France already has laws covering exceptions like caricatures and quotations. That's why it's not detailed in the new article, it already exists.
The most interesting part of the PDF might be the article 17, section 4. In summary, platforms MUST provide a way for both users and copyright holders to handle complaints and -the important part- they MUST be reviewed by a human. This is gonna be fun for Google and co that want to automate everything with machine learning.
Plenty of call centers operate scripts that respond not much better than how I outlined it. The trick is to get out of the script as soon as you can find and trigger the escape clause.
My concern with companies like Google is that you can easily get yourself into a bizarre situation. Whereas with other systems you just need to escape the script to get to a human review, Google and similar structures mean you often need to find the escape from the escape from the escape. This is why people appeal on twitter rather than through google's own systems. (Yes there are exceptions)
The hope with putting humans into the loop is valid but I'm not convinced its the full answer. The overall attitude/culture of the environment they operate in is still important.
At least with putting people into the process those people can add their own attitude/culture. This is the saving grace however slim.
Same as you, just hopeful it will break the vicious cycle.
Google and co are trying very hard to have no support process and no support staff. Automating everything instead.
If and when they're forced to have a full support structure, it's a major change like a Trojan horse. Even if they're following a stupid script, they're not going to sit idle all days, they're going to actually review some cases, maybe read them in full sometimes.
Look at my parent comment as an example. There is no way for me to find out why it is now at -1 and frankly, the humans who made the decision are not obliged to comment.
So the comment will disappear with no understanding why. No learning is possible.
All of that because there wasn't a law and a process forcing them to review and explain the decision :p
Joking aside. I think you got downvoted because your comment is demeaning toward support and the example is over the top. Humans are not mindless robots who follow instructions to the letter, even if (especially if) formally instructed to count vowels in the message.
I've spoken to many call center staff who quite explicitly had no permission to deviate from a script. They were audio recorded to guarantee compliance. I'm not the one demeaning anyone.
"This call will be recorded for quality and training purposes"
Quality = making sure no one gets too far or deviates off script. Training = who to blame and who to make an example of.
HN often forgets that people who have swam at the bottom don't have the same rose colored glasses. I've seen some pretty harsh environments and plenty definitely script humans like bots.
The counting vowels example sounds over the top but its only over the top because you think its absurd. It seems absurd because you don't see it as a delay loop. But that is exactly what it is. Here's a real example of a delay when someone needs to resolve an issue that is trivial but the organisation doesn't want it commonly used: Put the person on hold. Wait 2 minutes. Resume the call. Say you've consulted your line manager. Etc.
Don't shoot the guy who reminds the world this has happened and is still happening. People as bots is a thing that is already happening.
If they're audio recorded, it means it's possible to get hold of a human on the phone, so miles ahead of Google support.
I know shitty support and shitty jobs, I haven't always worked in tech and I am not in the valley. Yet people as bots is progress over the current level of support from big tech companies.
France already has laws covering exceptions like caricatures and quotations. That's why it's not detailed in the new article, it already exists.
The most interesting part of the PDF might be the article 17, section 4. In summary, platforms MUST provide a way for both users and copyright holders to handle complaints and -the important part- they MUST be reviewed by a human. This is gonna be fun for Google and co that want to automate everything with machine learning.