An anti Euro party, anti EU, anti migration, pro Italian Exit, racist, omophobic, whose leader, who's also interior minister of Italy, has been wearing neo-fascist brands in public, hugging a drug dealer hooligan or recently visited a man who shot in the back an unarmed alleged thief romanian and killed him, declaring him a martyr who deserves pardon.
Or their allies, the 5 star movement, who are just incompetent jackasses.
Thanks, but NO thanks.
BTW they are only opposing to article 13 because Putin asked them to do so.
Italian original article: http://espresso.repubblica.it/plus/articoli/2019/02/21/news/...
In english: https://euobserver.com/foreign/144253
I understand that the title is a little misleading, but come on!
P.S. I'm italian too.
Besides, as a long time activist for internet freedom, I agree that something like article 13 is urgently needed.
There is no freedom without protection.
What EU is trying to do is to protect the small local EU actors against the tech giants from outside EU.
> Licenses that platforms take out cover uploads by their users, as long as they act non-commercially or “don’t generate significant revenues”
> Uploaders can complain about blocked uploads and request impartial, human review. (it means real justice, not Facebook's justice or Twitter justice or youTube's justice)
Believe it or not, the platforms are already liable in case of legal infringement, it's not really different from before.
Right now YouTube just get away with it because "we have too much content to check".
The small players don't because, well, they are too small to even get a chance to fight.
Are they? From what I understand, in the latest proposal they're not except. Or maybe only when they're less than 3 years old, which isn't very helpful.
The real problem is that the technology for this doesn't even exist, and if it exists, it exists only in the hands of Facebook and Google, forcing everybody else into their arms, giving Facebook and Google even more power.
So that means every single blog has to get licenses with an unlimited number of potential rights holders on the off chance that a commenter might quote something from them. That's completely unreasonable.
> Believe it or not, the platforms are already liable in case of legal infringement, it's not really different from before.
It is different, because after this passes, platforms are required to filter using technology that doesn't exist, and will probably err on simply blocking nearly everything from the EU, just to be safe.
Has any of the supporters of this law considered that in order to check all uploads against copyrighted material, every single platform needs access to a database containing every single copyright work? Nowhere have I seen any reasonable explanation of how this is supposed to work.
Available to the public for less than 3 years AND
Annual turnover below €10 million AND
Fewer than 5 million unique monthly visitors
I would count anyone who supports article 13 as opposed to a free EU.
The blank option is of course possible, but I do not like it.
I consider it the lesser evil.
Fake news and propaganda are one obvious target of article 13.
The technical term for what happened here is "jumping the shark" . Accusations of this or that worldview or tendencies is one thing, but injecting conspiracy theories into serious discussion is entirely different ballpark.
Especially when it's already well documented how terrible Article 13 is.
There are many proofs about contacts between Lega or 5 star movement and Putin's emissaries.
Unfortunately many of them are in Italian.
Just look for Jacobo Iacoboni articles, that might have been translated and published in english.
His book 'the experiment' is also worth reading.
If anything, I'd expect him to support it, hoping to ruin European internet access.
Single-issue voting hurts everyone including yourself.
Regardless of the article itself, I think this mechanism is the future of citizens taking control of politics.
The point is, by a large group of people picking their most important issue, and pledging to be single-issue publicly, it puts REAL and VISIBLE pressure on those politicians to represent them on those issues.
Once the issue is fixed, people can move on to the next-most important issue they would like to be represented on.
I think the long-term implications of article 13 are bad enough that if it were financially possible for me, I would move out of the EU. A free and open internet is one of the few nice things in life for me.
This particular one has exemptions for small groups but we know the cost of compliance is non-zero. When I have to hire a lawyer for my personal website, I'm already in trouble.
I guess we just need to maxmind our way out of the EU. So be it.
You can't just do that right now anyway. GDPR already puts a bunch of burdens on you that you must handle.
How about vote no on the EU altogether. This entity is too large, too powerful and has a track record of passing terrible laws around internet usage.
Of course brain drain has been hugely beneficial for Germany. It also helps Germany that weaker economies are tied to the euro which keeps the euro's exchange rate down.
I used to be pro-EU, but time and time again they create regulations and directives that are simply harmful for our future or don't consider collateral damage. Furthermore, Germany and France seem to be pushing hard on becoming rulers whether the other members want it or not.
>but I disagree that leaving would improve things for any country.
Of course leaving won't improve things because the EU will try to punish any leavers as much as possible. The entire EU situation is just depressing, because you can't leave, it won't improve and bad decisions keep being made and you're forced to abide by them. And what makes it even worse is that the pro-EU people are telling me that I should be happy because of these bad decisions.
Ultimately all bad decisions must be paid for. This is the hidden cost of letting the EU exist. Unfortunately, the longer it exists the more painful it will be to leave.
The EU is not associated with peace and of course cannot guarantee it. Citizens of EU countries are better off with their own country's rule of law than to succumb to the generality of all of Europe.
> There's trade benefits inside the EU, free travel for all citizens, and, recently added, no more roaming fees for mobile phones.
These all come at a cost you don't yet realize.
Optionality is king. I'd rather have twelve options than one.
NATO was founded 70 years ago
The EU as we know it was established 27 years ago
NATO, despite its faults, has done more for European integration and peace than the EU. It carried Europe together through the stark darkness of the Cold War; how would the EU fare against such an existential threat?
It's true that today's EU was only established in 1992/93, but it is the result of a very long process of European integration starting in ECSC in 1951 and the EEC in 1957. Cooperation between Germany and France started remarkably early after World War II. A few years earlier, they could not have been more bitter enemies.
I agree with you and would say that the EU is utterly useless in a military conflict, precisely because there has always been the NATO to fall back on. This might change in the future as the US is becoming less reliable and more isolationist from a German standpoint at least, then again, there might be no political power capable of reforming the EU further right now.
In short, I think the EU helps Europe have internal peace. For everything else, I am glad to sit under a nuclear umbrella.
How about you just leave EU?
It's full of countries out there that are waiting for you and don't care about protecting your data.
There are also many other issues where EU does better than IT. Food safety, environment regulations and trade agreements, just to mention a few.
While smaller units are almost universally better (imagine how different history would have been if the provinces of China had been independent countries), but does mean that each individual country must make many more agreements on their own, and have to shape their own regulations for things like food safety and environmental efforts, which might not turn out as well if they are not forced by the collective.
I completely agree. In my opinion it should go down to the individual level.
Let's say China had independent states/countries per province. And, they all agreed to a set of laws individually but disagreed as a collective set of laws.
This would mean that most citizens would suffer as the laws are (at best) an average of the opinions of all citizens of China.
Being an average, most people would have at least one disagreement on how a particular law should or should not be. There will be of course some some people that lie on the exact average. These lucky people would be 100% fairly represented.
In order to be fair ultimately law needs to favor the individual, not a country, state, or other larger group.