
Sweden will vote against the copyright deal/article 13 - doener
https://twitter.com/senficon/status/1115620746951262209
======
framtidsljus
The title of the article is not properly translated. "Sverige vill ändra"
actually means "Swedens wants to change", not "will change". Also, "Sweden",
in this case is the "EU committee" of the Swedish parliament. The committee
wants the government to vote no. The matter isn't final yet I guess.

~~~
5ExJHrwW
The responsible minister Morgan Johansson has said that the government will
abide by the parliaments decision:

"We have an order that we should anchor decisions in the Riksdag, now that the
Riksdag has changed its attitude, the government will of course have to follow
it."

[https://translate.google.com/translate?client=ubuntu&client=...](https://translate.google.com/translate?client=ubuntu&client=tw-
ob&channel=fs&oe=utf-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Ffemtejuli.se%2F2019%2F04%2F08%2Fregeringen-
ar-pa-vag-att-backa-om-upphovsrattsdirektivet%2F)

------
kalleboo
The Swedish article linked in the tweet concludes that the Swedish vote makes
absolutely no difference, and the only thing that can change the result is
Germany changing its mind.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
Does Germany have a disproportionate amount of control over the EU? Or are you
saying the support is already split and Germany is the deciding factor in this
case? Or both?

~~~
angott
It is not really about certain countries having more control than others.
Germany has the largest population in the EU, and since MEPs apportionment is
proportional to population, 99 out of 785 MEPs are German. It's a matter of
demographics.

~~~
anbop
MEPs are not directly proportional to population, but degressively so, where
the smallest countries have more and the largest countries have less
representation than they would on a purely proportional basis. But this is
about Sweden's vote in the Council, where each country casts a vote as a
country, but that vote is weighted by that country's population.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
So, if I'm understanding this right, it's in Germany and Sweden's own
political interests to significantly increase their populations?

~~~
twic
And then split into multiple smaller countries in order to get better vote per
capita ratios.

Of course, an expert conspiracy theorist will note that the more or less
culturally and linguistically homogeneous group of about twenty million people
living in the north of Europe are already split into a vote-buffing four
countries ...

~~~
anon4242
> linguistically homogeneous group

I beg to differ. Finnish is as far removed from Swedish and Danish as
Hungarian. Italian is probably closer to either than each other. Swedish and
Danish are (at least on reading level) mutually intelligible.

~~~
ahje
There are about 20 million speakers of Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Faroese
and Swedish (including native Swedish-speakers in Finland). If we added the
Finnish-speaking population to the mix we'd end up with a population of over
25 million -- not 20.

That being said, I'd say Finns are quite close to the other Nordic countries
culturally, even though there is a clear language barrier.

For those who don't know what this is about, Finnish and Sami aren't Indo-
European languages like the other Nordic languages are, while Danish,
Norwegian and Swedish are closely related and somewhat mutually intelligible.

------
shmerl
Good, more countries should have opposed this corrupt censorship bill.

~~~
jug
Europe was pretty torn and I got the impression that votes were ”for” by
default and ”against” where there was an ongoing public debate. If true, I
hope that was more due to politicians misunderstanding the consequences due to
technical obstacles rather than lobbyism...

The arguments in favor have also been strange, even from institutions like the
Swedish EU Commision! They argued that this directive was no big deal because
social networks already employ AI assisted filters to respect copyrights.
Yeah, but those are also known to be heavy handed, and depend on huge training
sets. It completely disregards small businesses and startups with no resources
to deal with this.

~~~
Mirioron
People seem too simply not know what goes on in the EU. And even if they do
they feel powerless about it in smaller countries. I'm in an ex-Soviet country
and some of the older people I've talked to about it have said that they think
they have as much of a say in the EU as they did in the Soviet Union. (Which
is none.)

~~~
vkou
The point of democracy is that individuals, or even small groups of
individuals have almost no say in governance.

So, yes, you are supposed to attach yourself to larger umbrella movements, to
get your opinions heard. It's by design.

One other small difference between the EU, and the USSR, is that T-54 tanks
don't start rolling in, when your country decides to hold a little regime
change... Or even a general strike.

