
EU is planning to order websites to delete extremist content within 1 hour - martin-adams
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45247169
======
kevin_b_er
"Mr King told the FT that the law would apply to small social media apps as
well as the bigger players."

They are deliberately announcing a law that small upstarts will find
impossible to deal with and they are deliberately announcing they intend to
discriminate against them.

3 AM video while your entire team is asleep? Fined.

That is downright terrible.

~~~
brightball
You’d basically be forced to automatically take down anything that was
reported to queue it for review.

~~~
martin-adams
Assuming it was reported within 1 hour

~~~
zaarn
From what I read the 1 hour begins counting once something is reported and
they also plan to make reviews/counter claims and such mandatory as they
already exist on youtube (although youtube seems to have forgot the part where
it needs to work)

------
jasonkester
Expect more things like this to come along. The EU has tested the waters and
confirmed that yes, it is safe to mandate that every dev team in the world
perform a 2 week sprint at its whim, anytime if feels like it.

We're partially responsible, for having implemented our silly cookie popups
and GDPR checkbox screens without pushing back hard enough.

~~~
sparkling
This. Someone needs to teach EU bureaucrats a lesson. A second "blackout day"
(similar to what was done to protest SOPA in 2014), but limited to the EU,
would be a nice idea. Things like the cookie nag screens are just absurd. They
will unload much more BS if they aren't stopped early on.

Honestly, as a US based company with mainly US visitors, i would simply return
HTTP 451 to any EU visitors. The risk of being sued for some silly EU law is
just not worth it.

~~~
ashelmire
Who's gonna sue you? The EU has no power or jurisdiction over you, you're not
required to block access to their citizens.

~~~
marcoperaza
That's not true. The GDPR has an incredibly broad territorial scope:

    
    
        2. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to:
    
            a. the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or
    
            b. the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union.
    
    

So offering free services to people in the EU is enough to ensnare you. What
does it mean to offer? From the official notes:

    
    
        factors such as the use of a language or a currency generally used in one or more Member States with the possibility of ordering goods and services in that other language, or the mentioning of customers or users who are in the Union, may make it apparent that the controller envisages offering goods or services to data subjects in the Union.*
    

As for being able to acquire personal jurisdiction over you or your company to
actually punish you for not obeying, that is not much of an obstacle either.
Do you envisage potentially serving EU customers at some point in the future?
(for basically any online company, the answer is yes) Do you use any services,
banks, etc. that are located in the EU? (another likely yes). They may not be
able to directly fine you _today_ , but they might be able to in the future,
or cut you off from European companies.

There is a reason why the doctrine of international comity exists. When
followed, it limits the extraterritorial application of laws such as to not
infringe on the rights of other nations to decide what behavior is acceptable
within their own territory. But the EU has decided to not follow it with the
GDPR. In fairness, the internet has made it challenging to find the
appropriate balance, but the EU is way out of left field here.

~~~
sparkling
So, a US based firm offering a spanish version of their website has to apply
with GDPR because people from Spain could also visit?

Whats next? US firms targeting the American-Korean community in the US need to
apply with laws made in Northkorea? :)

------
nilsocket
It seems they were making these laws without understanding how technology
works.

Consider a website, which have a moderate community and solely runned by one
or two developers.

How are they going to detect the content which is oppressive. By creating a
NLP and image recognition software and run it within an hour.

If they want there country audience to have the content they like, either have
a seperate internet for Europe or teach their own citizens to not visit such
sites.

~~~
froogie
Well at simplest, if enforced, it will force a company to figure a way to
comply. Either get rid of people who share such content or otherwise mute
them. If not, you pay fines, preferrably _way_ more than what you profit from
letting such voices have a safe haven.

How else do you solve the problem of unwanted ideas spreading around? Serious
question, as this is a constant challenge for every social group anywhere.

~~~
dominotw
> How else do you solve the problem of unwanted ideas spreading around?

Though education, independent thinking. Presumably ideas itself are not
unwanted, things resulting from those ideas are unwanted.

~~~
froogie
But that does not work in practice. Social groups need cohesion to function.
If you fracture that cohesion, the group may split to more cohesive subgroups
which may not be tolerant of each other. Their belief systems may be so
incompatible in such way (by malicious design or otherwise) that peaceful co-
existence becomes impossible and infighting ensues.

