(untitled)

Article 13 has just been passed. ...what now?

>>16370 The Internet will be torn apart, and we shall return to 80s/90s-style hobbyist Internet. In other words, the best version of it.

Or the rest of the world will cut off Europe from the net and carry on like normal.

>Tim Berners-Lee and W3 let DRM cancer infest everything >USA killed net neutrality >UK censoring the internet >China and South Korea have ridiculously controlled internet >Now EU is joining in with this bullsoykaf GNUnet needs to hurry up already, the internet is trash beyond salvation, it needs to be thrown away and replaced

Can't fuarrrking believe it! With all the backlash, i was sure the soykaf was doomed.

https://boingboing.net/2019/03/25/tilde-servers-r-us.html

How are they even going to enforce this? Or, how are they planning to stop people from using non-compliant websites outside of their jurisdiction? Also: Old men. Warning!

>>16378 Some people are predicting that since only giant tech firms (like Google) are capable of creating a content filter like this, nearly everyone looking to enforce this is going to opt for it instead of trying to invent something themselves. So, in the end, everything uploaded goes through Google. All your data are belong to Google, even moreso than today. And in the end, they seem to be the only ones that are going to win from this - these lawmakers are fuarrrking retarded.

>>16371 Would be cool, but access would be harder and pricier as it got more separated. That, and you know people aren't just going to give up the net that easily. >>16372 Likely. >>16378 My question exactly. This is going to be really tough for them to enforce. I imagine TOR might become really popular. >>16380 Comforting.

>>16380 >these lawmakers are fuarrrking retarded. ever heard of lobbying?

this is the type of cancer that will slowly but surely eat at society, gradually pulling the rug of privacy beneath people's lives away, as more and more keep giving in after being sedated by their internet addictions and smartphone dependence

Obviously, USA and China are lost causes when it comes to modern information standards. But now the EU, too? C'mon guys. This is getting out of hand.

It gets worse https://medium.com/@emanuelkarlsten/sweden-democrats-swedish-social-democrats-defeat-motion-to-amend-articles-11-13-731d3c0fbf30 https://emanuelkarlsten.se/03/sd-s-fallde-chansen-att-rosta-om-artikel-13-och-11/ This happened because some Swedes pushed the wrong button

>>16374 The backlash was only online on places where people like you and me hang out, unfortunately politicians are not like you and me and are 100% tech illiterate, and 100% corrupt. Although true, Germany had protests here in france there was nothing, no news report, no protests, no articles. It's disgusting to say the least, I hope decentralized services get a popularity boost now.

>>16371 that's my hope too, a less inclusive internet for all things fun.

>>16380 >>16382 is right, i don't think they are retarded, ((they)) just don't give a fuk

>>16373 "Net Neutrality" never took effect. Nothing changed. All the fear mongering was just that. There is no pic related in the USA. Similar to NN, the main opposition to this is Google and other companies that are serial tax evaders. Internet filters are an incredibly bad idea. I don't think it will work out. Lawmakers will end up looking stupid, but this will be their excuse to squeeze more money out of the tax evaders.

>>16394 Of course it won't be as bad as everyone says it will - for now. As a general rule of thumb the government can fuarrrk off and die, and take it's soykafty laws with them. We need more freedom not less

>>16398 Do we though? Look at the industry pushing this change. Entertainment. Write a hit pop song? Instant millions. Royalties the rest of your life. Now look at the industry opposed. Software. Write openssl. Whole universe relies on your lib. Beg for donations. Get nothing. Heartbleed happens. Google throws you a small donation for your decades of effort. Less than they spend on one dev in a year. I don't know about you, but instinct tells me I want to be on the side that doesn't treat me like soykaf.

>>16400 would you really be willing to sell your freedom?

In my dreams: People use darknets and anonymizing networks more. In reality: People suck more american dick.

>>16402 Nobody has taken my freedom (yet). But there's no money in software like there is in entertainment. Google wants to remove money from entertainment and leech like they do on software. I don't agree with the response (filters) but I understand where they are coming from.

>>16380 They're pulling a 180 on this one: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190327/09073441880/free-software-foundation-comes-to-senses-after-calling-eu-to-fund-open-source-upload-filters.shtml

"Another troubling section is Article 11, known as the "link tax", which would require publishers and aggregate sites to pay a tax to sites to whom they link. This would mean Google would need to pay to list news stories and other websites on its search engine" >make website >charge google for hosting it in EU The music industry are such cocksuckers, how the fuarrrk do they hold so much sway they can slap the tech giants around like that?

