Politicians in favor of upload filtering get channel deleted by upload filtering | Hacker News Reader

Politicians in favor of upload filtering get channel deleted by upload filtering

privateinternetaccess.com

125 pointsmysterypie51 comments

I think at some point the EU market might become something similar to China, where you don't offer your services at first, and once your service already becomes successful in the rest of the world you consider porting it over, if a clone hasn't popped up and grabbed market share in the meantime.

Which might not necessarily be a huge negative for the users inside the EU, aside from people being unable to access things they want to access because of where they live. Which I'm hugely opposed to, in several ways.

Either way, I'm conflicted about all the stuff going on in the EU. I haven't made up my mind as to which side I fall on, but I do hope they tread carefully.

As a EU citizen, I sure hope so.

edit: my message seems to be confusing. I was answering the last sentence of the parent comment, saying that I hope as well that EU doesn't screw up.

I'm sincerely interested in the motivation that leads to hoping your government controls what you may read.

Is it protectionism? Shielding people from radicalization?

> but I do hope they tread carefully.

That's what I was referring to. I definitely don't want the government — any government — to control what I may read, or even to know it.

Ah, I see now - sorry for the misunderstanding. I was so surprised by the post that I didn't stop to consider alternative meanings.

I'm not sure if it would we a screw up. I mean, I actually liked early 2000-s, when Internet was kind of place of reigning anarchy as if there was no government and evil corporations, but let's just face it: it's long gone. Maybe there will be something else to offer the same kind of experience in the future, but it will never be the Web again, it's dead, taken by the enemy. Parents are home again. So, speaking about the least evil, you know, I would be actually glad, if Facebook (as it is now) would never enter the EU — and maybe somewhere across the ocean whole nations would be enslaved by it, I wouldn't care, because I don't have to use it, since my friends, local businesses and events don't force me to.

In fact, it seems that it's finally the case when people around might have to be "protected", since they cannot make the right choice themselves, and push me to it, as a consequence. So, being quite a libertarian myself, given the imperfect situation I find myself in, I'm not sure I mind some government interference.

I actually hate all these pop-up banners warning me about the cookie usage, and I'm not sure if GDPR (being vague and undefinitive it is) will turn out to be a good thing, and I sure hate this copyright filters thing. But I kind of like EU trying to force Internet-businesses to behave.

Oh, it seems I was unclear again ;)

I will pay attention to the decision the EU takes, as a citizen. And I hope that I agree with them — “screwing up” essentially meant doing something I disagree with.

Just like you, I don't know if GDPR will be a good thing; but at least it seems to be written with the citizens' well-being in mind, and that’s a big change.

> I would be actually glad, if Facebook (as it is now) would never enter the EU

So would I.

I've read of a riot that happened in 17th century France because bakers went on strike or holidays causing bread scarcity.

The government responded putting laws to make sure bread's always available to prevent a revolution.

I wonder what EU citizens would do if new sites blocked EU by default. It's a pity that France (a key instigator of this saga) wouldn't be affected much unlike English speaking countries.

I think the riot you are thinking of took place more than sixty years ago :)

What kind of site would block EU by default?

If EU is a big part of the site's audience, they probably wouldn't close it, and if it's not, well, there wouldn't be enough people complaining.

If a site decides to do this, it's most likely one I don't want to read. I would still be upset.

Many sites in the US have now blocked the EU because of GDPR. For example: https://www.latimes.com

Edit: corrected URL

I know, I was thinking about sites like this one. I don't think I'm missing a lot, the internet is huge.

We need good news reporting in the US right now (I’m an expat) and losing easy access (I have a VPN to bypass) to sites like LA Times (#4 in the US by circulation) may not seem like a big deal, but I believe is a harbinger things to come.

It’s also just one example (search for “shutdown because of GDPR” and there are many more tales) and doesn’t account for future companies that now have to factor GDPR into their business plan and may not (likely won’t?) bring their services to Europe.

Again, I don't think we need services from companies not willing to respect GDPR. Its intent is quite clear IMO.

If you don't like how a service handles your data, don't use it. No need to legislate your wishes across the board for the rest of us.

True, and false. Because when a service gets used by a lot of people, it often becomes hard to avoid.

Take Facebook, for example: at least for my generation, when you don't have an account, you can sometimes feel like you are a burden for others, who organize everything within it (I don't have one and am doing fine, though).

Or take GMail: the only ways to avoid your private email being automatically processed by Google is either to avoid every person using GMail (well...), or to teach those person to use end-to-end encryption. Not that easy.

Just noting, I can not access the link you posted and I am in the US. I have no problems retrieving https://www.latimes.com

Cheers...fixed!

Blocking EU IP addresses is somewhere between just not being ready and throwing a hissy fit. It doesn't block EU residents who are visiting other countries, and it doesn't block people in the EU who use a VPN. So all the responsibilities under the GDPR are still there!

At best, if an executive of the company ends up personally arrested in the EU, it allows them to make a legal argument to an EU court that they're not intending to do business with the EU. But if that's what GDPR enforcement really ends up becoming, I somehow don't see an EU court being sympathetic to that ploy!

And if the longer term plan is really to simply charge EU users in lieu of surveilling them, then there's even a payment stream to go after if they aren't responsive!

Blocking EU ip addresses is an extremely strong indication of intending to do no business with EU citizens. I expect capricious use of the law, but I doubt they could stretch it to apply in those cases.

People in other threads have stated authoritatively that web sites are not responsible for adhering to the GDPR rules in cases of EU citizens outside of the EU, if they do not cater to the EU in general.

Many sites that probably had next to no EU traffic have blocked the EU.

