In Europe, the bird will fly by our EU rules(twitter.com)
twitter.com
In Europe, the bird will fly by our EU rules
https://twitter.com/thierrybreton/status/1585902196864045056
168 comments
I can participate in global reddit just fine so I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Maybe the NetzDG which is a German law that requires some unconstitutional comments (after being reported) to be hidden in Germany? This was and is highly controversial and applies to all social media.
Maybe the NetzDG which is a German law that requires some unconstitutional comments (after being reported) to be hidden in Germany? This was and is highly controversial and applies to all social media.
Right, my understanding is that that law also affects entire subreddits.
Basically, I think they should go a step further: you only have access to EU-siloed twitter accounts without actively opting in and being warned.
My general read is that most Europeans would be okay with that (and would not opt-in), and the ones that wouldn't would just use a VPN anyway, so it wouldn't matter
Basically, I think they should go a step further: you only have access to EU-siloed twitter accounts without actively opting in and being warned.
My general read is that most Europeans would be okay with that (and would not opt-in), and the ones that wouldn't would just use a VPN anyway, so it wouldn't matter
I don't think people would be ok with that at all. It would be a drastic overarching policy and not something any democratic EU member state aims to achieve.
Just because Europeans subscribe to a different notion of freedom of speech that doesn't mean that people want siloed and separated social media (except natural language barriers which do that automatically for most). Some probably want a "family friendly" internet but that's not unique to Europe.
Speaking from (my) German perspective it's important to realize that the national trauma of the Nazi and (Eastern German) Communist/Socialist regimes is embedded deeply into the foundations of society (e.g. even most far right extremist pay lip service to not be associated with the OG Nazis). A vast majority of people agree that the wish for society to not fall under one of those regimes again outweighs the freedom of individuals to advocate for violent far right/left causes and the abolishment of democracy.
A similar (though much weaker and more controversial) sentiment exists when it comes to celebrating crimes again humanity.
Anything beyond that is highly controversial and was/is a topic of many debates and political fights.
Just because Europeans subscribe to a different notion of freedom of speech that doesn't mean that people want siloed and separated social media (except natural language barriers which do that automatically for most). Some probably want a "family friendly" internet but that's not unique to Europe.
Speaking from (my) German perspective it's important to realize that the national trauma of the Nazi and (Eastern German) Communist/Socialist regimes is embedded deeply into the foundations of society (e.g. even most far right extremist pay lip service to not be associated with the OG Nazis). A vast majority of people agree that the wish for society to not fall under one of those regimes again outweighs the freedom of individuals to advocate for violent far right/left causes and the abolishment of democracy.
A similar (though much weaker and more controversial) sentiment exists when it comes to celebrating crimes again humanity.
Anything beyond that is highly controversial and was/is a topic of many debates and political fights.
> just because europeans subscribe to a different notion of freedom of speech that doesn't mean that people want siloed and separated social media
i mean the point here is not to argue which vision of free speech is correct, as an American i obviously disagree but what's at issue is how they're separated. y'all may not want a "siloed" solution, but y'all have also passed laws that restrict stuff more than the rest of the world. the rest of the world is not willing to have its speech policed to meet german/EU sensibilities so this is a possible compromise.
i mean the point here is not to argue which vision of free speech is correct, as an American i obviously disagree but what's at issue is how they're separated. y'all may not want a "siloed" solution, but y'all have also passed laws that restrict stuff more than the rest of the world. the rest of the world is not willing to have its speech policed to meet german/EU sensibilities so this is a possible compromise.
So we're going to have a second great firewall now?
Companies having to follow the rules in the countries they operate in is nothing new.
i have a website. i host it in America. i do not check where my visitors are coming from and just comply with American law since this is where me and my server are.
am i "operating" in zimbabwe, or moldova, or fiji? no.
if twitter stops selling ads to EU entities, closes any offices, and hosts just outside the EU borders it does not have to comply. if for no other reason then the eu loses its power to enforce.
am i "operating" in zimbabwe, or moldova, or fiji? no.
if twitter stops selling ads to EU entities, closes any offices, and hosts just outside the EU borders it does not have to comply. if for no other reason then the eu loses its power to enforce.
"if twitter stops selling ads to EU entities, closes any offices, and hosts just outside the EU borders it does not have to comply"
Maybe they'll move to Sealand.
Maybe they'll move to Sealand.
