Europe's tough new rules for Big Tech start today. Is anyone ready? The European Union’s Digital Services Act comes into effect today, August 25, and it’s unclear if the hoped-for consumer protections are going to have their desired impact. The Act (DSA) sets rules that the EU designed to make very large online platforms (VLOPs) "tackle the spread of illegal content, online disinformation and …
is it misinformation? It seems to be at least part true:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-and-twitter-censorship-alex-berenson-covid-vaccines-white-house-social-media-11660335186
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/08/alex-berenson-twitter-ban-lawsuit-covid-misinformation/671219/
Incidentally, I have no idea who the guy is, but right wing nutjob or not, he has a right to free speech. If he is spreading misinformation, you have a right to free speech so you can rebut it.
>But you can market potent detergent as a delicious drink, if you add tons of sugar and a catchy name like Coca Cola…
Are you saying what I think you're saying? Having I been doing my washing wrong all these years. Should I toss in some caramel nectar into my next wash and see the whiter-than-white results... and is flat carbonated drink better than fresh from the bottle?
It sure seems like a lot of people believe who ever sits behind the "Hayes - Resolute" knows everything that every agency, department bureau and other rabbit holes is doing. Passing information that could result in the deaths of even a handful of people should not be allowed. It ranks right down there with yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.
He has the right to free speech, yes. No social media, or hosting platform, is under any legal obligation to publish his free speech.
If he is spreading misinformation that goes against the sites terms of service, and actively leads to peoples deaths, then the site in question can revoke his access at any time. That is the site's f "free speech" in action, and you don't like it.
Idiots like to bleat on about the 1st amendment giving them the right to spout off whatever bollocks they want, wherever they like, but fail to realise that private companies and citizens have every right to tell you to shut the fuck up.
> This is just a method to allow the platforms to censor anything the platform
The platforms were already allowed to do that. A privately run platform has the right to impose whatever rules it wants regarding what they allow and what they do not.
> and/or govt doesn't like
Governments already do that, have done so for decades, and have good reasons to do so.
For example: It is illegal to threaten someone with murder. It is illegal to deny the holocaust, or glorify nazis in certain countries. Perjury is a crime. Hate speech is a crime in many countries. False advertising is illegal in many countries.
There are a lot of very good reasons to limit "free speech" in our laws already, and many more could be added. The problem is: These laws were not easy to enforce in "social" media and similar online spaces, and a lot was riding on the goodwill of companies to see to it that their platforms were moderated in a way that's in compliance with these laws.
Now the EU, with all its geopolitical and economic heft, created a legal framework that can enforce this. I fail to see how that amounts to big tech "owning" them.
It's definitely been a lot of work to become compliant with the new moderation rules, I can tell you that. All moderation decisions have to be reported to the user, with a way to appeal, which must be addressed timely, with regular reports to the EU on how many moderation decisions you took, and how many appeals you had, and how timely you were. When you've got tens of millions of users, that's a lot of work that shows up on your doorstep.
And you know who's a VLOP, who needs to apply these new rules, and who definitely hasn't done the work? Twitter.
"Clarity on how orgs moderate content and a requirement to present their algorithms for scrutiny is also required"
Seriously, presenting their algorithms for "scrutiny"? By who, the clueless politicians? It seems that the EU is absolutely 100 percent committed to breaking the open Internet.
Not in the UK of course, the current gov here has had enough of experts...
Whereas experts and pretty much everybody else have had enough of the current government(*).
(*) I use the term loosely, as governing should mean guiding in a considered direction as opposed to executing a drunkard's walk in policy space.
Governments ignoring experts when facts get in the way of policy is nothing new. David Nutt was employed to give an appraisal of the personal and social harms of various illegal drugs, then fired because the government had already made up its mind and Nutt had the temerity to be scientifically rigorous and unbiased in his report. On the subject of Davids, need I do more than mention David Kelly as another example?
Had Nutt been listened to, we might have seen millions of lives saved from ruin and death and billions in profits lost by criminal scum. Sadly, it was more important that the PM's puritanical sensibilities not be offended.
