6 ms·

The EU has no internet "champions" so they have few reservations about burning the whole thing to the ground, and that is the lens through which all their inter

• polskibus 8y ago
  Spotify maybe?
  • mrweasel 8y ago
    Users don't directly upload content to Spotify, it all goes via the publishers and rights holders, so I wouldn't think the new rules would affect Spotify at all.
    • mimsee 8y ago
      It would somewhat apply. Profile pics of users and uploaded pictures for playlist coverart.
• mindslight 8y ago
  That is at least more straightforward than the US which has a similar lack of Internet champions, but plenty of Web champions. Silicon Valley essentially only cares about the Internet insofar as it's the communications conduit over which it delivers proprietary services. We're essentially arguing sides in a commercial dispute, because we've been led to think that using Google is akin to running software under our control.
  • asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
    > because we've been led to think that using Google is akin to running software under our control I would imagine most people arguing about this have no illusions about how under their control Google is. They're arguing the same reason people argue about other policy questions: because it will affect them, either positively or negatively, and because it's fun. > lack of Internet champions, but plenty of Web champions Pedantry. A web champion is a subtype of an internet champion. The US has plenty of both.
    • mindslight 8y ago
      Yes, the problem is that it will affect us - these companies are poking hornet nests and creating terrible precedents. If we were running Internet-style software to carry out these tasks, politicians would be faced with the prospect of policing individual behavior. But rather, they have a nice centralized target to attack. It's not pedantry. It's disingenuous to equate Web Giants as standing up for Internet rights, when they're really just optimizing for their bottom line. While the two concepts start off aligned, what happens is that the companies compromise in a way that preserves their profits, yet still destroys the freedom. This actually sets up a barrier to competing with them, called regulatory capture. Witness that it wasn't enough for Google to simply suffer the DMCA, they went beyond and created a whole slew of systems to proactively police their users' activities.
  • srkmno 8y ago
    What's an example of an internet champion that's not a web one?
    • mindslight 8y ago
      Internet champion implies Web champion, but not vice versa. What you're really asking for is some Internet champions - EFF, FSF(E), TOR. The obvious difficulty is there's little money in it, as the benefits are distributed throughout society rather than captured by a centralized company. My overall point is that looking towards the tech giants to defend our own rights is folly.
      • srkmno 8y ago
        I see the confusion here: "champion" in this context is an economic term meaning a leading company that's the pride of it's home nation.
        • mindslight 8y ago
          No, that's the way I took it. The fact of the matter is that Google isn't primarily an Internet company, but a media company that happens to deliver over the Internet. Would you call Time Magazine a "Postal Company" ? (They do interface with several early Internet protocols such as SMTP. But that's better looked at as mining content from non-web protocols, which they'd have no intrinsic problem deprecating like XMPP)
  • greglindahl 8y ago
    Check out the net neutrality battle in the US. Not only did many corporations have opinions about this Internet argument, but a lot of passionate individual people had opinions. Including a ton of my friends in the Silicon Valley.
    • Pharmakon 8y ago
      Check out the net neutrality battle in the US. Not only did many corporations have opinions about this Internet argument, but a lot of passionate individual people had opinions. Including a ton of my friends in the Silicon Valley. How did that end up working out? What does passion and experience matter if the only real voice is a pile of money and favors in the hands of a lobbyist? The FCC is so corrupt/captures that it didn’t make a bit of difference, unless you count catharsis from speaking against it as a positive result.
    • mindslight 8y ago
      I agree there are many remnants of belief that the tech giants represent some culmination of the Internet ideal. But this is because financial success from the corporate compromise has made people forget about the tradeoffs and sea change realizations take time. I suspect general age-based conservatism also makes many write off the currently appearing problems. For example, interpreting this recent censorship push as well and good, rather than as a direct dismantling of the revolution of two decades ago. And sure, it's great that Reddit et al did that blackout. But realistically that is primarily marketing for their customers and employees. Most of the energy in the Net Neutrality battle is about who will be commercial winners and losers. For instance, Netflix would have no problem with regulation that would defend their position yet say allow discrimination of BitTorrent traffic - this is the hazard I'm highlighting with the thinking that companies are going to stand up for individual rights.
• ma2rten 8y ago
  Google and Facebook have large offices in Europe.
• cyborgx7 8y ago
  When you think having giant corporations dictating your policy through lobbying is normal and good.
  • marlonbrandy 8y ago
    It is always the case. Problem is that this is not illegal and where it is illegal it is being ignored. Another fact of life. What is wrong though is that EU maintains the PR of do-gooders meanwhile doing same evil stuff as other regimes.
  • srkmno 8y ago
    FYI: "giant corporations" are dictating this copyright law.
    • cyborgx7 8y ago
      Which we both agree, is a bad thing.