The history of our species is full of that scenario happening. In the grand
scheme of things every war fought ever is a variation of that.

Not all of us are ideal, and most of us act in chaotic and irrational ways.
Usually we don't see it or care much about it, unless we see it in others and
we think its something to look down to.

Among us there are individuals who are suspectible to thoughts and ideas,
which if presnted correctly, can alter and sway their values, identity,
beliefs and behavior.

How do we defend a social group, which inherently has individuals as described
above in them, from a info-social attack against our group cohesion? Because
education can never be a perfect solution due to human factors. We are all
different and respond differently to different ideas and content presented to
us. Furthermore, some of us are naive and gullible by their nature, while
others are careful and reserved, even paranoid.

How do you defend against an adversary which optimally targets crafted (often
truthless) messages at receptive subgroups of different personalities,
backgrounds etc.?

Think of social networks, content in apps, ads, blogs, HN/reddit/etc comments,
....

~~~
iamnothere
You're trying to solve an unsolvable problem, based on an inaccurate premise.
Social cohesion in any nation-sized group is temporary at best. The notion of
a permanently cohesive society is terrifying, as it implies the end of
independent thought and the elimination of organized dissent.

Conflict is an inevitable part of the human condition. Anyone who tries to
"solve" human nature inevitably ends up creating a nightmare society.

~~~
froogie
But what I am talking about is not just nation-sized group, but _any_ social
group.

You can think of religions as an example, and as an attempt to solve these
problems, with all the problems that entails, of course.

What makes you convinced, if not the infinity of time, that conflict is
inevitable? To me it is clear that as species due to our cultural development
and understanding (which our societies represent) has increased dramatically
over the last few thousand years. Similarly, our conception of our own social
group (the "us") has grown dramatically, to the point that we today may
identify ourselves as parts of multiple, independent social groups. Unlike not
long ago, these groups need not be local, they can span countries or
continents.

Because technological development leads to globalization of the species, our
social groups start covering the whole planet.

If this development continues, is it not inevitable that we will at some point
get _de facto_ global entity which governs us i.e. world government? It would
be the natural next step.

What would be the responsible social action to deal with global issues like
global warming and to return to sustainable resource use?

We can not, as species, decentralize our decision making to independent self-
interested groups i.e. nations much longer. Our consumption of resources is
neither sustainable nor responsible. What wisdom is it to leave a barren earth
for our children to inherit?

~~~
iamnothere
> Similarly, our conception of our own social group (the "us") has grown
> dramatically, to the point that we today may identify ourselves as parts of
> multiple, independent social groups. Unlike not long ago, these groups need
> not be local, they can span countries or continents.

> Because technological development leads to globalization of the species, our
> social groups start covering the whole planet.

I think you overestimate the effects of technology and globalization. I too
used to believe this, but I have found it to be an illusion created by the
intersection of modern media and the Internet. If you get out of your
neighborhood, your city, your state, your country, and really engage with
people, you'll find that most of them are more different from you than you can
imagine. People have wildly different values, interests, and beliefs about
even the most basic things. It is a wonder that we function as societies at
all, and a testament to the resilience and inherent flexibility of the social
structures we've constructed -- at least in the 50% of the planet where
stable, large-scale societies exist.

> If this development continues, is it not inevitable that we will at some
> point get de facto global entity which governs us i.e. world government? It
> would be the natural next step.

No, mainly due to the inevitable competition for resources and status that
would splinter any such centralized authority. Groups of humans will not agree
to give an outsize share of their resources to perceived competition, even if
it is a fair exchange. Look at the present urban/rural divide, racial and
religious divides, and hatred between many nations. And this may be the best
it has ever been! There has never been a time in history when strategic
competitors could agree to put aside their differences for mutual advantage,
except for brief moments when facing a greater threat. One could argue that
climate change and resource depletion are indeed greater threats, but I would
contend that such alliances suffer from fatigue and eventual defection if the
"war" lasts too long. (Which it will! These issues are not going away.)

> We can not, as species, decentralize our decision making to independent
> self-interested groups i.e. nations much longer. Our consumption of
> resources is neither sustainable nor responsible. What wisdom is it to leave
> a barren earth for our children to inherit?

You're right, we can not -- but we will, unless technology allows a small
group to put a boot on the face of humanity's abundant diversity of culture
and thought. Either option is terrible; we dive back into the pit of global
resource conflict, or we become enslaved. The only thing that can break us out
of this awful set of choices is a benevolent "strong" AI, and I personally
have doubts that this can be achieved in time to save us from the next,
potentially final, global war.

If I were a global power, I would be secretly putting my resources into
surviving this coming war. (There are no "winners" in the next global war,
only survivors.) Unfortunately, if nations are doing this -- and they surely
are -- it only adds to the probability of conflict.

------
Calib3r
"Extremist" is a word that carries no weight without context.

Funny how laws are written before the context is formalized. Like a blank
check for future oppression.