Will they though? Will the experts be allowed to give opinions other than what the politicians want them to say? If you look at the EU's other legislation (banning end to end encryption, defining rule engines as AI, the impact on FOSS of the Cyber Resilience Act) they seem to be in a competition with other western governments to see who can be the worst.
The restrictions on advertising targetting are a good thing in this law are a good thing. However when governments start setting policies about content I cannot see that as a good thing. People usually defend social media content moderation because they are private platforms and have the right to do what they fit, but when we now have a government telling them what to do, there are real concerns about free speech.
If they had these powers during covid, would they have used it to prevent people discussing the lab leak hypothesis (which was labelled misinformation at the time)? I think they would have. More than that, even bad people have a right to express their views that quote misattributed to Voltaire about defending people right to say things you agree with applies.
"tackle the spread of... online disinformation and other societal risks"
The truth is what we say it is! One person's "disinformation" is another person's truth.
Did the covaids teach us nothing? Have we already forgotten? Neither Big Tech nor Big Government can be trusted, especially when they collaborate together. They will pretend this about annoying advertisments or protecting the children. The real reason is to put this law in place so they have complete control of the information agenda the next time they produce a global crisis.
This post has been deleted by its author
Lies and false beliefs are not "truths" and never will be. The earth is not flat. Vaccines do not contain micro chips from Bill Gates. Trump did not win an election in 2022.
No matter how strongly anyone believes the above it does not mele it true.
There is such a thing as objetive truth based on solid evidence. And there is such a thing as lies propogated by con men and shysters and far too many sad acts prepared to believe them.
Lies harm everybody in some small way and harm some in big ways.
"objective truth based on solid evidence" is quite a lofty goal and I don't think we'd have seen a single restriction for at least the first year of C-19 if it had been the criteria for policy. I also disagree that there's much risk to the general public from the wacky beliefs about microchips, ect. you mentioned because, for the same reason you chose them, they're so laughably outlandish that the average person doesn't believe them.
I believe the dangerous censorship we saw during Covid was firmly in the grey area of science where both censored ideas and policy were developed. That's not to say every policy was automatically invalid or that every censored idea was automatically valid (or vice versa) but I believe the overstatement of certainty by governments (made drastically worse by media looking for a headline), as you're engaging in, led to the more damaging public hesitancy, which no amount of censorship would resolve.
This is a view shared by the Royal Society:
https://royalsociety.org/news/2022/01/scientific-misinformation-report/
I would go so far as to say that a Ministry of Truth which shared your simplifications would be far more deadly to the wellbeing of the population than a million loonies waxing lyrical about microchips.
Lies about vaccines generated as part of a money making scam have led to suffering child blindness and death. For all their incompetence and blundering at the onset a an unprecedented pandemic most governments were transparent about their decision making and the data it was based on. I don’t recall a single example of censorship.
We already have laws (and have had them for some time) about selling ineffective or harmful 'treatments'.
"I don’t recall a single example of censorship."
Then you're either naive about how censorship works and don't read very much news at all or you're being wilfully disingenuous.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/27/facebook-lifts-ban-on-posts-claiming-covid-19-was-man-made
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/16/who-chief-says-push-to-discount-lab-leak-theory-was-premature
To be clear, it's not a theory that I feel adequately able to comment on, one way or the other but a notion which global authorities first entirely dismiss and then start discussing demonstrates that they are ineligible to be gatekeepers for truth. That is, it's entirely acceptable for them to be incorrect, everyone is at one time or another, but to be incorrect with the certainty that anything which runs counter to their ideas is worthy of censorship shows a lack of the necessary self awareness.
> One person's "disinformation" is another person's truth.
The problem is: Both the tolerance paradox and Brandolinis Law are true.
Disinformation, aka. BS is easy to produce, and hard to refute. And letting it run rampant in the name of "free speech", allows a weaponization of public opinion empowering not democracy and free speech, but autocracy (and I don't think we need to mention what autocracies do regarding free speech if given the chance). And with asocial media, the problem is amplified, because online, these effects run at scale.
Is letting governments enforce rules regarding misinformation an ideal solution? No. No it is not. But it's the lesser evil nonetheless.
