Jump to content
Please Register For Full Access To Merlin Warez ×
dvernb

EU law targets Big Tech over hate speech, disinformation

Recommended Posts

The European Union reached a landmark deal early Saturday to take aim at hate speech, disinformation and other harmful online content.

The law will force big tech companies to police themselves harder, make it easier for users to flag problems and empower regulators to punish noncompliance with billions in fines.

EU officials finally clinched the agreement in principle in the early hours of Saturday. The Digital Services Act will overhaul the digital rulebook for 27 countries and cement Europe’s reputation as the global leader in reining in the power of social media companies and other digital platforms, such as Facebook, Google and Amazon.

“With the DSA, the time of big online platforms behaving like they are ‘too big to care’ is coming to an end,” said EU Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton.

EU Commission Vice President Margrethe Vestager added that “with today’s agreement we ensure that platforms are held accountable for the risks their services can pose to society and citizens.”

The act is the EU’s third significant law targeting the tech industry, a notable contrast with the U.S., where lobbyists representing Silicon Valley’s interests have largely succeeded in keeping federal lawmakers at bay.

While the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission have filed major antitrust actions against Google and Facebook, Congress remains politically divided on efforts to address competition, online privacy, disinformation and more.

The EU’s new rules, which are designed to protect internet users and their “fundamental rights online,” should make tech companies more accountable for content created by users and amplified by their platforms’ algorithms.

Breton said they will have plenty of stick to back up their laws.

“It entrusts the Commission with supervising very large platforms, including the possibility to impose effective and dissuasive sanctions of up to 6% of global turnover or even a ban on operating in the EU single market in case of repeated serious breaches,” he said.

The tentative agreement was reached between the EU parliament and member states. It still needs to be officially rubber-stamped by those institutions but should pose no political problem.

“The DSA is nothing short of a paradigm shift in tech regulation. It’s the first major attempt to set rules and standards for algorithmic systems in digital media markets,” said Ben Scott, a former tech policy advisor to Hillary Clinton who’s now executive director of advocacy group Reset.

Negotiators had been hoping to hammer out a deal before French elections Sunday. A new French government could stake out different positions on digital content.

The need to regulate Big Tech more effectively came into sharper focus after the 2016 U.S. presidential election, when Russia was found to have used social media platforms to try to influence the country’s vote. Tech companies like Facebook and Twitter promised to crack down on disinformation, but the problems have only worsened. During the pandemic, health misinformation blossomed and again the companies were slow to act, cracking down after years of allowing anti-vaccine falsehoods to thrive on their platforms.

Under the EU law, governments would be able to request companies take down a wide range of content that would be deemed illegal, including material that promotes terrorism, child sexual abuse, hate speech and commercial scams. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter would have to give users tools to flag such content in an “easy and effective way” so that it can be swiftly removed. Online marketplaces like Amazon would have to do the same for dodgy products, such as counterfeit sneakers or unsafe toys.

These systems will be standardized so that they will work the same way on any online platform.

The tech giants have been lobbying furiously in Brussels to water down the EU rules.

Twitter said Saturday it would review the rules “in detail” and that it supports “smart, forward thinking regulation that balances the need to tackle online harm with protecting the Open Internet.”

Google said in a statement on Friday that it looks forward to “working with policymakers to get the remaining technical details right to ensure the law works for everyone.” Amazon referred to a blog post from last year that said it welcomed measures that enhance trust in online services. Facebook didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The Digital Services Act would ban ads targeted at minors, as well as ads targeted at users based on their gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation. It would also ban deceptive techniques companies use to nudge people into doing things they didn’t intend to, such as signing up for services that are easy to opt into, but hard to decline.

To show they’re making progress on limiting these practices, tech companies would have to carry out annual risk assessments of their platforms.

Up until now, regulators have had no access to the inner workings at Google, Facebook and other popular services. But under the new law, the companies will have to be more transparent and provide information to regulators and independent researchers on content-moderation efforts. This could mean, for example, making YouTube turn over data on whether its recommendation algorithm has been directing users to more Russian propaganda than normal.

To enforce the new rules, the European Commission is expected to hire more than 200 new staffers. To pay for it, tech companies will be charged a “supervisory fee,” which could be up to 0.1% of their annual global net income, depending on the negotiations.

Experts said the new rules will likely spark copycat regulatory efforts by governments in other countries, while tech companies will also face pressure to roll out the rules beyond the EU’s borders.

“If Joe Biden stands at the podium and says ‘By golly, why don’t American consumers deserve the same protections that Google and Facebook are giving to Europe consumers,’ it’s going to be difficult for those companies to deny the application of the same rules” elsewhere, Scott said.

But the companies aren’t likely to do so voluntarily, said Zach Meyers, senior research fellow at the Centre for European Reform think tank. There is just too much money on the line if a company like Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, is restricted in how it can target advertising at specific groups of users.

“The big tech firms will heavily resist other countries adopting similar rules, and I cannot imagine the firms voluntarily applying these rules outside the EU,” Meyers said.

The EU reached a separate agreement last month on its so-called Digital Markets Act, a law aimed at reining in the market power of tech giants and making them treat smaller rivals fairly.