In practice I don't know anyone who has come across those blocks other than in response to [some site has blocked the EU] headlines.

Me. Exactly the LA Times.

I've probably clicked links to the LA Times half a dozen times since they started blocking the EU.

This is how the EU market has worked, in many ways, for years. There have always been moats due especially to localization and payment gateway issues. See: the legendary Samwer Bros clone companies.

Certainly GDPR only increases the width of these moats, but the market dynamic isn't much new.

These guys basically want to recreate their own version of Chinese internet.

I wish this were feasible - Uber's approach of geofencing authorities to filter the internet for authorities - let them see what they want to see. And let the rest of us have a free internet.

I seem to recall Bono went on record and praised the Chinese Firewall during a copyright hearing some years back...

Bono being an authoritarian? Cmon.

I've got to believe that European people as a whole don't understand the implications of this. It's a really horrible thing - they should be protesting in the street about it.

Which draft did you read? Could you link to it please?

The people “as a whole” don't understand indeed, and this is rather problematic.

Protesting in the street can get quite difficult when the media turn public opinion against you, while the state is sending troops equipped with “non-lethal” weapons.

Who protested in the street when ISPs started sending letters to people who pirated content?

We've been fighting these recurrent ideas time and again, mostly winning on technical grounds. This is pretty weak. Freedom is not a good argument against a torpedo that is "think of the children".

We start by educating how expensive, impractical, unenforceable and ineffective such things are.

An uncensorable internet is sorely needed.

Easy to setup and join - install an app and that's it.

The current Internet's not anonymous. With sufficient motive and resource, anyone can be tracked. Thus, anonymity shouldn't be a priority here.

Just make it fast, easy to use, and very difficult to take down (censor) stuff.

That's only if you value privacy less than openness. With the GPDR the EU has decided they do not value this.

Additionally that openness would have to apply to companies too. There is very little difference in results between a nation blocking you or Google blocking you right now, other than which boot is on your neck. You can get around both but they cut off a significant portion of the internet

What part of the internet do I miss by avoiding Google?

- tons of unique content on Youtube

- every Blogger blog

- every website hosted on Google's cloud (quite a few) or using Google DNS

- lots of unique Android apps that arent available on iOS because the barrier to entry is higher

- emailing anyone with an @gmail address

- working at any company using GApps

etc.etc.

I almost never stumble on Blogger blogs. Are there many?

I'm grateful that Google launched Android, but now I can use it without their ”services” and use only (albeit maybe a few manufacturer binary blobs) Free Software.

Gmail... Well, I don't use it, and altough not everybody wants to self-host, changing email provider (or having several) is easy.

If a company uses GApps, it probably means I'm not working for it.

...I'd probably use a VPN to be able to watch YouTube, I am not ready to give it up yet. Alternatives are growing, though!

You are somehow missing the part about "you can get around it". France could block everything I do and I could circumvent it but it takes time, and would increase cost or limit some of my actions. There is zero difference between a non superpower country blocking you and a megacorps blocking you in terms of the affects on your business

Edit: Additionally, how many of your points are from the viewpoint of "I"? Do you really think as a software engineer, or really just a person in general, that your experiences map to the majority of everyone else?

Everything I said was from my own viewpoint (I thought that was pretty clear).

You wrote “There is very little difference in results between a nation blocking you or Google blocking you right now”, which I interpreted as an individual-targeted sentence. Since I already try to avoid Google (in fact, it’s me blocking them, except for YouTube), I tried to imagine if it blocking me would be a problem.

Of course I don't think that everybody shares my view or can relate to my experience, that would be preposterous.

If your company uses Google for either Apps or Mail they are a very ignorant company. Why would any company want to share its secrets with Google?

I was silly at one time and used their DNS services. Why feed the beast more? Let them read all your email to sell your personal details? Why? Too inept to setup a email program? You would have to be half silly to trust these folks. I can't support Alphabet anymore. They have lost their way.

A large number of companies use Google services for many obvious reasons, and you’re not going to understand why if you dismiss it as “ignorance”.

Haha good luck running your own secure email server

>An uncensorable internet is sorely needed.

Governments don't need to censor the internet via technical measures to impose their will. They just need impose large fines on the companies that violate censorship laws.

Facebook has a version of their site hosted on Tor. That doesn't mean facebook can violate EU laws.

Even without companies, there might still be services. Consider SciHub.

(But who hosts SciHub?)

Yes. The technology is here. I'm kind of amazed that no one is successful at creating a bearable and understandable UX for IPFS and the likes.

I don't think anyone honestly believes that this was "coincidental".

why not? They admit they uploaded copyrighted content... they just say they had a right to broadcast it. Content ID doesn't magically get a copy of all legal contracts you've signed.. it'll flag copyrighted content if the original author registered it.

This happens with humans sometimes, too. Previous employer got a C&D letter from a client who had forgotten they had asked us to make and release an app for them with their logo and content. (No I will not say who).

Not “coincidental” so much as an inevitable outcome of failure to understand what they were asking for and/or thinking rules don’t apply to them. Happens a lot. In the 2010 UK elections, several MPs who voted for three-strikes rules on internet copyright violations were violating copyright themselves on their official websites. And then there’s the case of Matthew Garret and the MPAA: he filed a DMCA takedown notice against the MPAA because their anti-piracy toolkit violated his copyright/the GPL.

Blocking EU users is completely beside the point. Youtube is already filtering this content because of US laws, not EU laws. There’s no point blocking EU users to avoid EU copyright laws when complying with the DCMA is just as bad.

Good!

Url changed from https://boingboing.net/2018/06/17/three-days-left.html, which points to this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com