~~~
IntegrationDude
>One other small difference between the EU, and the USSR, is that T-54 tanks
don't start rolling in, when your country decides to hold a little regime
change... Or even a general strike.

T-54 are quite outdated, so you're right there.

------
_bxg1
I thought the vote already happened? How can they change it?

~~~
sirlantis
It only passed in the parliament, hasn't passed the council yet (bicameral
legislature like in the US and many other countries).

------
lelf
[https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Femanuelkarlsten.se%2F04%2Fsverige-
vill-andra-sin-rost-om-artikel-13-har-ar-satten-det-kan-falla-direktivet)

Sweden wants to change its vote on “Article 13” — here are the ways it can
trap the directive

------
legohead
twitter is being evil with the back button now? click on the link, then click
on one of the tweet replies.. then try going back to HN, twitter won't have
that!

~~~
kumarharsh
Use the native back button (if on Android) instead of Twitter's back button.
It's been like that since a long time.

~~~
reificator
Chrome 73 on Windows 10, the site is definitely hijacking the browser's back
button. Spamming it works, but a single press is not enough to get away from
Twitter.

Worth investigating whether this is due to a redirect, or whether it's due to
misusing the history API. Either way, it feels very user-hostile.

~~~
radford-neal
Can anyone explain why browsers allow this?

Surely it's not technically hard to make "back" actually go back. Is there
some downside to letting users control their own screen that I'm not aware of?

~~~
aikah
I imagine that Twitter is abusing the HTML5 history API. It's a Web
specification. It can be useful when used right, but any scriptable
functionality is open for abuse.

~~~
radford-neal
I'm not up on HTML5 APIs. But I do know that it is entirely possible for a
browser to have a button labelled "back" that goes back. Always.

Why don't they have it? Fear that something horrible will happen on some web
page that relies on the user not exiting the page without control going throw
their code? But such a web page is broken in any case, since the user might
simply lose their internet connection...

~~~
int_19h
Consider a single-page web app - what does "back" mean in that context? Only
the app really knows, the browser doesn't have enough knowledge about its
logical UI flow to figure that out. Hence why the history API was introduced,
so that app can change parts of the page, and then manually record that change
in the browser history in a way that allows for it to be reverted.

In practice, it was a problem ever since AJAX first became a thing - with the
symptom usually being that "back" _didn 't_ do what the users expected, e.g.
navigated away from the website, rather than back to the previous page state
on that website. Hence why it's one of the earlier HTML5 additions. It's been
around for 9 years now, and heavily used all around.

~~~
radford-neal
I think users want a "back" button that goes back to where they were before
they visited this web page. The browser knows how to do this. It doesn't need
to know anything about the app running on that web page.

If the app on that web page wants a button that undoes some state change on
that web page, they can create one of their own. It seems like a bad idea to
confuse these two very different actions. I don't think it's beyond the
capacity of users to understand the distinction if it were actually made
consistently.

~~~
int_19h
Most pages these days are like web apps in that they do partial refreshes
rather than navigating to a completely new page (with most of the same markup)
as you click around. From user's perspective, this _looks_ like a new page,
and logically it is. They don't care about how it is actually achieved.

For example, on GitHub, when you're browsing some source repo, and you open a
folder there, do you expect the Back button to go to the previous folder, or
to leave GitHub altogether?

~~~
radford-neal
Well, I"m arguing that combining two functions in one button is a bad idea. I
expect there to be a button to leave github altogether, and a different button
to move back within github.

~~~
int_19h
Browsers have never worked that way, though. If GitHub was written back in
late 90s, say, every time you clicked on a folder in the file tree, you'd get
a page refresh with a new URL - and then the Back button would just go back to
the previous URL.

Now, they do the refresh by fetching data from a web service and updating the
DOM. But the URLs still change - as they should, since you are accessing
different resources as you browse - and so the history tracks it accordingly.

The only time when we had something like you describe was in early Ajax days,
when DOM updates were already done, but before the history API, and before the
hacks that preceded it were devised. In those days, any website that did it
would behave exactly as you described - the Back button in the browser would
navigate off the website, even if you were clicking around it for the past
hours. And then the website offered its own Back button implemented in HTML,
that would navigate within it. Users _hated_ it, because it broke all
established conventions.