You don't and if Twitter does the same they wouldn't have to check either.
Probably everybody operating a website is in violation of a law somehwere around the globe.
If you want to sell to European customers you will find that (depending on your size and business) you will have to comply with some laws in order to continue in this Market.
The bigger your business the more rules and at a certain size laws will be created to regulate you in particular. This is what Twitter and friends face.
Probably everybody operating a website is in violation of a law somehwere around the globe.
If you want to sell to European customers you will find that (depending on your size and business) you will have to comply with some laws in order to continue in this Market.
The bigger your business the more rules and at a certain size laws will be created to regulate you in particular. This is what Twitter and friends face.
Well, until EU courts hold Twitter executives in contempt. in which case any traveling for those people outside the US might be a tad risky. Just ask those VW managers that cannot travel outside of Germany anymore because the US have extradition treaties in place with other EU countries.
Right, and the solution for doing that within China, Iran, etc is to restrict what people in those areas can see, while leaving the content visible to those connecting from more liberal countries.
There's already country-level tweet blocking in places for those countries with constitutional bans on Nazism: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/10/how-to-use-twitters-...
Unenforceable threat.
What will they do if Twitter doesn't comply, ban Twitter?
Twitter is the life-blood of journalists, watch how quickly the whole press will turn against EU anti-Twitter regulation.
What will they do if Twitter doesn't comply, ban Twitter?
Twitter is the life-blood of journalists, watch how quickly the whole press will turn against EU anti-Twitter regulation.
> ban Twitter
Yes. Twitter is a lot less essential than you might think.
Yes. Twitter is a lot less essential than you might think.
"ban" twitter how? go to china and ask to license the great firewall? you could restrict it from operating a EU office or servers, you could restrict it from taking payment in euros, you could even restrict EU domiciled business from paying it but actually "banning" it is a much more authoritarian option.
Why should Twitter pay for infastructure for users that don't generate any revenue? That sounds like bad business.
who says you can't still advertise to them? if twitter goes the "screw the eu" route they don't even have to follow gdpr so that makes for a competitive advantage.
One can only hope!
Everything is. The balance between stay and remain within EU is not especially weighted towards remain in an increasing number of countries. The EU deciding to take any sort of a meaningful stance against free speech or free expression is, IMO, much more likely to push those still in the middle more towards leaving the EU than it is to push them towards remaining.
It's an irrelevant act on its own weight, but there always comes a straw that breaks the camel's back. Now is just such an absurdly horrible time to do something that might agitate.
It's an irrelevant act on its own weight, but there always comes a straw that breaks the camel's back. Now is just such an absurdly horrible time to do something that might agitate.
So, banning twitter will directly lead to other countries leaving the EU because twitter is the only way of free speech that exists?
If Twitter doesn't comply the EU can make it virtually impossible for their citizens and businesses to buy ads. Journalists who choose to be lazy will face zero interruption.
> What will they do if Twitter doesn't comply, ban Twitter?
No, they'll fine them.
No, they'll fine them.
The only way to force fine payment is to threaten with a ban otherwise. If Twitter doesn't pay the fine, what does the EU do?
Sue them? The EU has a number of court systems. And in quite a lot of circumstances EU judgements are enforceable in the US. https://iclg.com/practice-areas/enforcement-of-foreign-judgm...
I believe in France the fine is felt and companies like Twitter comply with the rules. Whereas in the U.S. a fine is expensed as part of the cost of doing business and rules are broken repeatedly. Worse case is a long battle in the courts and after more than a decade they settle out of court for a little money and noone is held responsible.
They could go the US route and threaten kidnapping and/or assassination of the CEO.
You are referring to Alstom guy right ?
Straight up kidnapping indeed.
Frédéric Pierucci. There's also that Huawei woman...Meng Wanzhou?
What is right for the US must be right for the EU, right?
What is right for the US must be right for the EU, right?
Seize any assets within the EU. Likely get into 'contempt of court' situation - which might prevent any executives travel to any EU country. To my knowledge there is no* such precedent so far, though. (edited*)
Can you name that precedent? Would be interesting to know
Is there a precedent for it not happening, i.e. a company being court-ordered to pay a fine and just deciding not to pay it without consequences?
cant type: on = no
Fine them more ?
No but seriously, legal consequence are not always backed by a army threat.
Twitter want to be in good standing in regard to the laws.