Because, what are the alternatives? Do nothing? That allows the "flood the zone with sh_t" - tactic to succeed. Rely on the goodwill of companies? Somehow I don't think that letting privately owned megacorps beholden to shareholders decide about the truth is better than letting elected governments beholden to the voters do that.
The paradox of tolerance relates to those who refuse to engage in a discussion (and who resort to violent means), not those who discuss poorly; if they're spewing bullshit, they're engaging in a discussion. The advantage of a private organisation making their own rules is that one may take their business elsewhere, if government is regulating speech, it applies within their jurisdiction without alternative and, the tighter the controls, the less able citizens are to use democracy to challenge it. In other words, you're simultaneously citing a risk of a loss of freedom and choosing a loss of the same freedom provided the right hand is on the tiller.
For a government agency given the authority to decide what is 'truth' and what is 'disinformation', I would cite the (informally names) Adams Government Paradox: "It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.". More specifically, anyone even remotely qualified to be a supreme authority on truth would be rightly terrified of that duty and never accept it and the sort of person who finds that opportunity appealing is likely unable to distinguish between truth, disinformation and the unpleasant detritus under their own toenail.
Free speech is engineered to protect individuals who perceive a truth that is not widely held at the current time, just as the justice system is engineered to protect the falsely accused. What you propose is similar to a justice system which is engineered to have a higher conviction rate, no matter how many innocents are jailed or executed. Almost every right-minded concept we cherish today was, at one time, heretical. A Ministry of Truth would, as Orwell put it, stop history.
> not those who discuss poorly;
Wrong. It applies to any and all situations where allowing behavior that is damaging to the system enabling tolerance in the first place leads to an outcome where tolerance is threatened.
Treating disinformation the same as information, is exactly one such situation. The attacker doesn't need to discuss at all. He can just make one false statemant and outrageous claim after another, and flood the zone with sh_t. This is a known, and sadly successful tactic of demagogues: Bury the truth and objective reality under a pile of excrement, and make up another realtity. Sure, the pile of lies comes crashing down eventually, but a) there are always more lies, and b) there is a good chance by the time that happens, the perpetrators hold the power, and the truth no longer matters.
Our democracy and societies only function, if we all agree that we share the same reality. Undermining this on purpose, is a behavior that societies should have the right, and the means, to defend themselves against.
> one may take their business elsewhere
In theory that is a nice idea. In practice, thanks to how capitalism works, VLOPs are called that because they ARE the business, and there is nowhere else.
>anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
Another nice idea in theory. In practice, democracy is what it is. We can only elect people who want to get elected, no one can be forced to run the government. And idealism aside, I am pretty sure that someone who is forced to do that job, wouldn't be exactly doing it well either. So unless there is an alternative means of establishing governments that works better than the current system, I'm afraid we are stuck with the system that, so far, seems to have f_ed up the least throughout history.
By all means, set your own terms but please have the courage to stand by them and not hide behind a misrepresentation of Popper. You are yourself denouncing argument, not because your opponent has, but because you believe you are unable to otherwise ensure compliance; this is no more what Popper proposed than a religious zealot abandoning preaching in favour of legal restrictions on heresy. In other words, while Popper proposed proportionality in response, you propose disproportionality.
Democracy has advanced precisely because individuals have challenged dogma, everything from the abolition of slavery to universal suffrage was at one time an offensive concept that violated 'reality' (commonly held beliefs). That's not to say every or even the majority of challenges of 'reality' are positive but, by and large, the general population is able to eventually differentiate; if they are instead peacefully swayed, then where the tolerant society sits is now elsewhere.
>In practice, thanks to how capitalism works, VLOPs are called that because they ARE the business, and there is nowhere else.
I take it you're too young to remember MySpace, BBS or Usenet and that you're unaware of current services like Mastodon? Nothing changes overnight but demanding that every majority player follow one set of rules entirely removes choice and, ultimately, reinforces the status quo by removing any potential benefits a competitor might enjoy from alternative rules. This is antidemocratic.
>Another nice idea in theory. In practice, democracy is what it is. We can only elect people who want to get elected, no one can be forced to run the government.
