Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
EU Government Facebook Social Networks

The EU Approves Sweeping Draft Regulations On Social Media Giants (openaccessgovernment.org) 105

"The European Union took a significant step Thursday toward passing legislation that could transform the way major technology companies operate," reports the Washington Post, "requiring them to police content on their platforms more aggressively and introducing new restrictions on advertising, among other provisions...."

"The legislation is the most aggressive attempt yet to regulate big tech companies as the industry comes under greater international scrutiny." The version approved Thursday would force companies to remove content that is considered illegal in the country where it is viewed, which could be Holocaust denials in Germany or racist postings in France. And it would significantly shape how companies interact with users, allowing Europeans to opt out of targeted advertising more easily and prohibiting companies from targeting advertisements at children.... The legislation would also ban companies from employing deceptive tactics known as dark patterns to lure users to sign up or pay for services and products. And it would allow users to ask companies which personal characteristics, such as age or other demographic information, led them to be targeted with certain advertisements.
The two legislation bodies of the 27-nation bloc "are expected to debate the contents of the legislation for months before voting on a final version," the Post adds. But they add this a vote on "initial approval" of the legislation passed "overwhelmingly". "With the [Digital Services Act] we are going to take a stand against the Wild West the digital world has turned into, set the rules in the interests of consumers and users, not just of Big Tech companies and finally make the things that are illegal offline illegal online too," said Christel Schaldemose, the center-left lawmaker from Denmark who has led negotiations on the bill.

The Post adds this quote from Gianclaudio Malgieri, an associate professor of technology and law at the EDHEC Business School in France. "For the first time, it will not be based on what Big Tech decides to do," he said. "It will be on paper."

In fact, the site Open Access Government reports there were 530 votes for the legislation, and just 78 against (with 80 abstentions). "The Digital Services Act could now become the new gold standard for digital regulation, not just in Europe but around the world," they quote Schaldemose as saying, also offering more details on the rest of the bill: Algorithm use should be more transparent, and researchers should also be given access to raw data to understand how online harms evolve. There is also a clause for an oversight structure, which would allow EU countries to essentially regulate regulation. Violations could in future be punished with fines of up to 6% of a company's annual revenue....

The draft Bill is one half of a dual-digital regulation package. The other policy is the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which would largely look at tackling online monopolies.

Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader UpnAtom for sharing the story.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The EU Approves Sweeping Draft Regulations On Social Media Giants

Comments Filter:
  • It would ban both you and the person you punch, for 24 hours, from all social media platforms. Anyone who becomes seriously annoying gets punched every day and then you don't hear so much from them. It works on all obnoxious people IRL, why not online too?
  • Media Giants (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cowdung ( 702933 ) on Sunday January 23, 2022 @01:33AM (#62198761)

    Lots of focus on "social media" where people directly air their opinions and share any article they want (including garbage).

    But no focus on the producers of the garbage: media companies in the pockets of politicians.

    There are plenty of media companies posing as "news" these days that all they do is promote some political agenda. In fact, it's hard to come by "news" companies that actually produce news (minus the opinions, commentary and agenda).

    But that same media is pointing government to "do something" about the conduit that promotes their garbage rather than themselves, the garbage producers.

    • There are plenty of media companies posing as "news" these days that all they do is promote some political agenda.

      It has always been this way. Every newspaper or TV network has an editorial line, every individual has a bias, even different countries have different values (and interests) that lead their media to see things in different ways.
      It's not something that happens in the decadent times we're living, it's something that happened even before writing was invented. This is why it's important to listen

      • by HiThere ( 15173 )

        To refine that point:
        No one *CAN* ever give you a really objective view of the facts.

        It is literally impossible, though some approach closer than others. So if *you* want to get close to the facts, multiple different viewpoints are essential. This is a lot of work, and I'm only interested enough to do this in a few areas. So in the rest I try to be a bit (or more) uncertain. Personal investigation helps, but that is often inherently limited.

        • A three-body gravitational problem cannot be solved, but we have good enough approximations to travel the galaxy.

          The point is to prevent total BS--something akin to denying the reality of gravity, like Trump is still president--from overshadowing facts.