Why would they bother pay taxes at all anywhere otherwise ?
Twitter want to be in good standing in regard to the laws.
Why would they bother pay taxes at all anywhere otherwise ?
[deleted]
Go after executives? Or, assuming Twitter will be private one day, after the owner(s)? Freeze assets? Go through the WTO and US authorities?
No; that was the US does. See Alstom French CEO jailed in the US because he wanted to sell to Chinese and not GE.
i doubt America would back that since at that point twitter is doing nothing illegal here. just refusing to block eu citizens. similar to how extradition generally requires something being a crime in both countries.
Not blocking certain users in a jurisdiction where these blocks are required by law is, by definition, illegal. Obviously, some countries have more power to enforce those things than others. Also obviously, the EU is among the front runners of power to be able to enforce those things. And I am fairly sure the US won't start a trade war over Twitter the way the EU and the US did over Airbus and Boeing.
no it's not, because the internet doesn't require you to be present in some place so you are not subject to that jurisdiction. i do not recognize the jurisdiction of a country to demand a block of its citizens from a company located in an entirely different nation, and i doubt American courts would either.
like imagine i host a human rights site. if iran says it is illegal for me to provide access to content supporting womens rights to iranian citizens, it is not "illegal" for me to continue doing so because i am American, i live in America, and i operate only by American laws. America would not extradite me to iran for failing to comply with their internet rules.
like imagine i host a human rights site. if iran says it is illegal for me to provide access to content supporting womens rights to iranian citizens, it is not "illegal" for me to continue doing so because i am American, i live in America, and i operate only by American laws. America would not extradite me to iran for failing to comply with their internet rules.
Fair enough, unless you choose to operate in, e.g., Iran. Now you have options:
1) follow Iranian law
2a) not follow Iranian law and be blocked
2c) not follow Iranian law, circumvent any blocking and be prosecuted
2c obviously wont matter much in the case of Iran, in other cases it might. And while the US wont extradite you, other countries might. And there is still the option of abusing Interpol and red notices, again maybe not a problem in case of Iran and US internet co executives.
You know who thought the same way you do? German citizen living in NZ Kim Dotcom. You know who disagreed? The US DoJ. Would be about time if other countries would do the same to certain US entities, wouldn't it?
1) follow Iranian law
2a) not follow Iranian law and be blocked
2c) not follow Iranian law, circumvent any blocking and be prosecuted
2c obviously wont matter much in the case of Iran, in other cases it might. And while the US wont extradite you, other countries might. And there is still the option of abusing Interpol and red notices, again maybe not a problem in case of Iran and US internet co executives.
You know who thought the same way you do? German citizen living in NZ Kim Dotcom. You know who disagreed? The US DoJ. Would be about time if other countries would do the same to certain US entities, wouldn't it?
See : the spying allegation issues by the US against a French CEO of Alstom. He went straight to jail.
It’s fairly commonly recognized it’s was a ploy to force the sell of Alstom to GE, as opposed to a Chinese joint venture
It’s fairly commonly recognized it’s was a ploy to force the sell of Alstom to GE, as opposed to a Chinese joint venture
German press cheered when the German government enacted the Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz ("Network enforcement law") a few years ago which forced Social Networks, regardless of their origin, to block and/or delete things that could be considered illegal within 60 minutes.
In fact, the law was so well-designed that Iran, Russia and China quickly copied it.
Everyone always forgets that if you create a sharp sword, it still can be wielded against yourself. Abuse of censorship infrastructure is only one autocrat away.
In fact, the law was so well-designed that Iran, Russia and China quickly copied it.
Everyone always forgets that if you create a sharp sword, it still can be wielded against yourself. Abuse of censorship infrastructure is only one autocrat away.
To be fair, Russia and China have always been able to do anything that they want. If they can't find a law that fits, they'll create a conviction for another another. In practical terms, that probably didn't cost their citizens any freedom. Restrictions like that end up having more negative effects on the other nations with real civil liberties.
The naïveté is astounding, no?
Didn’t Musk volunteer to follow the laws of the countries twitter runs in, in fact he said that it was a good thing to follow those laws because it reflects the will of the people.
might do journalists a lot of good
[deleted]
I recall the same thing being said about Apple and USB-C ports in iPhones, yet here we are.
