure fundamental rights: To ensure that decisions to remove content are accurate and well-founded, especially when automated tools are used, companies should put in place effective and appropriate safeguards, including human oversight and verification, in full respect of fundamental rights, freedom of expression and data protection rules.
• Special attention to small companies: The industry should, through voluntary arrangements, cooperate and share experiences, best practices and technological solutions, including tools allowing for automatic detection. This shared responsibility should particularly benefit smaller platforms with more limited resources and expertise.
• Closer cooperation with authorities: If there is evidence of a serious criminal offence or a suspicion that illegal content is posing a threat to life or safety, companies should promptly inform law enforcement authorities. Member States are encouraged to establish the appropriate legal obligations.

The Commission considers that online intermediaries can put in place proactive measures without fearing to lose the liability exemption under the e-Commerce Directive.

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/illegal-content-online-platforms

 

[S Thomas]

Yay, another censorship law incoming. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[51463]

Ya it's a huge fight against freedom of speech.

Facebook & Google and a lot of big companies out there have been censoring/banning a lot of the people out there who think "right wing politics"

People who don't agree and speak out about mass immigration in europe & the west are being considering racist.
People who question events are being considered conspiracy lunatics.
Everytime someone speaks against the "left wings" are being labeled and attacked.

The problem is that before trump was even running for president. Facebook and other big websites were constantly banning people who didn't conform with their political motives. All these big websites think that by banning people they have won.

But no, banning never works. People simply went back to the old style of hosting their own websites. And all the right wingers followed. They used facebook to purchase ads and spread the word of their new websites. Most of which were pro-trump.

If it wasn't for these independent websites such as Info Wars and many others. Trump would of not won because facebook and google was not on his side. Also the fact that he was/is destroying the reputation of the Main Stream Media sites people start looking for alternatives.

This is what Clinton and her administration did not realize until it was too late. Sure you can ban people from the most popular websites. But on the internet its simply too easy to start your own website and move away from facebook.

So now they have realized in order to win the next election they must stop all these independent websites "hate speech websites" that against their political agenda.

What's the best way to shut down websites? Go after the hosting providers.

Currently, It's not easy being a hosting provider. Too many rules and with the upcoming rules it's going to be much more difficult.
It's completely unfair for the hosting provider to to be responsible for what their customers are using their servers for. Now they have to spend more money on hiring people to stop these people instead of putting money into improving their servers.


But developers around the world already knew years ago that they would come after the hosting providers. Luckily they have been creating and currently are working on decentralized platforms. Meaning that the websites/applications not hosted anywhere on a server. Instead they are installed/hosted on your own computer.

It works exactly like torrents. They have not been able to shut down torrents. It's highly impossible, you'd have to shut down every computers who has the torrent application installed.

Check out open bazaar. It's a decentralized marketplace. You install the application on your desktop and you are in control of your store. You can sell anything you want no one can control you. The only way to shut down the store if to physically take your computer and arrest you. Which will happen because people sell drugs on it. But when millions of people around the world are using this platform to sell drugs, what are they going to do? arrest everyone? Good luck. As long as their is profit people will continue to sell drugs. The police system will not be able to keep up.

There is even decentralized facebook style application in the works. Where you control your own profile and not the administrators. Facebook will soon become a thing of the past because there is no free speech there.

Youtube as well. Youtube has been de-monitizating, and shutting down channels. Luckily there is alternatives now which are almost like torrents and can't be shut down.
DTube & Bit-Chute are two of them. They will work with crypto currency as well.

I strongly believe in free speech. The fact that some people in America want to live with people of their own skin color or culture/values is fine.

Banning things will never win. Humans will just find any alternative way online. You can't stop people from fighting for something they believe in.


But really, In my opinion the problem is not skin color or immigrants. The problem is lack of jobs. Because all of the manufacturing jobs went to China, new immigrants don't have any job or a good paying job. So they are poor and too much time of their hands. Same with the native citizens.

So they end up fighting amoung themselves, and it's alot easier to fight with someone who looks different than you than to fight with someone who looks the same as you.

I was lucky and got the opportunity to enroll to a western school for a while and it was terrible.

Frankly, I think the west is in decline. The parents lack good parenting skills and the school lacks good education. Even good parents have a hard time raising children in a culture that in dominated by sexualizing women. Girls are more concerned about makeup and what they wear to school than learning. Which makes young men terrible towards women.

The future of the internet is decentraziled. Thanks to the Bitcoin technology.

It's not easy running a small business when governments are always putting regulations. It cost lots of money and time to implement these regulations. Money and time which small bussiness don't have. That's why small business usually fail after 2 or 3 years and big corporations continue to dominate.

Can you imagine if they made regulations on software companies and xenforo was forced to start policing or stop selling to certain forum administrators based on which was allowed. Xenforo company would go under or be forced to move to a country which these laws didn't affect them.

In the end, these regulations and laws will affect the hosting companies and not people who speak out with "hate speech"

 

[Claverhouse]

'– incitement to terrorism, illegal hate speech, or child sexual abuse material, as well as infringements of Intellectual Property rights'



One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song ?

 

[S Thomas]

Illegal hate speech of course, because hate speech can never be illegal, just look at trump.

 

[Mr Lucky]

'– incitement to terrorism, illegal hate speech, or child sexual abuse material, as well as infringements of Intellectual Property rights'



One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others

Well, they are all illegal aren't they?

 

[jmurrayhead]

'– incitement to terrorism, illegal hate speech, or child sexual abuse material, as well as infringements of Intellectual Property rights'



One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song ?