You misunderstand, I am not proposing that a better alternative is practicable, I am pointing out that elected leaders are as flawed as the rest of us and that democracy can potentiate certain flaws above the average rate of the population. This means that it is important for the powers of government to be limited to only those which are absolutely necessary and allow as much room as is practicable for dissent.
This post has been deleted by its author
I wanted to add that we are already ruled by the irrational. World leaders are largely openly religious (not that the atheists have a stellar showing either, think Pol Pot or Mussolini) and, while I'm a hard atheist (in the sense that while I believe that a god(s) is impossible to prove/disprove, there is no sense in acting in life as if a god(s) exists or might exist) I would grab the pitchfork at the suggestion that any leader who fails to renounce religion is ineligible to lead. At the same time, this irrationality further demonstrates that world leaders shouldn't be trusted with the powers of determining absolute truth with no competing ideas being allowed to be expressed.
I moved my answer down here, under the second post.
> In other words, while Popper proposed proportionality in response, you propose disproportionality.
I don't see how.
> Democracy has advanced precisely because individuals have challenged dogma
Democracy has also advanced because it defended itself against lies, propaganda, and disinformation. Democracy isn't a state of politics that just comes to pass. It was fought for, and has to be defended. The ability to take the worst of disinformation out of the public discourse instead of letting it poison it, is one of these defenses. And defenses are necessary. We can see right now how democracy is under fire, literally in some cases, all over the globe.
Again, not an ideal solution. But a lot better than leaving the decision to corporations.
> I take it you're too young to remember MySpace, BBS or Usenet and that you're unaware of current services like Mastodon?
I am old enough to remember the time I wrote my first IRC client in C, so yes, I do know all these services.
And because I do, I realize the difference between the time they were highly relevant and now. "Social" media, which for most non-technical people are the primary means of communication online, are highly centralized. Many of the services of the earlier days of the internet are either unknown to most people, no longer exist, or stopped being relevant long ago. Even thise that still do and are, require technical expertise that many laymen do not have. The fact that alternatives exist in principle, doesn't mean that the impact of VLOPs is any less a fact.
> This is antidemocratic.
We have industry standards that businesses HAVE TO comply with for everything, from airplane manufacture to the food industry. These are necessary regulations. So I don't see why sets of standards VLOPs have to comply with, would be "antidemocratic".
>I don't see how.
Popper very cleanly defines tolerance and intolerance. Indeed, he praises the virtues of rational argument (the first point at which you diverge). He calls for the right to intolerance of intolerance but not for its use until the potentially intolerant opposition who still willingly engage in argument stop doing so. I don't see how I can simplify this further, it's only a little over 200 words long.
>The ability to take the worst of disinformation out of the public discourse instead of letting it poison it, is one of these defenses. And defenses are necessary.
The old "something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done". It's on about the same level as "think of the children". Democracy has advanced quite effectively through discourse and I don't deny that violence and oppression has been used in the past to defend it. However, I would point out that where violence and oppression has been employed, not to meet those who abandon discourse but out of fear of where that discourse may lead (as you propose), the result has rarely been positive.
>But a lot better than leaving the decision to corporations.
How about leaving it to the people? This pattern of benevolent low expectations of the populace has been repeated far too often; from Ulbricht to Robespierre.
>from airplane manufacture to the food industry
Those standards are based on expectations which would be shared by all but the grossly insane (i.e. suicidal or acutely self harming). They don't, for example, prevent someone from making a burger that tastes foul on the basis that if some idiot enjoyed the flavour, it might threaten the general popularity of delicious burgers.
I despair that any reasonable person could look at any major government or, for some countries, governments they've had in recent memory and decide that these individuals should be entrusted with being the gatekeepers of truth for their entire nation. On the other hand, it's reassuring that people are free to spout such magical thinking.
Unless I am much mistaken, your response basically boils down to one key point: That it isn't right for governments to be able to prohibit discourse, whether or not the discourse is currently accepted by the majority of society and politics or not.
I happen to completely agree with this point.
I will also point out, that it doesn't apply to this discussion.
