
The Whole World Should Be Up in Arms About the EU's Looming Internet Catastrophe - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/why-whole-world-should-be-arms-about-eus-looming-internet-catastrophe
======
acheron
A few months ago everybody was saying how awesome it was that the EU was
regulating the Internet. You don't get to criticize them now. Or, well, I
guess you can try, but that's not how things work in reality. Once the
principle is established that the state (or suprastate) gets to impose
regulations in an area of life, it may turn out that people you don't like
work for the state also and they will do it too.

To mix some farm metaphors, the chickens are coming home now and it's too late
to shut the barn door.

~~~
munchbunny
I think that's somewhat missing the key nuance of the point. There are
actually two debates:

1\. Whether to regulate the internet.

2\. Whether a specific regulation is a good one.

#2 is the debate that happens for every law in a democratic system. If you
agree with the democratic system on principle, then you already acknowledge
that the democracy may not choose the laws you want.

#1 is what you're talking about. But it's not an all or nothing deal. You can
believe that the internet should be regulated and simultaneously believe that
any specific regulation is a bad one.

~~~
stcredzero
_I think that 's somewhat missing the key nuance of the point. There are
actually two debates:_

 _1\. Whether to regulate the internet._

 _2\. Whether a specific regulation is a good one._

How often have lawmakers and regulators proposed things that would
significantly break the Internet and online communities/activities? It seems
to happen continuously, a few times a year.

I think you're somewhat missing the key nuance of a point. There are actually
two debates. 1. Whether to text while driving. 2. Whether a specific texting
is too distracting.

Here's the thing, though. Is legislation a remedy for bad internet
legislation?

~~~
munchbunny
_How often have lawmakers and regulators proposed things that would
significantly break the Internet and online communities /activities? It seems
to happen continuously, a few times a year._

Fair point. You can argue that not regulating the internet at all is overall
better than dealing with all of the bad proposals. However, bringing it back
to the post I was responding to, everyone wasn't celebrating the EU regulating
the internet, everyone was celebrating privacy regulation in an instance where
the system had gotten to a bad place on its own.

 _I think you 're somewhat missing the key nuance of a point. There are
actually two debates. 1. Whether to text while driving. 2. Whether a specific
texting is too distracting._

You and I agree that the potential benefits are tiny compared to the harms of
allowing texting while driving. On the other hand, you and I disagree that the
balance is in favor of deregulating the internet.

That's a crucial difference. We never get to question 2 with texting while
driving. We get to question 2 with internet legislation _all the time_.

 _Here 's the thing, though. Is legislation a remedy for bad internet
legislation?_

Legislation doesn't exist in a vacuum, and bad legislation is remedied in
multiple ways, one of which is more legislation.

That said, your question sounded to me like a rhetorical way to say that the
risk of bad legislation isn't worth the occasional good one. Fair point. I
disagree, but fair point. I don't think it's a useful debate to have because
it's too fuzzy to be non-ideological, and, practically speaking, the world has
already moved on from the question of _whether_ to regulate the internet.

~~~
stcredzero
_Fair point. You can argue that not regulating the internet at all is overall
better than dealing with all of the bad proposals_

It's pretty never ending, and legislators and regulators don't seem to clue in
over time. The downsides are very often potentially huge, and the upsides are
almost always questionable.

 _We get to question 2 with internet legislation all the time._

Rather like living someplace where you get to kill cockroaches all the time.

 _Legislation doesn 't exist in a vacuum, and bad legislation is remedied in
multiple ways, one of which is more legislation._

The solution to violence is more and better violence? The solution to
hostility and hate is better backed and more potent hate? Laws and regulations
are manipulated by big corporations to their advantage all the time, sometimes
in direct contradiction to how the laws are sold to the public. The best move
is to refuse them that power.

 _it 's too fuzzy to be non-ideological, and, practically speaking, the world
has already moved on from the question of whether to regulate the internet._

The formulation isn't fuzzy or ambiguous. The proper amount to regulate the
internet is as little as possible.

------
szpak
YouTube (i.e., Google) already does article 13 (i.e., the extinction event is
home-grown). Just today I saw a note from someone who got a takedown notice
from YouTube after posting his own performance, done in his own home, of a
Beethoven piece: the algorithm found infringement.

'Under Article 13 — the "censorship machines" — anyone who allows users to
communicate in public by posting audio, video, stills, code, or anything that
might be copyrighted — must send those posts to a copyright enforcement
algorithm. The algorithm will compare it to all the known copyrighted works
(anyone can add anything to the algorithm's database) and censor it if it
seems to be a match.'

------
dangjc
Newspapers are dying off. Readers land on an article linked from Google then
leave. Maybe in the interest of free speech, we do actually need the link tax.
Users need to start using the homepages of these news sites and discovering
their full reading experience.

~~~
hyperman1
Nonsense. Newspapers are dying off because they aren't doing their job. They
all copy news from the same few sources, and do almost no decent investiation.
Why doesn't anybody care for more than a title and a short snippet? Because
what's left is filler.

I would really like a newspaper if it provided decent content. I would even
prefer a weekly in depth edition instead of a daily dose of mcNews, we'll-
give-two-sides-even-if-one-is-insane, and political opera. Now who can I give
my money?

A tax means google pays, not me, and they can continue creating garbage. The
market has spoken, newspapers. Please do your job or drop dead.

~~~
satya71
Have you tried "The Economist"? It is weekly, in-depth, no fluff (mostly).
Give them your money. Well worth it.

~~~
hyperman1
I'm not English-speaking, but as I'm already reading bbc and Al Jazeera, I'll
give it a try. Thanks for the hint.

------
expertentipp
Hysteria with few facts, recalling the Street View hysteria in Germany.