~~~
bitL
I am sure our mainstream is unbelievably extremist from the point of view of
people living at the beginning of 20th century...

~~~
dominotw
Or different parts of the world. Drones are extremist and suicide bombings are
noble in parts of pakistan while opposite is true in usa.

------
dictum
That most reactions focus on the absurdity of a 1h deadline is proof that this
technique still works wonders. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-
face_technique](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique)

~~~
spyrosg
Indeed. Or more people than you realise implicitly support the idea of censure
with only vague restraint, and are just nerding out on the details.

In the end it will likely not matter how expertly the eurocrats contain the
symptoms of deeper, social problems, it might very well blow up in their
faces.

------
est
just two steps away from china

1\. authorities can have their own definition of "extreme" 2\. site must
delete or get shutdown

~~~
ekianjo
yes, extreme is anything ISIS right now, and soon after whistle blowers,
journalists not in the current political movement will be falling under the
same net as well.

Sounds exactly the same excuse as ever: pretend to protect the children by
applying new censorship rules.

~~~
TheHeasman
There's a thing called the political opposition (or over here in Brit Her
Majesty's Loyal Opposition) and that's how democracies stop authoritarian
rules y'know.

~~~
mistermann
Is it foolproof? Some people believe it's possible for opposing parties to
slowly drift towards each other on the political spectrum over time, to the
degree that "opposition" becomes rather meaningless in a practical sense.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)

 _The Overton window, also known as the window of discourse, is the range of
ideas tolerated in public discourse. The term is derived from its originator,
Joseph P. Overton, a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public
Policy, who, in his description of his window, claimed that an idea 's
political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within the window,
rather than on politicians' individual preferences. According to Overton's
description, his window includes a range of policies considered politically
acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can
recommend without being considered too extreme to gain or keep public office.
_

As an example, consider the reaction of both the Republicans and Democrats
(and the news media) to the very notion of Bernie Sander's socialized, single-
payer medical care in the last election. In the not too distant past, the
Democratic party rallied behind such causes, or at least had an open mind
about them. Now, they will stick a knife in your campaign behind the scenes.

This touches on what Hillary Clinton _used to_ believe, and what she believes
now. Is she "just being pragmatic"?

[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-single-payer-
he...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-single-payer-health-care-
will-never-ever-happen/)

------
yladiz
I think removing extremist content is a good idea overall (although this then
begs the question, how do you legally define extremist content?[1]), but I
feel like 1 hour is a bit tough, primarily because 1 hour can mean different
things: does it mean from being reported, or being uploaded? This question
isn’t covered in the article and it’s an important distinction I feel.

1: the problem being that a lot of religious texts could be defined as
“extremist” if an ill defined law is created. I guess you have to define
directly what content would be considered extremist, e.g. any video from a
known terrorist/terrorist group like ISIL, which will never be perfect but
better than having a definition that’s too loose.

~~~
wccrawford
I think we can assume that it's within 1 hour of being reported, not uploaded,
since there's no way to guarantee everything that's uploaded is fully checked,
even with a staff large enough to look at it all and make decisions more than
a few seconds long.

But that problem also basically exists for smaller sites under the "1 hour
after reported" rule, too. IMO, it would basically force them to hide anything
that was reported immediately, and then restore it after it was moderated.