The anti-EU brigade in the comments isn't exactly giving a good showing of its intellectual caliber, with the most common arguments being that EU representatives are unelected (true in the same sense that the president of the USA is unelected) and that regulation is impossible because Twitter is an american company (self-explanatory).
I don't know about everyone else but we sure as hell had an election for EU parliament here in Sweden. We could elect a party, or individual MPs.
During the last EU election here I even called individual MPs and talked to them, or their office staff, about various subjects. So they're quite accessible.
During the last EU election here I even called individual MPs and talked to them, or their office staff, about various subjects. So they're quite accessible.
"we sure as hell had an election for EU parliament here in Sweden"
And it was irrelevant because the EU Parliament isn't a real Parliament, no more than the assembly of representatives in North Korea is. It lacks the so-called right of initiation, meaning that only the EU Commission has the power to change the law. As a consequence nobody who cares about politics bothers going there, except in cases like Farage or Le Pen as a way to get free money they can spend on campaigning against the EU as a concept. Why would anyone who cares about politics spend their time in a body where political ideas are worthless because you aren't allowed to propose them?
Would you like more evidence? The commissioner who made this tweet about the DSA flew over to California and told Musk to obey the new regulations before the EUP had even had a chance to vote on it at all. In a normal government, the legislature has to actually vote to pass new rules before the executive tells people to comply. But the EUP is a rubber stamp designed to grant the surface level appearance of legitimacy to the Commission's decisions, not a body that can actually keep the EU in check, so Breton didn't even bother waiting for it before starting to implement the DSA.
That's how much the EU itself cares about its "Parliament", so why should anyone else care?
And it was irrelevant because the EU Parliament isn't a real Parliament, no more than the assembly of representatives in North Korea is. It lacks the so-called right of initiation, meaning that only the EU Commission has the power to change the law. As a consequence nobody who cares about politics bothers going there, except in cases like Farage or Le Pen as a way to get free money they can spend on campaigning against the EU as a concept. Why would anyone who cares about politics spend their time in a body where political ideas are worthless because you aren't allowed to propose them?
Would you like more evidence? The commissioner who made this tweet about the DSA flew over to California and told Musk to obey the new regulations before the EUP had even had a chance to vote on it at all. In a normal government, the legislature has to actually vote to pass new rules before the executive tells people to comply. But the EUP is a rubber stamp designed to grant the surface level appearance of legitimacy to the Commission's decisions, not a body that can actually keep the EU in check, so Breton didn't even bother waiting for it before starting to implement the DSA.
That's how much the EU itself cares about its "Parliament", so why should anyone else care?
They're talking about the commission, not the parliament.
And the commission is nominated by the elected governments of EU member states.
There were candidates for the commission's presidency, and Frau von der Leyen was not one of them. In fact, she was not on any lists before the election and her name only popped up afterwards, which made the whole election a farce.
It's like having a presidential race between Biden and Trump and then installing Weird Al Yankovic as president after all votes are counted.
It's like having a presidential race between Biden and Trump and then installing Weird Al Yankovic as president after all votes are counted.
Since the head of the commission was never ever voted for in the EU elections, who ever was proposed was just providing a face anyway. Much like the Chancellor in Germany, you vote for a party that proposed a person to become chancellor in case said party leads a coalition government. There is no way to prevent said party to just have someone else being elected chancellor by parliament. It is still democratic so.
That's not accurate.
Von Der Leyen was not proposed by any party. The parties proposed other leaders. The "spitzenkandidaten" system that led to Juncker becoming EU President was only used once and was ignored this time. In fact nobody knows why or how Von Der Leyen became the EU President, only that the council leaders disappeared into a secret meeting and at the end, the deed was done. What was discussed? Were countries bribed or threatened to go along with it? What exactly qualified her for this role given her track record of failure in Germany? Nobody knows the answers to these questions.
So no, it's really nothing like the Chancellor in Germany or leadership anywhere else. The EU's own misinformation campaign around this topic is clearly highly effective. Normally, the people who run the country are elected by at least some local voters and then by the party itself. With the EU Commission, the president just ... turned up.
Von Der Leyen was not proposed by any party. The parties proposed other leaders. The "spitzenkandidaten" system that led to Juncker becoming EU President was only used once and was ignored this time. In fact nobody knows why or how Von Der Leyen became the EU President, only that the council leaders disappeared into a secret meeting and at the end, the deed was done. What was discussed? Were countries bribed or threatened to go along with it? What exactly qualified her for this role given her track record of failure in Germany? Nobody knows the answers to these questions.