And in 2018, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation set the global standard for data privacy protection, though it has faced criticism for not being effective at changing the behavior of tech companies. Much of the problem centers on the fact that a company’s lead privacy regulator is in the country where its European head office is located, which for most tech companies is Ireland.

Irish regulators have opened dozens of data-privacy investigations, but have only issued judgements for a handful. Critics say the problem is understaffing, but the Irish regulator says the cases are complex and time-consuming.

EU officials say they have learned from that experience and will make the bloc’s executive Commission the enforcer for the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/eu-law-targets-big-tech-hate-speech-disinformation-84260250

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Check 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very bad step closer to global totalitarianism. No opinion should be stymied or banned as "Hate" speech.

I don't participate in subjects that are hot button topics because anything I say will be misconstrued by someone and that must be avoided by me. I don't like to hurt others with deeds or words. Only in response to direct aggression towards me or mine will draw me into it.

One example of censorship I am faced with everyday is Islam. In all media from print to the internet and everything between, Christianity is under constant attack and scoffed at to the point of utter disrespect. In contrast I challenge anyone to find one current example of the same treatment of Islam or it's "prophet" (I'm afraid to use his name because web-crawlers will read this) anywhere. It can't be done. The Salman Rushdie fatwa, the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the streets actually flowing with the blood of Christian peasants in IRAQ after the West abandoned them are just a few examples of what censorship accomplishes. Christianity is the only religion I know of that is on the target list for hate speech.

Maybe the answer should be shutting off the internet on a global basis :1819823998_rollingonthefloor:

  • Thanks 1
  • Check 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this wokeism will eventually die a death because it's unworkable and totally ridiculous.

I for one will never shy from saying what I think and tell it like it is... tell the truth... thoughts of The King has no Clothes comes to mind.

  • Thanks 1
  • Check 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surrounded in every way by Muslims.

My house that use to have a local pub opposite, is now opposite a mosque.  I get on with them well and in general they are law abiding and stick to the rules and they very helpful too, especially for us older folk.

Well, everyone knows that when you create a Mosque, it creates an increase in the Muslim population who want to live near it.

I'm used to it, some have been friendly if you give them the chance, it you say hello or 'good morning' it helps, they respond.

I was chatting to a man last year about my roses and the garden, I greet him when I see him.  Then one day he got out of his car and came over to chat.  I noticed his wife getting out of the car too.  She was covered from head to toe in black cloth.  So how am I supposed to say hello to a woman who I have no idea what she looks like in future? 

This is my problem - Something is wrong, it's not gonna work.  I don't want to talk to men, I want to talk to families. 😞

  • Thanks 1
  • Check 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used this example before and I'll use it again now.

A post shows 3 nasty looking Muslims. The caption reads, "These 3 Muslims raped and murdered an 11 year old girl. Share if you believe they should get the death sentence!"

Here's the rub. There was no rape and there was no murder, no 11 year old girl and no 3 Muslim rapists. The whole thing is made up!

The whole purpose of the post is to spread propaganda and get people to hate Muslims!

This is the type of thing they are trying to stop!

 

 

  • Check 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure why but it feels like merely mentioning this news worthy event

6160F007-B46C-4E70-AFB9-8492E1A6DBD6.thumb.png.78bd81ca5757fd54a9752efc8bae88fe.png

raises the specter of some biased motivation.

It’s a sign-of-the-times I guess.

  • Check 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The topic isn't about Muslims or about free speech. It's about the promotion of hate.

The example I used mentioned Muslims. It could have been Mexicans or Indians or just about any other ethnic group.

Misinformation and the promotion of hate is rampant on social media.

It needs to be stopped!

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Check 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

dvernb, I was trying to explain my personal experience.

Every day, I have to face it.

2 weeks ago... I'll try to explain it as best I can.  I went out of my back gate to bring in my bin and remonstrate with unruly kids going home from school.  I said 'are you the ones who destroyed my fence? No, said one lad, I saw them run off over there. I didn't call him out as a liar right there, but I said... well that's strange, it happened three weeks ago.  Another lad said 'is it because we are BROWN?'  Then he said do you think I'm a Paki?  I'm at a loss at this point because I'm not a racist at all.

I asked, well are you?  He wouldn't answer. 

What's clear to me at this point is that these school children were trying to provoke me to say they were Pakis, brown, black or n****rs (their words not mine) They didn't seem to understand that it was all about their bad behaviour, not about the colour of their skin. 

It's starting to look like the race card is pulled at every opportunity to avoid responsibility for bad anti social behaviour.  Don't forget, the race card can be played both ways.

This really pisses me off, many of my best friends have brown or black skin, from whatever religion they are... who knows. They are friends and I love them dearly.  One close friend of mine who was part  Jamaican was my bridesmaid at my wedding... She was Sue to me, Sue my friend, my mate.

It's not the colour of your skin that's important, it's about the colour of your heart and soul, who you are and how you treat other people, is how I judge you.  If you have a good heart, you're OK for me.

Edited by Kath
  • Thanks 2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...