But it's the absurdity of the fact that the EU can pass a law which has such massive and widespread implications - where the wording is unclear, bizarre, makes little sense, and can hardly be applied.
Surely there are smart people working on this, but collectively they are morons. Utter idiots.
Whatever it is, it has to be clean, simple, effective, spelled out ... or else there just shouldn't be a law.
Laws are supposed to be readable by everyone, you can't expect everyone to be a tech expert. If you feel like non-experts are "morons" or "idiot", you should take a break and talk to your grand-parents. Explain to them your work field, and you will realize most of the work we do everyday is artificially complex to keep everyone busy. There is actually a tendency for tech people to retain knowledge in order to acquire an advantage and power from the entire society. Tech moves fast, but the rest of us can't follow, it creates inequalities, so here are the regulations.
The laws have to be technically correct, if legislators do not understand the internet it behoves them to hire experts that do.
Can you imagine them writing similar, nonsensical health related laws?
Moreover - the issues are not that complicated, they can be explained in an hour.
They are idiots, and also too lazy to learn trivial, common things.
Don't underestimate the arrogance and entitlement of European legislators: they went to expensive schools, they've mingled with the intelligentsia all of their life - of course they must 'know better' than the common person! (sarcasm).
(Also - the EU is not Europe. It's a terrible habit that some Europeans have of conflating the two)
The legislators who design these laws are not elected, and you have absolutely no ability to influence the direction of these laws. As an EU citizen, you should be more informed as to how this process works legally, but also materially. Legally, there's no relationship between voters, and the Commission designed with writing laws. They are absolutely not elected, and they don't take populist needs into consideration - in fact, it's designed specifically to not be democratic.
The only hope you have might be to have MEP's amend legislation as it passes by, but almost nobody in Europe has an awareness of this process, they don't know who their MEP is, they don't know what they stand for. Can you tell me right now, without looking it up, the name of your MEP and what they represent?
But this is all moot. The legislation is objectively stupid. It makes no sense. It will cause essentially an internet meltdown the likes of which nobody has ever seen. EU legislators are worrying about 'Brexit'? How are you going to live if Google, Bing, Wikipedia, and every other search engine goes black? Or when your newspapers instantly go out of business because the legislation meant to protect them kills them?
The issue of 'democracy' and even 'good intent' are secondary to the fact that the legislation is very materially and very damagingly stupid. This legislation is the equivalent of making chemical weapons in your own home as a 'fun experiment' and then dying from it ...
Even beyond the damage the legislation could do - it makes the Commission look basically incompetent, and it erodes the goodwill that they need to stay alive, as Euroscepticism grows on the continent.
How will the plebes react if even just wikipedia goes black for whatever reason? It would be like the internet version of a 'bread revolt'.
Correct, but all 'designed' laws must be approved by the European Parliament, which is elected.
> Can you tell me right now, without looking it up, the name of your MEP and what they represent?
No, and I don't need to, because I eventually vote for a long-term political view and ideology, not for specific people.
> Or when your newspapers instantly go out of business because the legislation meant to protect them kills them?
You try to install a climate of urgency and fears, which is a tactic from far-right political groups. Building the European Union took times, and it is still being built.
A legislation is not set in stone, it can be changed, by the same system, with adequate discussions and processes.
It is known than the democratic system, with separated powers, is the least worst system of the political systems. So, at the end of the day, I have still more trust in the Commission and Parliament processes to defend my European rights than trust in your alarmist, pessimistic and defeatist opinion.
It's not just the press either, it's the whole cultural industry that they try to save. I'm not a big fan of protectionism but if you look at the French cultural industry for instance (and contrast it with, say, Italy's) we've had some moderate success preserving it through protectionist regulations (quotas, fixed prices for books, regulations regarding advertising of movies etc...). I'm not very happy with that but pragmatically I can't completely dismiss these regulations since they appear to have had a positive effect on the local industry.
I'm not saying this is the right way to go but I'm always a bit frustrated that many on HN seem to lose all sense of measure and intellectual honesty every time government or regulations are mentioned.
I think this "link tax" is a bad thing but at the same time I also see the very real problem the regulators are trying to fix.
In my home country you could trace most news outlets back to a few big players and those tend to be in the top 100 rich people of the country. If they are getting public subventions I would see it more as a way for politicians to keep the coverage positive.
I think there is an earnest attempt to save journalism overall ... but also consider that European industries are static, and especially the press are owned by old, rich families who have considerable influence.