That will make it horrifyingly easy for internet trolls to mess with things.

~~~
yladiz
I’m not sure though, because of this quote:

> In March, the EU's civil service published details of the current voluntary
> arrangement, which noted that "terrorist content is most harmful in the
> first hours of its appearance online".

This makes me think it may be timed from the upload, not the report.

~~~
wccrawford
Then that would basically mean that all content would have to be moderated in
the EU, which would cripple forums and chat sites.

I can't even begin to imagine what repercussions that will have.

------
yason

          extremist
          adj 1: (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm;
    

I think I should begin to consider the EU plans quite a bit extremist
themselves.

------
zaarn
The EU internal report is here: [http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-18-1169_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-18-1169_en.htm)

It seems to be in early stages. The one hour rule is fine for larger sites
that can afford it, though for smaller sites where "all employees are asleep"
is a valid condition so I'm not sure how they'll handle that.

Additionally this seems to piggyback another set of rules determined to make
Youtube DMCA/Copyright/Community Guideline strikes more transparent and fair,
which is urgently needed IMO.

I'll definitely keep any eye on it, it might be harmful depending on how the
final draft as law turns out.

------
bitL
End of our civilization. Wonderful. Now what was supposed to be the difference
between EU and Soviet Union? That we voluntarily cheer for this and not get
dragged to accept it? I am sure this opinion gets flagged as extremist soon...

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
I'm not sure it gets flagged, but might deserve a honorable mention in a
weekly n-gate writeup.

------
akshayB
1 hours is an extremely unrealistic timeline to remove or taken down content.
This specially is externally hard because lot of social networks depend on
people reporting something and then an action is taken. To add complexity
there can be foreign language at play as well which people might get scared
off even without knowing what it is.

------
afroboy
If i said Israel is terrorist organisation and they stole a land doesn't
belong to them, does this qualify an extremist content?

~~~
candiodari
Depends. Is it election season or they're buying submarines from us season ?

------
dbelchamber
Classically unreasonable political demand, 10/10

------
madengr
How do they classify videos about Catalonian Independance?

~~~
sn41
Extremist if Catalonia stays in Spain, I suppose. Winner takes all.

------
stringcode
We are witnessing rise of totalitarian 1984esk dystopia.

------
wolco
That sounds possible for large players.

~~~
ekianjo
really? On youtube there are more hours of videos uploaded every minute than
actual human reviewers can ever hope to police, let alone under one hour...

~~~
onion2k
Charging users to upload videos would solve the problem.

~~~
ekianjo
I doubt ISIS and the like lacks funding. If this is really what you want to
prevent money wont be a big barrier.

~~~
onion2k
You're not thinking laterally. The problem isn't extremist videos. The problem
is that there are too many videos uploaded to reasonably check all of them.
Charging would solve _that_ problem, which in turn solves the problem of
extremist content.

------
pier25
What is "extremist content"?

How can the website owner be notified?

------
sparkling
Cookie laws, legal nag screens everywhere, monitoring comment section is a
24/7 job... its just absurd. Honestly, just turn off the internet in the EU.

~~~
Rjevski
GDPR is a good idea (although I remains to be seen if any of it is enforced,
as without enforcement it's pointless) but I agree the cookie law was the
stupidest nonsense I've seen in a long time.

~~~
Grue3
GDPR is just cookie law on steroids. Except now you have to click a million
checkboxes instead of one button, and it works worldwide.

~~~
annabellish
That's very untrue. In fact, any site which makes you do that is _violating_
the GDPR - you aren't allowed to have those checkboxes be opt-out.

Besides, that's only one small part of the GDPR, which is much closer to the
Data Protection Act modernised for 2018's awful internet than anything else.
We did this to ourselves by proving we can't be trusted to self-regulate.

~~~
mrighele
I agree, but until now I have seen very few websites doing GDPR properly
(probably because it would go against one of their main ways to make money).
The best implementation that I found to date, is on GitLab's website [1].

[1] [https://about.gitlab.com/](https://about.gitlab.com/)

~~~
swebs
Wikia is also good with it, though it's not too clear that "Reject advertising
cookies" is a button.

[http://metroid.wikia.com/wiki/Metroid_Wiki](http://metroid.wikia.com/wiki/Metroid_Wiki)

------
tannhaeuser
Didn't the European Parliament vote this down just three months ago?

