EU Bureaucrats Call For Censorship of Internet Speech

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-31/facebook-twitter-microsoft-google-pledge-eu-hate-speech-rules

I'm surprised that there hasn't been a thread started already, but a few days ago the EU pledged new rules which would potentially make the internet a state controlled entity for the citizens of the European Union.

Apparently there are also talks of "internet ID cards"

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/communication-online-platforms-and-digital-single-market-opportunities-and-challenges-europe

Kinda misrepresented the contents of that article didnt you my little troll.

really boils down to this:

more people use the internet, including dickheads & old people, the internet becomes shit.

like TV

  On 6/4/2016 at 2:28 PM, MDM Chaos said:

Kinda misrepresented the contents of that article didnt you my little troll.

I blame Hitler

  On 6/4/2016 at 2:28 PM, MDM Chaos said:

Kinda misrepresented the contents of that article didnt you my little troll.

Not really, no.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm

I could understand the disagreement with legislature like this (the hate speech thing). And personally, I do think it's a step in the wrong direction.

But why o why go for the tiresome "bureaucrats" narrative and add the "internet ID cards" article which hasn't got anything to do with free speech or bureaucracy whatsoever?

Wrt to the ID-cards I'd argue the opposite. It might be necessary to all the google/facebook-account fucketry where some silicon valley company forces you to link all accounts so they can basically track any online move you make. How about avoiding having some commercial company require people to use their access-id to do anything for a change.

And the thing wrt bureaucracy is about what exactly? That's just like crying about capitalism, imo.

I use the word bureaucrat as the heads of the EU are truly unelected. For example, during the EU elections in the UK the people couldn't vote for a party that rejected the EU.

From my understanding anyway

  On 6/4/2016 at 4:49 PM, clarktrent said:

For example, during the EU elections in the UK the people couldn't vote for a party that rejected the EU.

From my understanding anyway

http://www.ukip.org/people_mep_candidates

  On 6/4/2016 at 4:54 PM, caze said:

 

  On 6/4/2016 at 4:49 PM, clarktrent said:

For example, during the EU elections in the UK the people couldn't vote for a party that rejected the EU.

From my understanding anyway

 

http://www.ukip.org/people_mep_candidates

 

I'm talking about major parties and UKIP has really only starting gaining traction within the last ten years or so, right?

  On 6/4/2016 at 4:57 PM, clarktrent said:

I'm talking about major parties and UKIP has really only starting gaining traction within the last ten years or so, right?

major parties in the uk support the EU because they're not complete idiots, but that's irrelevant your previous statement was wrong. and there are plenty of individual MPs and MEPs in the other parties who are not pro-EU.

Can you list some benefits from the EU that truly benefited the UK? It seems to strip away national sovereignty every single day while robbing the country of its tax revenue that the UK could personally use for its own country's benefit.

the only benefits that are important are the benefits to the economy, via the common market and via the free movement of people (EU immigrants are a net contributor to the HMRC, and that doesn't even factor in the indirect benefits they bring to the economy). the amount of tax revenue available to the UK is far far higher than it would have had if it had never joined the EU, and this is despite the fact that they actually pay around £8 billion a year to the EU.

the EU is far from perfect, but removing it entirely (or for any country currently in there to leave) would be pretty shitty for all involved.

  On 6/4/2016 at 5:25 PM, caze said:

the only benefits that are important are the benefits to the economy, via the common market and via the free movement of people (EU immigrants are a net contributor to the HMRC, and that doesn't even factor in the indirect benefits they bring to the economy). the amount of tax revenue available to the UK is far far higher than it would have had if it had never joined the EU, and this is despite the fact that they actually pay around £8 billion a year to the EU.

 

the EU is far from perfect, but removing it entirely (or for any country currently in there to leave) would be pretty shitty for all involved.

The EU wouldn't be a problem if it didn't try to govern its own countries, and I totally agree with you there. I see your economic points and you are right. I'm mainly concerned about this censorship and major authority that the EU is bringing upon.

I'm definitely not a fan of this legislation though, if Twitter or Facebook want to ban censor or someone from their networks that's up to them, they're private institutions and should be able to do what they want. Leaving it up to some government watchdog though doesn't bode well, especially when there are unelected bodies who get to say what does and doesn't fly. It's something that's incredibly open to abuse even if you can imagine some individual circumstances where it would be justified. There are already examples where these kind of things have been abused, one person's hate speech is often just passionately argued debate (that ridiculous lawsuit in Canada recently springs to mind).