>>16433 i am studying music buissiness in university, you would not believe how evil these fuarrrkers are. one proffessor actually made a whole lecture just to wage slave us on why article 13 is actually a good thing, and how the people who oppose it are just trying to steal musicians money etc. They constantly tell us that the only way to make money in music is to sell your soul to labels and how they're "not actually evil". They all kiss spotify and apple's asses because before the streaming services came in piracy was taking all their cocaine money. One teacher bragged about lying on a radio broadcast that they needed people to call in to request x song or it would be released, even though they were planning to release it the next day anyway, and saying how manipulating audiences is actually a good thing. That guy by the way specialises in those soykafty eurodance novelty singles that make insane money off of retards. It's insane how incestuous the music industry is, and how no body cares about tallent at all. One of the production proffesors literally admits that he never wanted to be a producer, but when out of pure chance his name was attatched to a song that went number 1, suddenly everyone was calling him up to produce for them despite the fact that he is complete soykaf and doesn't know what he's doing. sorry this is just a rant about my uni but I think it's safe to assume that this is the standard in the music bizz, scummy fuarrrkers who just want to get rich and will pull any strings to do so. By the way, i'm a working musician and can tell you that anything they say about article 13 helping small artists get payed is BULLsoykaf. It helps the labels get payed, it helps the streaming companies get payed, artists won't see any of it and will probably be hurt in the long run because they miss out on the free advertising of "piracy". fuarrrk these cunts, pirate everything, if you want to support a musician go to their shows and by their merch, that is always how we make our money the rest just goes into the pockets of the labels.

I doubt this will work very well. At worst there will probably be a larger demand for US/Canadian VPNs.

>...what now? Nothing. Article 17 won't change anything for the end users because it's not about end users. It's about google and money. Right now you have this American dystopian mega-corp operating in EU. They a) don't pay taxes b) abuse their dominant position in different markets to make even more money c) profit from piracy Youtube is full of pirated content - music, TV shows, sports and so on. That itself isn't an issue - it's good that people can access that content for free. The issue is that google makes a lot of money from the eyeballs coming to watch that content and they don't exactly share. It's a clever business model - you allow pirated content on your platform, you grab the ad money and the copyrights holders can't touch you because of DMCA safe harbour and also, you're google, you're so enormous that even Viacom couldn't do crap. European Parliament decided that this is obviously not fair. The directive gives the content creators/copyright holders actual legal ammunition to get google to pay them. And that's about it - google (and facebook as well) will just start paying and nothing much will change. >"Another troubling section is Article 11, known as the "link tax", which would require publishers and aggregate sites to pay a tax to sites to whom they link. This would mean Google would need to pay to list news stories and other websites on its search engine" There's nothing troubling about it. Imagine that you publish a story on your website. Google news copies the the title of your story, quotes the most important part and/or posts a summary. People click on a link in google search engine, they land on google news site, they read the summary/quote, get their news and never follow the link to your website. Google gets all the ad money, you get nothing. Do you believe that this is fair? I don't, I think that google should pay you.

>>16380 >Some people are predicting that since only giant tech firms (like Google) are capable of creating a content filter like this, nearly everyone looking to enforce this is going to opt for it instead of trying to invent something themselves. So, in the end, everything uploaded goes through Google. All your data are belong to Google, even moreso than today. And in the end, they seem to be the only ones that are going to win from this - these lawmakers are fuarrrking retarded. 1. Google already has that technology, it's called Content ID, it's been around since 2007 2. Google has been lobbying/astroturfing AGAINST the directive for months 3. The directive doesn't even mention upload filters - I doubt any member state will actually opt to make them law - maybe France but I would be surprised.

>>16441 >>16443 I understand why it's bad for Google; but the same principles also apply to any webhost and any content provider. I'm sure on a grand scale it will change little, but I can't imagine there won't be a slew of copyright complaints targetting rather innocuous websites for hosting My Little Pony.

>>16441 >There's nothing troubling about it. We know where this goes with Article 11 already. Google will delist all EU news sites. The sites all start going out of business immediately. Those sites will demand EU regulators to force Google to list them and pay for it too. EU will look like complete clowns.

>>16419 I like their original point. If this law exists it is extremely important that compliance doesn't effectively force you to use Google, like >>16380 said. Obviously I would expect the FSF to also be doing what they can to lobby for the law's repeal but given their history I assumed this was also part of the plan.

I would never let anyone take my freedom away. I just buy (or steal) and use whatever comfortable proprietary software I want, and don't give a single solitary fuarrrk about consequences. That's freedom.