Disinformation campaigns, hate speech, racism, recruitment for radicalized groups, anti-scientific propaganda, groups interested in inciting violence, threatening minorities and political opponents, demagogues messages, ponzi schemes and other financial scams, etc. do not intent to start a public discourse about their messages. They only intend to scream their message as loud as they can, into as many ears as possible, as often as possible.
There is no discussion with such people. They don't actually seek one, and attempting to have an actual argument with them is a wasted effort which only helps the side messaging in bad faith. Any pretense of a discussion from such sides is usually an attempt to waste time and get more attention.
So all of this...
but not for its use until the potentially intolerant opposition who still willingly engage in argument stop doing so
out of fear of where that discourse may lead
and decide that these individuals should be entrusted with being the gatekeepers of truth for their entire nation.
...simply doesn't apply. This is not about preventing discourse. This is not about "gatekeeping truth". This is about protecting society from damage.
>Disinformation campaigns, hate speech, racism, recruitment for radicalized groups, anti-scientific propaganda, groups interested in inciting violence, threatening minorities and political opponents, demagogues messages, ponzi schemes and other financial scams, etc
This is quite a wide, nebulous collection; one might even call it Gishian. I would say that many of the things you name are already restricted in ways that do not harm freedom of speech, like financial scams and direct threats.
If you wish to sell broader restrictions that way, I would point out that whether the stated aim is protecting truth or thwarting people who 'do not seek discussion', the net result is the same: those in power are given the ability to restrict otherwise non-criminal speech. In the wrong hands, this is an incredibly dangerous power. As was mentioned in the discussion on the UN cybercrime treaty discussion, RIPA, which was sold to the British people as legislation designed to combat terrorists and paedophiles was almost immediately used to detain and charge a protester.
Putting aside currently criminal speech, it is impossible to objectively know whether an individual is arguing in good or bad faith and I see no more reason to limit speech to those receptive to having their viewpoints changed than I see a reason to limit it to those meeting an IQ threshold or possessing any given innate characteristic(s). Claiming otherwise is pure witch sniffing.
> I would say that many of the things you name are already restricted in ways that do not harm freedom of speech, like financial scams and direct threats.
Yes, thank you! That's exactly my point!
Our societies already restrict "free speech" in ways that are necessary for it to function. And now, finally, it came around to creating the necessary legal frameworks to effectively enforce these necessary restrictions in online spaces as well.
> In the wrong hands, this is an incredibly dangerous power.
Yes, so is the police, the judicial system, the military, and the power over a nations finances. And several dozen more mechanisms that democratic societies hand control over to a relatively small number of people, institutions, and elected officials. And yet, it works more often than not. Is it ideal? No. Does it work as intended 100% the time? Also no. Is there a better system to handle large societies? None that we know of.
I never said it's easy, or comfortable to have such powers of control in a democratic nation. And as has been demonstrated, it is perfectly possible for democratic countries to regress back into autocracies, with those in power abusing all mechanisms intended to defend society and bending them to serve the autocrats ends. Safely allowing a relatively small group control over such powers, requires a well informed electorate paying close attention to what's going on.
Yes it's difficult. And it's risky. But it also works, and it's incredibly successful.
>Our societies already restrict "free speech" in ways that are necessary for it to function
With the possible exception of the Heckler's Veto, none of the existing restrictions offer one jot of protection to continued freedom of speech and, in sensible legislative climates (the UK hasn't fallen into this category for freedom of speech for a long time, if ever), great effort is made to ensure any restrictions are characterised to apply with the greatest restriction.
Arguing that we already hand over some power (the key difference being that the actions of those organisations, at least at the point of enforcement is visible) is both acknowledging a slippery slope and claiming it's fine. Further, because of the cloudy nature of censorship we would, as with putting back doors in encryption, have to trust that the government wouldn't abuse this power as proving its abuse would be exceedingly difficult (almost on the level of PRISM). I'm astonished that someone would be comfortable with this over some idiots arguing in bad faith (which, if past cybersecurity legislation is any indicator, they will continue to do so while innocent people get further boot stomped). It doesn't take a hard boiled communist or fascist to cynically abuse these laws, we've already seen what damage has been done by similar laws in the hands of very recent governments.