Let me fix it:

illegal incitement to terrorism, illegal hate speech, or illegal child sexual abuse material, as well as illegal infringements of Intellectual Property rights'.

 

[Claverhouse]

Anyone who thinks Child Rape and DMCA Violations to have equivalency ought to consult with ISIS in drafting new laws.

 

[Mr Lucky]

Anyone who thinks Child Rape and DMCA Violations to have equivalency ought to consult with ISIS in drafting new laws.

Who said they do have equivalency?

Both are illegal but not equal.

 

[S Thomas]

Anyone who thinks Child Rape and DMCA Violations to have equivalency ought to consult with ISIS in drafting new laws.

That reminds me of a meme in the early 2000's. "We crack software, but at least we don't kill anyone" - sentenced to death.

 

[Claverhouse]

Who said they do have equivalency?

Both are illegal but not equal.

Well, perhaps they should not be conflated in the same ruling.


Or, almost possibly, some might suspect, those with simple artless non-legal minds, that the infringements of intellectual property were the target, and those other heinous offences thrown in as gussied-up justification.

 

[ŽivaAkcija]

i think about xenforo option to report fake news, hate speach and so?

 

[Alpha1]

illegal content' means any information which is not in compliance with Union law or the law of a Member State concerned;

The mention of the ugliest versions of illegal content are on the forefront. Unfortunately it doesn't stop there and covers a wide range of things. Topics in the document:

1. hate speech
2. infringements of consumer protection rights
3. sale of counterfeit goods
4. copyright breach
5. human dignity
6. discrimination

But it includes anything that is covered in any law of a EU country or EU directive. So that probably includes spam, slander, defamation, libel, aspersion, scams, insult of officials, harassment, stalking, invasion of privacy, doxing, phishing, hosting malicious attachments, and a mass of things I cant even imagine right now.

I do hope that the next incarnation of this fleshes things out more so that its clear what it does and does not cover. I mean it illegal to insult the monarch in my country. Any illegal content is a very wide brush.

Lets say there is a post that breaches a law. We have millions of posts. How on earth am I supposed to find it? If this non-binding law becomes binding law then I can foresee large purges of forums if there is no better way to find offending content.

 

[Lukas W.]

Considering that small copyright infringement like copying a movie is still punished a lot more severe than some forms of physical assault, these laws look a bit troublesome to me. I personally welcome each and every attempt to track down terrorism and child abuse and lock these people away, but harder measurements against digital copyright infringement will mean a bad time for a lot of people that don't infringe copyright in any form.

 

[TPerry]

hate speech

Who defines what is "hate" speech? If I say I don't like a certain race of persons, is that "hate" speech? Am I not entitled to my opinion? As long as I'm not going out and harming (physically) others based upon that dislike then what business is it of anyones? If one doesn't like it, they simply don't have to read/listen to it.

human dignity

Again, define "human dignity". See above.

discrimination

We as individuals discriminate all the time. Does everyone you meet immediately become your best friend or do you base it upon their behavior, dress style, sexual orientation and other factors? All are perfectly legal reasons to base upon who you associate with. I get back to the fact that just because a site is on the internet does not mean you give up any of your personal choices you are allowed to make. If I want to start a site that is targeted strictly towards caucasians and disallow any other race to join that is discrimination, but it is my right to do so (at least in the U.S.).
We already have certain private universities that target specific races, as well as sororities that only allow certain races to join. Am I "hurt" by that? Nope, I simply go somewhere else that values my input/participation/money.

and a mass of things I cant even imagine right now.

and this is where/what everyone should be "afeared" of. Governmental mores change - and if they can control what free peoples say then that is a basic right that they have infringed upon. Not my issue that it hurts someone's feelings.

I mean it illegal to insult the monarch in my country.

And this is only one example of excessive control. The basis of a free people is the ability to insult, impugn, and bash their government. As long as they are not physically working to overthrow it, words should rarely be controlled (shouting fire in a theatre is an example of something that would be as it incites a wide reaction amongst others in said theatre but shouting out that the movie and the director sucks is not).

If this non-binding law becomes binding law then I can foresee large purges of forums if there is no better way to find offending content.

Maybe under the EU... but I foresee some governments telling the EU how the cow eats the corn and what stop to get off on.
It sounds more and more like the EU desires to have drones as their population.

 

[Alpha1]

The EU is proposing a new law:
EU: take down illegal content (terror/hate speech) within 1 hour or face millions in fines

 

[usAdultAds]

The EU is proposing a new law:
EU: take down illegal content (terror/hate speech) within 1 hour or face millions in fines

It seems like the EU is turning itself into a legal racketeer.
If you do not follow our rules, then we will fine you millions of dollars.
How is this any different from mobsters and thugs?

 

[HenryHenbane]

"It seems like the EU is turning itself into a legal racketeer.
If you do not follow our rules, then we will fine you millions of dollars.
How is this any different from mobsters and thugs?"

Yup, seems like the right way to describe it.

 

[Mr Lucky]

I've made a suggestion that won't obviously solve issue we have around users uploading copyright, but may be a small step in the right direction.

See here:

https://xenforo.com/community/threa...ield-require-user-rights-confirmation.155034/

 

[AndrewSimm]

The US Supreme Court has already ruled that hate speech is free speech. This new law by the EU would not affect servers hosted in the United States. I do find it ironic considering the EU cares about as much as China about American IP. In the end, the law will be great for Americans because the EU is going to drive tech out of Europe.