>>16448 >the same principles also apply to any webhost No, they don't. Webhosts (plus cloud storage, file hosting, dropbox, aws, media fire etc) are not considered online content-sharing service providers by the directive so those principles do not apply to them. From the directive: >Providers of services, such as not-for-profit online encyclopedias, not-for-profit educational and scientific repositories, open source software-developing and-sharing platforms, electronic communication service providers as defined in Directive (EU) 2018/1972, online marketplaces, business-to-business cloud services and cloud services that allow users to upload content for their own use, are not ‘online content-sharing service providers’ within the meaning of this Directive. >I can't imagine there won't be a slew of copyright complaints targetting rather innocuous websites for hosting My Little Pony. The directive doesn't target innocuous websites. It targets online content-sharing service providers. Look at the definition: >‘online content-sharing service provider’ means a provider of an information society service of which the main or one of the main purposes is to store and give the public access to a large amount of copyright-protected works or other protected subject matter uploaded by its users, which it organises and promotes for profit-making purposes. It's rather specific. For-profit entity, main purpose is to store and give access to large amount of copyright-protected content. So no discussion forums, blogs, news websites and so on. On the top of that the full power of Article 17 applies to online content-sharing service providers that 1. Exist for more than 3 years 2. Have more than 5 million unique visitors a month 3. Have annual turnover that exceeds 10 million euro If you have turnover that exceeds 10 million euro/year, you're not an innocuous website, you're a business. Here's the full directive: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0245-AM-271-271_EN.pdf I understand that it might be a bit daunting for people without legal background but I still recommend reading it.

>Can't use tracking cookies >Has to track monthly unique visitors Has anyone told the EU yet?

>>16441 >The issue is that google makes a lot of money from the eyeballs coming to watch that content and they don't exactly share. An idea about this. 1. Set up youtube like newsite 2. Federated login with google accounts 3. Site search searches newsite and youtube 4. server side youtube-dl any content exclusive to youtube and replatform it on newsite (pirate from the pirates) 5. slap ads on everything 6. bank up ad money and deliver it to youtubers when they log into newsite maybe call newsite robinhoodtube :-) Almost certainly be sued/assassinated by Alphabet :-/

>>16378 >How are they even going to enforce this? Very selectively, and only at the request of the corporate backers of whatever politcal organization happens to be in power.

I am hoping that World War Triple will break out because a series events that will be triggered by it. WWTriple would help wipe out corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. It would help undo countless pages of bad laws and regulations. Then again, so could a solar ice age or an outbreak of mutated ebola. I will say that some claims might be hyperbolic. There was that lie about "the end of Net Neutrality" and I call it a lie because nothing has really changed despite "NN ending." There are even laws and regulations that existed since before 2009 that prove it. I will add that Net Neutrality should be enforced by FTC and not the FCC since the FCC has this habit of giving itself the power to regulate content just because it regulates traffic with examples being television and radio censorship. I will also add that we only require a piece of legislation that would act as a "Bill of Rights" for the internet thereby regulating ISPs, online banking and payment services such as PayPal, and "the commons" of social media.

>>16371 The majority of the users willing to use that kind of internet are already part of the resistance. The masses will accept one more wave featurectomies and autocensor themselves save for one or two examples just like they always do. So the social circles of woke people will shrink a bit as the weaker to peer pressure and they'll have to give up some software and services. Nothing new, just another step in the slow process.

>>16394 it'll never work like pic related because you don't push costs directly on the consumer. That hurts sales, it's like the decision by blizzard to make WoW have an xp bonus if you stop playing rather than an xp penalty if you play too much even tho the formula works out the same. Instead the cost will be part of your huluflix prime sub or a tax from the revenue of free sites translating to soykaftier content as their work is even less focused on content. Meanwhile sites that can't afford the racket will be even more obscure. Nobody will miss them because they had soykaf SEO to begin with, carried wrongthink and didn't generate a lot of data or money. Anon would bitch their favourite chan is like kicking dead whales down the beach now but they're unsure about the slowdown because they regularly have to tweak the js enabled and anyway "that's a site for weirdos"

>>16388 Letters and calls were made to MEPs in France. To no avail because they are unabashed sellouts. After being pointed out that this would delegate judiciary decisions to the GAFAMs, the president said he was aware and this was part of keikaku. >>16443 upload filters will be a necessity because the remove under 1h order is a police injunction that doesn't need the greenlight from a judge anymore it's way risky even if your website is obscure unless you can manage that response time with manpower. >>16455 Anything with a tracking pixel is for profit unless you're a shmuck that added a like button but doesn't make money from it. Anyway, link tax is just a way to cram more tracking headers in each url. Asking for the law to enforce copyright on something you put available as a pull media on a public site is like saying blocking ads is theft.