> none of the existing restrictions offer one jot of protection to continued freedom of speech
Here is a question: What mechanisms can guarantee the continued protection of freedom of speech...or any other freedom for that matter? The sad truth is, ALL freedoms that our societies grant, can be taken away. Including those "guaranteed" by any kind of constitution or basic laws. All that is required is for the political climate to shift too far the wrong way, and things we take for granted can suddenly fly out the window. We have seen this happen in several countries over the course of the last few decades. And no nation, no matter how long it's democratic tradition, no matter how stable it's institutions, is immune to that.
All these freedoms needed to be fought for, and all these freedoms need to be continuously protected and renewed. Because there are, at all times, people who would like nothing better than to have total power, and see such these freedoms as a threat.
So yes, there is an onus on the electorate to make sure that their interests and freedoms are not violated, and restrictive mechanisms are not abused and exploited. This onus is continuous. It's one of the responsibilities that democratic societies have to demand.
> some idiots arguing in bad faith
It's not "some idiots" though. I am talking about entire nation-states, intelligence agencies and other actors with access to vast resources pouring their wealth, influence and technical capabilities into disinformation campaigns. The lax situation and lack of suitable legal frameworks is actively being exploited, at scale, not by "some idiots", but by very clever, very determined, and very capable people, to shape public discourse to serve their interests.
If the onus is on you and I then this is why I oppose opaque censorship mechanisms targeted at "bad faith" actors. Quite apart from future potential extreme governments, I don't trust current governments and likely near future governments to not abuse these powers and, when they do, they will make any ability to dispute them (or even detect their abuse) difficult if not impossible. I choose instead to support the potential for speech that's "dangerous" to democracy as an acceptable consequence because any transparent policing would still permit the messages to be read. If your concern is larger state and non state actors, then labelling seems like a sensible compromise.
I really don't understand why you are so confident that these abuses are able to be detected and fought if you really support continued freedom and democracy, as you claim.
> I don't trust current governments and likely near future governments to not abuse these powers and, when they do, they will make any ability to dispute them (or even detect their abuse) difficult if not impossible.
I have already explained that governments have much more methods of taking away freedoms...and still our societies work. So please explain why that is.
And trust has NOTHING to do with this issue. This is about control and accountability. Governments in democracies are accountable. They ultimately answer to the voter. There is a clearly defined mechanism to get them to act in the publics interest.
What's the mechanism that will stop the aforementioned threat actors?
I fail to see why we should tolerate further restrictions simply because others exist. That's like arguing exempting the police from corruption enquiries should happen because police corruption already takes place.
Whether it's individuals or state actors, silent censorship is dangerous because of the potential for abuse without the accountability you mention. This is along the same lines as encryption backdoors and just as dangerous to democracy.
Anything counter to official propaganda is labeled as misinformation already and even somebody holding a Nobel prize in the field will be cancelled if they speak out. For anything politicians haven't formed a strong opinion over yet would have to be vetted by an expert in the particular field and the ratio of experts to trolls is too massive to overcome.
If people are so gullible that they'd drink bleach to combat a virus, the problem is education and not the idiot that posted how that would be a great idea. It can become a problem in some cases if a person is advocating something that can do great harm, but that should become an issue for laws and law enforcement (if the laws will be enforced). To try and police the whole of the internet to insulate people of "misinformation" is holding back the tide with a stick. It's the same as passing a law to make Pi = 3. They can pass the law, they can even ban di-Hydrogen Monoxide and the act is meaningless. There's lots to manage and improve in the world with only so many resources to tasks so one has to choose their battles with care. The biggest internet companies are a big part of the world's problems so looking to them to combat an unbeatable enemy is wishful thinking cross-pollinated with putting the fox in charge of the hen coop.
I hope they will stop all advertising showing cars driving faster than the speed limit in any Eu country and not driving in an unsafe manner. They will also have to restrict access to Lamborghini Countach and Porsche 911 posters to the age appropriate.
"detect, address and mitigate systemic risks, such as disinformation."
Does this apply to bus builders ?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
