Standing against the EU Article 13. #saveyourinternet


We have a date for Poland’s Case challenged Art 13/17 now!
“The date is set! The Polish challenge of Article 17 of the DSM Directive will be resolved at 9:30 on 26 April 2022 (Case C-401/19); not yet on the Curia website, h/t Julie Samnadda from EC Legal Service.”

Here’s a snippet:
Appearing to be running out of ideas about what fresh salvo of sanctions to fire Russia’s way, the EU has come up with the “ultimate addition” to the ongoing, often absurd, but undeniably harmful “war on disinformation.”
And the solution is to start imposing sanctions on individuals or entities that the EU marks as guilty of spreading disinformation. The sanctions regime against accused purveyors of “disinformation” would include the usual: freezing of assets, travel bans, etc.
Background Pony #404B
I’m more annoyed than scared honestly however luckily so far only two are sponsoring and let’s hope it stays that way as the less cosponsers it has, the less likely it is to pass.

Holy hell, got some news:
The above link contains all this info:
“A last-minute proposal to change the liability regime for online search engines in the Digital Services Act (DSA) was circulated in the European Parliament. It is expected to receive the support of the EU Commission and Council.
The proposal was circulated ahead of the Easter break in the form of a note by Geoffroy Didier, who represented the legal affairs committee (JURI) in the DSA discussions. The initiative is pushed by the rightsholders alliance and taps into a long debate on how to include search engines in the scope of the legislation.
The next – and possibly last – high-level meeting between the EU legislators is on Friday (22 April).”
“ The note expressed support for the proposal of the European Commission, which defined search engines as an ad hoc category that would be required to take down illegal content once it is flagged to them. At the same time, Didier proposed a few changes to the Commission’s text.
The note asked to remove a part in the text’s preamble providing examples of ‘mere conduit’, ‘caching’ and ‘hosting’ services, categories with different liability regimes established in the eCommerce Directive, the predecessor of the DSA. These examples were overly descriptive for the rightsholders that prefer a case-by-case in court.
Another change would mandate that if illegal content is flagged, not just the relevant web pages but the entire website should be delisted, namely removed by the search results. In the most extreme case, that would mean that if a video is illegally uploaded on YouTube, Google would have to remove the entire platform from its search results.
Finally, a modification to an article would oblige search engines to remove all search results referring to the flagged illegal content, not only the specific website. In other words, the platforms would have to monitor all websites searching for unlawful content.
For search engines, that would entail nothing short of a general monitoring obligation; a principle rejected in the Copyright Directive. By contrast, the rightsholders consider this to be ‘specific’ monitoring, as it is targeted at illegal content that is recognisable via specific electronic patterns.
Moreover, search engines note that, compared to other platforms, they do not have a direct relationship with those managing the websites. Therefore, they might not know if a specific content, like a movie, is provided on a website illegally and on another one legally, as they are unaware of the contractual relationship between websites and the rightsholders.
In other words, the search engine would have no way of knowing if a takedown request is justified without contacting the website owner, which currently it has no way of doing. As a result, search engines might have to establish a contractual relationship with the website owner.
So far, the websites have been liable for hosting illegal content. Still, search engines now fear that by including them in this liability regime, they would become the primary targets for takedown notices, increasing their administrative burden exponentially.
Risk of over-blocking
Another concern relates to over-blocking, as legal content might also be taken down accidentally. Thus, the proposal is likely to meet the opposition of Scandinavian countries that are traditionally sensitive to the freedom of expression argument, an EU diplomat told EURACTIV.
“The entertainment industry knows that the Commission favours a specific notice and takedown obligation for search engines, so it is piggy-backing on to something that the Commission already supports and then making it worse,” former MEP Felix Reda told EURACTIV.
“The overall goal of these amendments is to drastically extend website blocking obligations to a broad range of online services at the expense of freedom of expression.”
According to a source informed on the matter, the European Commission favours the proposal, and it has been actively promoting it with political groups in the European Parliament. A second source also confirmed the Commission’s position, adding that it was also accepted by the Council Presidency. France has historically been sensitive to the rightsholders’ requests.
Just ahead of the last political trilogue on the Digital Markets Act, the DSA’s sister proposal, the European Commission made a last-minute proposal promoting the interest of publishers with the support of the French Presidency, trying to reopen yet another dispute closed by the Copyright Directive.
The proposal was revealed by EURACTIV a few hours before the beginning of the trilogue, alerting MEPs that eventually rejected it. By contrast, this time, the last-minute attempt is coming from the European Parliament, trying to win support from the lawmakers ahead of the negotiation.
According to a European Parliament official, at a technical meeting earlier this week all political groups opposed the proposal. However, the parliamentary source voiced concerns about what the rapporteur Christel Schaldemose might do in the final trilogue, as she previously defended the instance of the cultural sector during the discussions on the media exemption.
According to a third source, the European Commission is working on a new proposal on search engines, but it is still not clear if it will be shared before the trilogue or during the negotiations, in case the first proposal is rejected.”
Yeah, I’m sounding the alarm here.
Background Pony #B467
Cough. Well, this might sound a bit harsh, but: People would probably listen to you more if most of your posts about EU Internet policy didn’t always have a certain “The government wants to kill ma Internet!” undertone.
Basically, I can understand your anxiety towards the EU policy. Most politicians in the EU are generally uneducated, uninformed and in general not really arrived in the 21st century. In the worst case, they are also influenced by certain lobby groups. BUT: The EU is not an oppressive state like China. It is not even a state as such. It is a huge, bloated and frighteningly ineffective organization, but it also suffers from the fundamental problem that the wrong goals are often pursued here for the right reasons.
I had a conversation with a neighbor who is a policeman. We both came to the conclusion that even if the EU decides something at some point, it does not mean that it can be implemented immediately 1:1 by the respective member states. Or ever will. Often, for example, law enforcement lacks the appropriate financial resources and/or appropriately trained personnel.
Will say: Please, posts gladly always everything whatever you want. I don’t want to get involved in that at all. But maybe in the future you should try to raise your concern in a slightly different (more calm and thoughtful) way. ;-)
Something you should think about.
And yes this can also be applied here.