So no, it's really nothing like the Chancellor in Germany or leadership anywhere else. The EU's own misinformation campaign around this topic is clearly highly effective. Normally, the people who run the country are elected by at least some local voters and then by the party itself. With the EU Commission, the president just ... turned up.
Von der Leyen was made president of the commission because Lagarde was made president of the European Central Bank.
Germany and France wanted these positions and decided amongst themselves who got which. Both wanted the ECB presidency more.
Germany and France wanted these positions and decided amongst themselves who got which. Both wanted the ECB presidency more.
That's certainly one theory. Point is, it's just speculation. Nobody knows and the council members, despite theoretically answering to voters, systematically refuse to say anything about what goes on in those meetings. Isn't that curious?
It seems people here from the US have fundamental misconception of how the EU works.
> It's like having a presidenctial race between Biden and Trump and then installing Weird Al Yankovic as president after all votes are counted.
Is that meant to be a bad thing? Because you make it sound like a good thing.
Is that meant to be a bad thing? Because you make it sound like a good thing.
> It's like having a presidenctial race between Biden and Trump and then installing Weird Al Yankovic as president after all votes are counted.
This could still happen in the USA. The electors (the 538 people in the Electoral College who actually pick the president) could vote for anyone they wanted, and if enough wanted Weird Al then he would be POTUS. States have made laws to require electors to vote for the person who won the state election or face punishment, but that is not a Constitutional requirement or anything.
This could still happen in the USA. The electors (the 538 people in the Electoral College who actually pick the president) could vote for anyone they wanted, and if enough wanted Weird Al then he would be POTUS. States have made laws to require electors to vote for the person who won the state election or face punishment, but that is not a Constitutional requirement or anything.
Honestly, I think Weird Al would be the best choice anyway…
That's amazing. How did you get through to them, did you just get their email from their website?
We need more examples of this, to show that you can actual reach your representatives.
We need more examples of this, to show that you can actual reach your representatives.
I misremembered, it wasn't during an election it was actually when we heard about the initial voting about chatcontrol, or one of the encryption breaking propsals that preceded it.
Either way, yes I was able to just call their office numbers listed on their websites and get through. I also in some cases got personal replies to my e-mails from individual MEPs.
If you call their office most likely someone else will answer the phone but in some cases, if you're lucky, you can just ask if the MEP is available.
Either way, yes I was able to just call their office numbers listed on their websites and get through. I also in some cases got personal replies to my e-mails from individual MEPs.
If you call their office most likely someone else will answer the phone but in some cases, if you're lucky, you can just ask if the MEP is available.
MEPs are surprisingly accessible, because the public and journalists hardly ever bother with them. Journalists tend to focus on domestic political theatre rather than the boring details of actual policy.
really?! All this time. Why didn't you fix the thing where they decided every single website should have a popup, instead of browser vendors having an option?
European commissioners aren't elected in any sense of the word, they're appointed by national governments. Even if the US president is elected via an electoral college, the outcome of that vote is very much driven by the popular vote - it's in absolutely no way comparable to the way commissioners are put in office.
The national governments are either elected directly or by a directly elected parliament; there is not as much difference as you think when you consider the state-level mechanics of the electoral college (commissioners also have a lot less power, this one is just pointing out the obvious fact that Musk isn't the law, the law is the law).
[deleted]
> they're appointed by national governments.
...which are elected.
So if you want e. g. a right-wing EU commissioner just vote for your local right-wing party. It is that easy.
...which are elected.
So if you want e. g. a right-wing EU commissioner just vote for your local right-wing party. It is that easy.
I think most national governments are also appointed. By the national parliaments, which are elected.
Maybe the EC should be appointed by the EP. That way it would be about as democratic as most national governments. Of course the problem there is that the EP is incredibly fragmented and there are almost no European parties; they're all national parties, so it's going to be hard getting a majority of those to agree on a government. I guess that's a big part of the reason why it's done by the smaller number of national governments instead, and the EP can only approve or reject.
Maybe the EC should be appointed by the EP. That way it would be about as democratic as most national governments. Of course the problem there is that the EP is incredibly fragmented and there are almost no European parties; they're all national parties, so it's going to be hard getting a majority of those to agree on a government. I guess that's a big part of the reason why it's done by the smaller number of national governments instead, and the EP can only approve or reject.