  On 6/4/2016 at 5:36 PM, caze said:

I'm definitely not a fan of this legislation though, if Twitter or Facebook want to ban censor or someone from their networks that's up to them, they're private institutions and should be able to do what they want. Leaving it up to some government watchdog though doesn't bode well, especially when there are unelected bodies who get to say what does and doesn't fly. It's something that's incredibly open to abuse even if you can imagine some individual circumstances where it would be justified. There are already examples where these kind of things have been abused, one person's hate speech is often just passionately argued debate (that ridiculous lawsuit in Canada recently springs to mind).

http://www.pcmag.com/news/344862/tech-giants-back-new-eu-online-hate-speech-rules

and the social media giants are complying. Facebook has been taking down articles that are critical of refugees from what I understand as well? It's really scary stuff, especially since social media takes up more than half of all internet traffic. I miss Web 1.0

burn it to the ground

  On 6/4/2016 at 5:25 PM, caze said:

the only benefits that are important are the benefits to the economy, via the common market and via the free movement of people (EU immigrants are a net contributor to the HMRC, and that doesn't even factor in the indirect benefits they bring to the economy). the amount of tax revenue available to the UK is far far higher than it would have had if it had never joined the EU, and this is despite the fact that they actually pay around £8 billion a year to the EU.

 

the EU is far from perfect, but removing it entirely (or for any country currently in there to leave) would be pretty shitty for all involved.

*12billion

Most people who come to the UK to work don't pay any tax, are not on PAYE, it is all cash in hand then gets sent home via moneygram. So it doesn't benefit the UK economy.

I swear half the people who voted Remain had NO IDEA what the EU actually was.

hiii richard

  On 7/3/2016 at 9:12 PM, Consequences said:

 

  On 6/4/2016 at 5:25 PM, caze said:

the only benefits that are important are the benefits to the economy, via the common market and via the free movement of people (EU immigrants are a net contributor to the HMRC, and that doesn't even factor in the indirect benefits they bring to the economy). the amount of tax revenue available to the UK is far far higher than it would have had if it had never joined the EU, and this is despite the fact that they actually pay around £8 billion a year to the EU.

 

the EU is far from perfect, but removing it entirely (or for any country currently in there to leave) would be pretty shitty for all involved.

*12billion

 

Most people who come to the UK to work don't pay any tax, are not on PAYE, it is all cash in hand then gets sent home via moneygram. So it doesn't benefit the UK economy.

 

I swear half the people who voted Remain had NO IDEA what the EU actually was.

 

or the other way around: people voting for brexit having no idea what the eu actually was. or is.

doesn't matter now though. because, brexit. rather sooner than later.

good riddance!

sorry brits. nothing personal.

i like this column of joris luyendijk in the guardian on brexit btw:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/28/brexit-great-news-eu-britain-sovereignty

  Quote

 

 

The problem with Britain was not that it was critical of the EU. The problem was bad faith and delusional thinking. As the referendum debate has shown, the country has not come to terms with its own global irrelevance – hence its refusal to pool sovereignty. It continues to believe that as a sovereign nation it can get everything it had as an EU member, and more. When Europe’s democrats talk about “EU reform” they mean putting arrangements in place to make Europe’s pooling of sovereignty democratic. Britons mean the rollback of that very pooling of sovereignty. For this reason, Britain’s membership would have hit a wall sooner or later.

who wouldn't want an unelected NWOesque group of elite banker types to have power over their country? it's not at all exactly what a bunch of really smart young occupy protestor types were out there protesting against just a few years ago. rich banker elites running things? naw doesn't at all sound familiar. and the fact that they are trying to floating out governing regulations that have nothing to do with the economy shouldn't at all be alarming, not at all a sign of more things to come. censorship is totally cool now. because it's good censorship. old people are stupid. they don't smoke enough weed or get all of their ideas directly from pop culture. what's wrong with them

This was not the first and last attempt for internet regulation by EU. Usually terrorist attacks (etc) make a stronger demand for such regulations in the parliament. There were numerous attempts in the last couple of years but all (that I know of) did not pass.

Source: Access Now newsletters