          It is wrong for people to think Trump is still president. It is wrong for people to think that global warming is a hoax. It is wrong for people to think that vaccination is a conspiracy. If you cannot make make these moral judgments, then you are not operati

      • But the internet has changed things. In the days of network TV, there was a single audience. The internet has allowed everybody to choose whatever news source is most comfortable to them, resulting in a clear bifurcation of the media and the extinction of more neutral media because there is no longer a market for it.
        • by OYAHHH ( 322809 )

          resulting in the extinction of more neutral media because there is no longer a market for it.

          Excuse me. Exactly which yardstick do you measure that with?

          "More Neutral Media" is 100% in the eyes of the beholder.

    • Re:Media Giants (Score:4, Interesting)

      by xalqor ( 6762950 ) on Sunday January 23, 2022 @03:34AM (#62198897)

      +1

      The line between news and entertainment got intentionally blurred by the companies doing this. They want it to be classified as entertainment so they can say whatever to get clicks and views, but people want news.

      There should be a content labeling law for information, kind of like ingredients and nutrition labels on food items. At the very least, a professional outlet (that has a business license) should be required to label a story or even individual parts of a story as fact, author's opinion, or entertainment.

      A fact should have a citation next to it or in a footnote. If it turns out to be wrong, a retraction should be required. A quote from someone is also a fact (did they say that), so quotes need an additional label for the content of the quote itself -- is it a fact (citation required), author's opinion, or entertainment.

      An author's opinion can be whatever they want, of course, but labeling it forces them to separate their opinions from the facts of the story.

      Something labeled as entertainment should be a clear notice to readers or viewers not to take it seriously. This would be used a lot by satire sites, sensational magazines, late night shows, etc.

      It would be useful if the information labeling stayed with the content as metadata when you copy and paste text from a web page, or forward a message on any social media, so people getting it will also be informed. Without metadata, the default label should probably be "unknown" so people understand they're not looking at original material (because if we had a law, then original material would have to be labeled).

    • by evanh ( 627108 )

      Lol, it's anybody that thinks businesses should have some scruples. The news sites are just reporting on it.

      I'd be most happy to see Facebook vanish entirely.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The press is not in the pocket of politicians, it is in the pocket of billionaires. Those same billionaires expect to be rewarded for having their newspapers support particular politicians.

      There is already regulation for media companies. It's not something that the EU gets involved in much, it's down to member states. Arguably it might be better if there were EU wide rules. The EU is much less prone to the corruption that allows the owners of newspapers to get away with this stuff.

    • I see this as little more than realization that they can institute censorship by proxy, rather than have the bad publicity of formally announcing it. Congratulations - your speech will be essentially regulated by Google, Facebook, etc...

      • Congratulations - your speech will be essentially regulated by Google, Facebook, etc...
        Like it always has been ...

    • Traditional commercial broadcast media are funded & controlled by their sponsors. Politicians don't spend enough on advertising to have much influence. If anything, it's the media that influences politicians. The main influence on the media comes from the biggest spenders: our beloved corporations. It's essentially their views converted into PR-speak to make it more appealing to us. The same is most likely true of social media too. ATM, corporations see science & facts as threats to their profit mar
    • by stikves ( 127823 )

      It is much easier and lucrative to sue Facebook or Twitter than figuring out the real culprits.

      The same with other "big government" action. Ask Apple to turn over master keys, tap into deep sea communication cables, and data mine all sources, often illegal, with no privacy policy or outside scrutiny. All for the "common good".

      And now we are really moving into balkanized Internet fiefdoms. Every country will come up with a different list of "unacceptable" content. They would even be glad if people could not

  • Wow (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tanek ( 876501 ) on Sunday January 23, 2022 @03:26AM (#62198885)

    I expected more anti-left posts in here already, but probably not because it doesn't affect right-oriented Gods Own Country'ists as much.

    What I think most opponents don't realise is that left "meta", or right "truth", are both affected by this, and there are more "sides" than that. There is more to it than "them" and "us", at least when it comes to nuances of people, and not just whatever end of the spectrum the various news sites are. Each social media side would have to accept the opposite views, and everything in between to be truly called Free Speech.

    This is less of a problem on the international scene, where conspiracies are less believed in, but still an issue when the "loud minority" takes over the apparent narrative. There is nothing to fear, for those, though, as international court rulings are easily dismissed by local state courts.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      There is more to it than "them" and "us"

      The uneducated arrogant moronic masses in the US cannot think in terms more complex than "them" and "us". Hence they completely miss what is actually going on. They do not have the mental capacity to understand that.