>..which are elected.
How indirect can democracy be until its still democracy?
How indirect can democracy be until its still democracy?
Short answer? Very.
Only in theory. In practice the head of the Commission has the ability to veto the countries proposals, an ability you won't find in any treaty because it's not meant to exist. Nonetheless, Juncker said:
https://www.rp.pl/swiat/art1359931-juncker-kaczynski-nie-chc...
"Nobody knows this, but last time I rejected six commissioners that had been presented to me by national governments.
Also from Central Europe?
Yes.
From Hungary?
Not.
From Poland?
Not. If I wanted it to be made public, I would have done it long ago. Let me just remind you that governments only propose commissioners, but it is the President of the European Commission who accepts them and divides their competences between them, and the European Parliament approves or rejects it."
The EU spreads a lot of misinformation about its own operations. Here Juncker "reminds" the journalist of an arrangement that is explicitly not allowed by the treaties, which say the head of the Commission must accept whoever is sent by each country. He also admits that "nobody knows this" and that he never made it public. In case you think he would have accepted a right wing commissioner, let us recall this is the same man who railed against "stupid populists", said "The European Parliament is ridiculous, very ridiculous" and kept threatening eastern European countries that elected conservative governments with fines and sanctions. Von Der Layen is even worse, reacting to Italy's recent election of a right wing politician by saying that "if things go in difficult directions, we have tools".
What happens in reality doesn't match what's written in the treaties much of the time. It's very effective misinformation. This thread is full of people making claims about how the EU works that reflects its own claims (or propaganda), but doesn't match the documented reality of how Brussels decision making actually operates.
https://www.rp.pl/swiat/art1359931-juncker-kaczynski-nie-chc...
"Nobody knows this, but last time I rejected six commissioners that had been presented to me by national governments.
Also from Central Europe?
Yes.
From Hungary?
Not.
From Poland?
Not. If I wanted it to be made public, I would have done it long ago. Let me just remind you that governments only propose commissioners, but it is the President of the European Commission who accepts them and divides their competences between them, and the European Parliament approves or rejects it."
The EU spreads a lot of misinformation about its own operations. Here Juncker "reminds" the journalist of an arrangement that is explicitly not allowed by the treaties, which say the head of the Commission must accept whoever is sent by each country. He also admits that "nobody knows this" and that he never made it public. In case you think he would have accepted a right wing commissioner, let us recall this is the same man who railed against "stupid populists", said "The European Parliament is ridiculous, very ridiculous" and kept threatening eastern European countries that elected conservative governments with fines and sanctions. Von Der Layen is even worse, reacting to Italy's recent election of a right wing politician by saying that "if things go in difficult directions, we have tools".
What happens in reality doesn't match what's written in the treaties much of the time. It's very effective misinformation. This thread is full of people making claims about how the EU works that reflects its own claims (or propaganda), but doesn't match the documented reality of how Brussels decision making actually operates.
"EU representatives are unelected (true in the same sense that the president of the USA is unelected)"
To be fair, both are kind of a shit show.
To be fair, both are kind of a shit show.
I don't see any of these comments. Could it be that you are disingenious? pro-EU sentiments seem to attract the biggest turds. I say this as an unfortunate member of our bureaucratic european union.
When I wrote that, the thread was empty and I was referring to the Twitter thread, not this one.
HN should be more generous towards Thierry Breton: an EU commissioner with a computer science degree!
> Breton received a master's degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from École Supérieure d'Électricité (Supélec, now CentraleSupélec) in 1979 and later graduated from the Institut des hautes études de défense nationale (IHEDN).[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thierry_Breton - former VP of Groupe Bull and various other high-ranking telecoms posts there.
Also:
> Breton received world attention after an interview with the Wall Street Journal in 2011 when he reiterated his intention to ban internal email, dubbed as "the pollution of the information age", at Atos within 18 months (known as the zero-email strategy), replacing internal emails by a set of enterprise social networks, enterprise instant messaging, collaborative tools etc..., both being developed inhouse and partially aggregated from other vendors
> Breton received a master's degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from École Supérieure d'Électricité (Supélec, now CentraleSupélec) in 1979 and later graduated from the Institut des hautes études de défense nationale (IHEDN).[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thierry_Breton - former VP of Groupe Bull and various other high-ranking telecoms posts there.
