Europe
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org
view the rest of the comments
Here's an unpopular opinion: This won't happen because the policymakers don't want it to happen. It's fundamentally opposed to what they want. And I'm not spinning some conspiracy tale here. Listen...
The debate involves many ambiguous terms that people like him interpret one way but which actually mean something entirely different. The correct understanding is ultimately the legal definition. That's the one that determines if armed people (ie the police) will come and take away your computer.
To a copyright person, this would mean functioning DRM. It means complete control over what happens to their content, regardless of where and how it is stored. They have the law on their side and the policymakers. Mind that the media is part of the copyright industry and they have outsize influence over public opinion. As far as they are concerned, the problem with Big Tech is that they are not paid enough for their rights.
Many people on Lemmy feel the same way about GDPR. Unfortunately, Lemmy's hive mind is dominated by misconception about GDPR. But it is true that it is far-reaching and would be well served by the same perfect DRM of which copyright people dream.
The ideal European internet is one that has DRM built-in from the bottom so that everyone can exercise their legal rights under copyright law, the GDPR, the data act, and possibly others.
A freewheeling federated network is legally problematic. Even insofar that it is legal, it is fundamentally opposed to what policymakers and much of the public want. Free speech is an American value and emphatically not European.
If you don't believe me, you can look at tax-funded projects like Gaia-X and then imagine what the social media equivalent looks like.
Which is irrelevant since they cannot ban someone to build one. If you build a social media there is nothing the policy maker can do to stop you. Granted, you need to follow a series of rules, but that's it. And they cannot tighten the rule too much, since they apply to everyone.
You are right but for the wrong reason. Currently (and sometimes foolishly) EU don't want to have one big social media like Facebook because in their view it hurts the competition and ultimately it damage the users.
I would consider that the perfect solution.
I mean, media companies get absolute control over their content by default (given the protocol) ? Cool that means that also the user get absolute control over his content by default given the protocol. So, maybe we would not be able anymore to pirate a movie but on the other hand a new OpenAi would not be able to freely train their model on our contents and make money with it. (and as benefit, this would set the long discussion about how many money media companies loses to piracy)
I don't see this as a bad thing. I decide what to publish on a social media and I would like to be able to stop someone from stealing it.
I think you confuse "published" with "public domain"
No, it is not legally problematic, unless you consider legally problematic to not be able to steal something I published and deal as yours.
What could be legally problematic is to track the **responsability **of something published (that could be illegal somewhere) because you should unhinging the mindset that the platform must do something, which is accepted everywere else, instead of holding the **author **responsible for what **he **publish.
Tighter moderation and copyright requirements can stop everything. The USA had excempted platforms from holding them responsible to allow broad innovation by everybody. The EU does the opposite and ads more requirements. Nothing that kills an established company but it's deadly for anything but the most serious startups.
The EU must know about the US excemption. They are not ignorant so they chose to not create competition and to leave that market to the US.
True, but that would be valid for everyone. So as it could stop an emerging social media it could also stop an estabilished social media, and EU historically does not go after the small fishes.
I am sure that you understand that if EU put up tighter moderation and copyright requirements the first social media to be tanked would be Facebook and not the emerging social media.
Not always.
But the way the USA went create a grey area were the social media can legally say "I am not responsible for what the users post" and on the other hand the "the platform is mine and I can decide what goes on it", which in my opinion is a worse situation since now the moderation is in the hand of a company.
We had many examples of social media that on one hand say they are excempted and on the other say that they can decide what goes on the site. Sorry but it not works this way: you are responsible for everything on your site and then you can decide what goes on it or you are not responsible and then you cannot decide what goes on it (granted that is legal). You cannot have both ways.
I disagree. If Facebook would be held responsible for its contents like a startup, I would bet that it would be deadly for Facebook and not the startup. Look at the GDPR, there were reasons why these companies have fought tooth and nail against it.
Which, again, does nothing to stop someone to try to build a new social media.
It's not prohibitive but an obstacle. Facebook can build neural networks to automate legal obligations and it can hire lawyers to minimize damage when they fail. Everybody can try though to build a new social media but nobody will.
Yes, it is true, but I would love to see how it will work
You are right, but I suspect that you don't understand the real reason, which is not the rules but the fact that a social media need users and it is difficult to make people leave the current ones. After all, before Facebook there was MySpace and after Facebook there will be something else.
Copyright Lawsuit Accuses Meta of Pirating Adult Films for AI Training https://feddit.org/post/16327076
That comes on top. Without legal risks we would have 10 alternatives and one would succeed.
No, because these legal obligations are the moat that defends Facebook.
Facebook is an advertising platform first. That's almost impossible to recreate.
There are Lemmy and Mastodon. There is/was Diaspora and Minds and probably a lot more, both as Facebook replacement and Twitter/Instagram replacement. There are alternatives for Youtube.
So, cleared that some alternative is present, I would argue that the switch is the biggest problem.
Assuming the moat will will never change, yes. Maybe.
Like it was MySpace before.
Yes, the switch is the most difficult part. Somebody has to invest billions with a minimal chance of success. The existing networks are deeply entrenched.