>>16518 >upload filters will be a necessity because the remove under 1h order is a police injunction that doesn't need the greenlight from a judge anymore it's way risky even if your website is obscure unless you can manage that response time with manpower. What kind of obscure website fits the definition of an online content-sharing service provider from the directive? Please provide an example. >Anything with a tracking pixel is for profit unless you're a shmuck that added a like button but doesn't make money from it. You do realize that non-profit entities can actually make money, right?

>>16519 anything where a user can upload files? You're on a site right now where we have ebook sharing threads. You've never seen people use blogs, forums or that kind of stuff to host content? Sure it's a trashy way to do it but it happens. And because of such, every site with user uploaded data gets hit by filters. >non-profit entities can actually money So? Most platforms are for profit. And most people have neither the time, resources or experience to self host. You wanna use slack? github? any imageboard? edit the wiki for your fave SSH roguelike? All three have upload filters. You can post smug semen demons all you want, they are not gonna use the most convenient for you interpretation of their definition because: >they don't care >they'll make it even worse in the national laws >it's just a foot in the door for another implementation targeting "terrorist content and racial hatred" that's already in the tubes >it's not in the tubes yet but there is also a project to make yet another implementation this time targeting "cyber harassment" This is France and Germany's plan. Slowly get access to every bit of info being uploaded and censor wrongthink. DPI is already legal over here. The single case where the controlling entity to prevent abuse of the already in place censorship system took six months to counteract one gag order. Police issued censorship injunction will fly and effectively stick because nothing can do anything about it in time.

Cry, that is all

>>16400 >. Write openssl. Whole universe relies on your lib. Beg for donations. That's kinda your fault, innit?

>>16526 I know what you're saying, but the point is the software industry is exploitative. Somehow the music industry manages to give one hit wonders a fair shake, but software industry can't. https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/singers/rick-astley-net-worth/ The Rick roll guy retired at 27. OpenSSL guy still toils away in the xor mines. Honestly, this is the most ridiculous situation possible. The team that secures almost all internet commerce, banking, medical records, etc is so poor, they could be easily bribed by common petty criminals. Inexcusable.

>>16404 i'm now using my VPN pretty much 24/7 and use tor exit nodes on top and try to access as many services as possible via onion sites. not that i'm DPR junior, but it's a matter of principle at this poing.

>>16370 I'm torn about this. In one way I see it as another copyright enforcement cash grab by the liberals that run the EU. On the other hand it pleases me that this hurts a lot of the capitalization of social media. >>16371 I dream constantly of a return the more decentralized hobbyist web I grew up with.

>>16522 >it's just a foot in the door for another implementation targeting "terrorist content and racial hatred" that's already in the tubes yes it is, check this out, they are doing "good things" to protect us: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/389297/tech-companies-and-17-govts-sign-up-to-christchurch-call censorship and surveillance will definitely save us from terrorists

>>16554 >On the other hand it pleases me that this hurts a lot of the capitalization of social media. the main way it hurts them is by making the services soykaftier, not by directly costing them money. i've been noticing more and more complaining recently about "waah my account got zucked.. youtube deleted my channel even though i didn't do anything.. etc." i mean, they should have been clued in long before this point but if this is what it takes to get normal people off social media i'm not complaining. of course we have to wonder what will replace it and to me it seems like the future is going to be peer to peer for the most part. i don't see us returning to the old days of small websites and services. federation is too complicated for normal people to deal with, and they tend to cluster to a few supernodes anyway (e.g. federated email being virtually monopolized by gmail). p2p is potentially simpler on the end user, easier on the network, and is structurally harder to enforce these kinds of laws on.

>>17255 >.. youtube deleted my channel even though i didn't do anything.. that's an issue in general... copyright law just doesn't work and it has to be rewritten. an example: i don't know if you watch Internet Today, but they have complained that they are unable to show trailers (i.e. videos meant to be shared) when talking about films or video games, because companies flag those videos for copyright infringement and they either have to take it down or give all ad profits to the companies. these are American companies doing this, to an American YouTube channel. don't get me wrong, i am really mad EU made such a stupid decision, just saying that this is worldwide issue. also if this wasn't the case, the fact internet is global and people just interact with EU on daily basis, even our laws can fuarrrk it up for everyone else.

Now euro peasants have to get memes from I2P.

>>17258 afaik it hasn't been enforced yet... not me nor people i know have been affected by this so far.. so nah, we can still stick to regular web