  • From the article mentioned in the article (yes, I clicked twice to read ALL of it, how un-Slashdot!):
    >> The proposals unveiled Tuesday would make major online platforms legally responsible for the content users post on their services, requiring companies to police abuse, misinformation and other legal violations far more actively than they do now.

    This is exactly what a company like Facebook wants. It makes it almost impossible for others to enter the social media arena because of the amount of work in

    • by Teun ( 17872 )
      Transparency re. the algorithms is one of the proposed policies.
      Further, these policies are to be implemented by platforms that have more than x-million of users/subscribers, the start-ups will have a chance.
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      "Years to come" for FB is not an issue. They had that already anyways, regardless of these efforts. I disagree with your reasoning nonetheless. FB, etc. are international companies that hence need to cater to the lowest common denominator. That is a massive problem in itself. I predict that this is actually good for competition because it allows smaller networks that just do not operate locally (but are accessible) in, say, the US or EU or Russia, etc., to get out of censorship attempts there. Sure, this m

  • Digital transfer pricing is how profit is channeled away from taxation - and the best part is it can be totally dynamic. And when someone has >50% market share - how is this not a monopoly now(or meets market abuse/distortion parameters). Google has phone numbers unique device ID's plus decades of history - no johny come lately can compete with that, especially with >10 years of affiliate cross-tracking. The only way this can be reversed is to enshrine right to be forgotten and personal histories purg
    • by HiThere ( 15173 )

      I don't really think 50% constitutes a monopoly, generally more like 70%, but I also tend to break the market into finer segment. So if only one company offers a service in some particular area, that is a monopoly, even if another company offers that service a block away.

  • by BishopBerkeley ( 734647 ) on Sunday January 23, 2022 @11:43AM (#62199569) Journal

    This is proof positive that the EU system works. Mandatory retirement at 65 is clearly clearing the EU parliament of the sort of fossils we have in the senate. Furthermore, the EU parliament is far more focused on accountability than on fundraising. The reasons the senate fossils won't act against tech are that 1) they don't understand tech and 2) they need tech's campaign donations.

    The trolls will whine incessantly because these rules will take away the trolls' megaphones. The EU is correct to compare tech companies to broadcasters and it is correct in demanding that they exercise editorial discretion. Free speech does NOT translate to a right to have your BS go viral.

    Will the US Congress ever act? No. Because they're fossils. Unlike Europe, the US has no structure to renew its leadership every generation. This American conservatism will eventually break the nation.

    • The EU has no mandatory retirement from political positions ...

      • Thank you for the clarification. Nevertheless, the EU parliament looks distinctly younger than the US Congress.

        • Then you should check the Finnish or New Zealand one :D
          Especially also the cabinet. And the fact that a hige deal are women.

          • Indeed. The point that must be made over and over again until people get it is that, in the context of capitalism, conservatism is a recipe for death. Capitalism is the engine of change. Regimes who oppose it--ie., conservative regimes--put their economies and societies on course for collapse. It's critical to have turnover in government. This was the point, once upon a time.

  • ..NPR.
    This one is very, very simple and clear.
    https://www.npr.org/2022/01/18... [npr.org]
    Nina Totenberg reported for NPR that 1) Judge Sotomayor was working remotely because Judge Gorsuch refused to wear a mask, despite that 2) Chief Justice Roberts wanted all the judges to wear masks.
    Basically, portraying Gorsuch as an intransigent dick making work life harder for Sotomayor.
    This launched a wide tirade against the "monster" Gorsuch across CNN, MSNBC, NYT and a host of, you know, 'independent' news organizations.

    Turns out, not true in the slightest.

    https://www.yahoo.com/entertai... [yahoo.com]
    Gorsuch and Sotomayor jointly released a statement declaring their mutual surprise at the report, that it's expressly not true, and that though they disagree on many issues, they are colleagues and friends.
    Further, Chief Justice Roberts also released a statement saying he had not asked anyone to mask up. https://twitter.com/andrew_chu... [twitter.com]

    NPR editors issued mealy-mouth defense, asserting that the story was fundamentally true, just that Totenberg shouldn't have said Robert's 'asked' anyone, since he didn't. (But asserting that he implied the request.)
    https://www.npr.org/sections/p... [npr.org]

    This would seem an open and shut case about journalists lying to advance a narrative.
    Shall we make it the first example of the EU's 'commitment to the truth online'?

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Working...