Also:
> Breton received world attention after an interview with the Wall Street Journal in 2011 when he reiterated his intention to ban internal email, dubbed as "the pollution of the information age", at Atos within 18 months (known as the zero-email strategy), replacing internal emails by a set of enterprise social networks, enterprise instant messaging, collaborative tools etc..., both being developed inhouse and partially aggregated from other vendors
> true in the same sense that the president of the USA is unelected
Really? That's some knot-twisting you have right there.
Really? That's some knot-twisting you have right there.
If you say the US is a democracy, a whole bunch of people will come out of the woodwork to explain that it's a republic and the President is indirectly elected. Certainly the President is not elected by popular vote, a very important fact recently. Nor does the Federal government run the presidential elections.
>a very important fact _recently_
Not only, George W. Bush didn't win the popular vote, either - that was 22year back.
Not only, George W. Bush didn't win the popular vote, either - that was 22year back.
It's both a democracy and a republic. The terms are not mutually exclusive and an indirect democracy is still a democracy.
Edit: Also, it's not just a single system. At different levels the positions are directly elected.
Edit: Also, it's not just a single system. At different levels the positions are directly elected.
The US is a republic rather than a democracy because people don't vote directly on laws. Its unrelated to how the president is elected. An example of a democracy would be the Swiss system.
As a European living in the USA, I'm always baffled by anti-EU sentiment in the USA (and by anti-USA sentiment in the EU).
That's it, that's all I wanted to say about this.
That's it, that's all I wanted to say about this.
The book "Adults in the Room" by Yanis Varoufakis is an eye-opening read on the anti-democratic and quite unpleasant elements of the EU.
As an American, I think it's because Europeans come off as snobs when it comes to their policies and act like we're inferior because we prefer the 1st and 2nd amendment.
You can make your rules in your land and we make ours in our land. Why do you take this as us seeing you as inferior? It seems exactly equal to me.
Note the "That’s what he said" reply: https://twitter.com/ThierryBreton/status/1585902650134257665
America: Let's have a party. I'll bring the software!
China: I'll bring the hardware!
EU: I'll bring the regulation! - @paulg
https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1231699385525903360
China: I'll bring the hardware!
EU: I'll bring the regulation! - @paulg
https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1231699385525903360
And they're rather good at it, they seem to be the only major jurisdiction which takes things like privacy seriously.
The number of cookie banners I get is directly proportional to the amount of privacy EU has.
At least when they give themselves the time to be concerned with privacy. They played data privacy extremely fast and loose during Covid response.
... and it's essential, but thankless work, as the other comments show, since an increase in privacy can't be measured in stock performance, quarterly earnings or GDP - the purely capitalist framework within which too many people (probably including Mr. Graham) think.
Plus, all those regulations make lives harder for whatever companies he invested in.
I don't want to bash PG, I think it's great that there are people like that.
What I don't like is simplistic thinking, where regulation is bad by definition - like he does in his tweet. It can be bad, but it can also be really good if done cleverly.
The losses the companies he has invested in sustain duento regulation are not necessarily "absolute losses" in the sense that it is wasted money. The are "societal costs" that need to be payed in order to make sure the companies adhere to a certain level of civility.
What I don't like is simplistic thinking, where regulation is bad by definition - like he does in his tweet. It can be bad, but it can also be really good if done cleverly.
The losses the companies he has invested in sustain duento regulation are not necessarily "absolute losses" in the sense that it is wasted money. The are "societal costs" that need to be payed in order to make sure the companies adhere to a certain level of civility.
I don't think the tweet said regulation is bad by definition. The beauty of a simple < 280 chars tweet is that it can contain ambiguity and admit multiple readings.
The way I read it is more like if you substituted the EU for say, Saudi Arabia. The Saudis btw bring oil (i.e. energy) to the party - but if they brought nothing but Saudi regulations would you still invite them? What "societal costs" would you be willing to pay to adhere to a certain level of House of Saud defined civility?
There's a danger in the myopia of fake universalism, of believing everyone wants your culture and civilization's definition of civility enforced on them - and perhaps they will accommodate you if you're bringing a lot else to the party, but if that's all you're bringing you might simply find yourself uninvited from a lot of parties.