And back to the EU again:
From the Article itself:
After 16 hours of discussion, negotiators from the European Parliament and EU governments have just made deal on a new EU Digital Services Act. Pirate Party MEP Patrick Breyer sat at the negotiating table as Rapporteur for the Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE) and summarises:
“We were able to prevent removal obligations for search engines. We could also prevent the indiscriminate collection of the cell phone numbers of all uploaders to adult platforms, which would have endangered their privacy and the safety of sex workers due to foreseeable data hacks and leaks. Minors will be protected from surveillance advertising on online platforms. However, the ban on using sensitive personality traits (e.g. a person’s political opinion, diseases or sexual preferences) for targeted manipulation and targeting was heavily watered down.” The new rules on personalised targeting will apply to all online platforms for sharing user content such as Facebook, Instagram or eBay, but not to sites hosting self-generated content, such as news websites.
“The new set of rules as a whole does not deserve the name ‘Digital Constitution’. The disappointing outcome fails in multiple respects to protect our fundamental rights online. Our online privacy will not be protected by a right to use digital services anonymously, nor by a right to encryption, a ban on data retention, or a right to generally opt-out of surveillance advertising in your browser (do not track). Freedom of expression on the Internet is not protected from error-prone censorship machines (upload filters), nor from arbitrary platform censorship. Cross-border removal orders issued by illiberal member states without a court order can take down media reports and information that is perfectly legal in the country of publication. The monopoly power of consumer-hostile social media like Facebook, Instagram and Twitter will not be tackled by interoperability obligations. Users will have no alternative to the toxic engagement-based corporate algorithms that spread hate, violence and misinformation in the interest of commercial profits. Industry and government interests have unfortunately prevailed over digital civil liberties.”
Background Pony #91A9
I think you’re gonna have to tell the guys that run this site that they’ll have to start planning on shutting down. I’m so sorry
Background Pony #B467
@Background Pony #91A9
I doubt they’ll shut down, in all due honesty.
@Background Pony #2FBB
One more thing (You can take this into consideration):
While Derpi is in the EU, the service provider (Cloudflare) is in the US.
Now, i assume the EU is well aware that politicians here want 230 gone.  
I think that if this does happen (which is unlikely), this could give the EU the excuse to make upload filters mandatory (again, unlikely).
Note that there are some internet groups who fight to make things better here. That said, you can’t always expect a win.
It’s what makes the chances of the world wide web remaining like this better or worse.
Here in the US, we have Anti 230 stuff, whereas in EU they have Article 17.
If the internet wasn’t as big, we’d still have the problems we had in the days before streaming. But there Wouldn’t be any stuff like those 2 above, so It’s a trade off.
That said, i hope you give me your thoughts on this and this.
Background Pony #B467
@Background Pony #91A9
That’s beside the point.
Derpibooru uses Cloudflare, which is from the US.
While true, what @CaptainXtra has linked is a problem, take [this] (/forums/dis/topics/standing-against-the-eu-article-13?post_id=5233107#post_5233107) into consideration
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
WingPonyMedic Twitch Streams!

Derpibooru costs over $25 a day to operate - help support us financially!

Syntax quick reference: **bold** *italic* ||hide text|| `code` __underline__ ~~strike~~ ^sup^ %sub%

Detailed syntax guide