The way I read it is more like if you substituted the EU for say, Saudi Arabia. The Saudis btw bring oil (i.e. energy) to the party - but if they brought nothing but Saudi regulations would you still invite them? What "societal costs" would you be willing to pay to adhere to a certain level of House of Saud defined civility?
There's a danger in the myopia of fake universalism, of believing everyone wants your culture and civilization's definition of civility enforced on them - and perhaps they will accommodate you if you're bringing a lot else to the party, but if that's all you're bringing you might simply find yourself uninvited from a lot of parties.
At the very least, good regulations make shared markets like the EU one possible. That the EU has a tendency to over-do it is a different question. But things like the GDPR, REACH and others are actually net wins for society, and as result, the economy.
It was decried and ridiculed equally at the time, but I doubt the LED revolution would have happened half as fast without the massive artificial demand created by the incandescent bulb ban of the EU. Next Up: Fossils…
For some reason, the EU has a marketing/perception problem, whereas it more than once enacted wise laws that created the right incentives for all players.
I'm assuming this is an anti-regulation joke, but it seems unironically a good thing.
The EU is pretty good at regulation. and its easier to get the best from US software and Chinese hardware with sensible regulations in place.
The EU is pretty good at regulation. and its easier to get the best from US software and Chinese hardware with sensible regulations in place.
Of course it is, it's Paul Graham
The EU enacted the GDPR laws and that had a worldwide positive effect. Yes, GDPR is of course not perfect, but it is much better than the previous status quo.
So yes, even though the EU is ridiculed in this joke it actually makes important contributions. Perhaps the only issue is that well-designed regulation is usually so subtle that people don't even recognize the benefits, or take it for granted...
So yes, even though the EU is ridiculed in this joke it actually makes important contributions. Perhaps the only issue is that well-designed regulation is usually so subtle that people don't even recognize the benefits, or take it for granted...
In what way has GDPR been a success? It seems most of what it did was complicate web development and force annoying pop ups on everyone.
I'm pretty sure Google etc. still know everything there is to know about me.
I'm pretty sure Google etc. still know everything there is to know about me.
The answer to this can be easily found online, so I'll just
repeat my earlier ending: "that people don't even recognize the benefits, or take it for granted"
The whole cookie nonsense is not caused by GDPR at all, it is actually the ePrivacy Directive.
GDPR itself only mentions cookies once and only observes that they can be used to profile people. It contains no instructions on what to do about that.
The majority of GDPR is a bunch of mostly sensible privacy principles, such as if you manage personal data, you have to look after it well, and not use it for purposes it wasn't collected for.
GDPR itself only mentions cookies once and only observes that they can be used to profile people. It contains no instructions on what to do about that.
The majority of GDPR is a bunch of mostly sensible privacy principles, such as if you manage personal data, you have to look after it well, and not use it for purposes it wasn't collected for.
> most of what it did was complicate web development
Only for those wanting to track users. Don’t track users, it’s all good, ignore GDPR all you like.
> and force annoying pop ups on everyone.
Pop ups reminding you that all those web sites:
1. Want to track users more than they wanted to avoid annoying users
2. Want to blame the annoying pop-ups on the GDPR instead of, you know, the tracking.
Only for those wanting to track users. Don’t track users, it’s all good, ignore GDPR all you like.
> and force annoying pop ups on everyone.
Pop ups reminding you that all those web sites:
1. Want to track users more than they wanted to avoid annoying users
2. Want to blame the annoying pop-ups on the GDPR instead of, you know, the tracking.
This is actually a really good, succinct description of one (!) of the many benefits of GDPR.
Others being that encryption is enforced, you have a clearer picture what of your data companies can process etc.
Others being that encryption is enforced, you have a clearer picture what of your data companies can process etc.
pg has a lot of bad takes
No he doesn’t. (See how boring these types of comments are?)
I used to have some sort of small amount of respect for pg when I was much younger. Now I've realised what a libertarian twat he is and how limited and childish his 3 ideas are which he keeps repeating under different guises he calls blog posts.
Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.
I think I don't get the point in this video. Could someone maybe share more context?
I don’t see a video at all. Just a tweet with the text below
@elonmusk
In Europe, the bird will fly by our rules.
#DSAThere's a video in a first comment
That's a tweet from May with this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyOYSTmvIQ4
its a veiled threat because elon is a self-described free speech absolutist where the eu does not believe in significant chunks of free speech (so called disinformation or hate). tbh i hope he closes any physical EU presence and ignores all of brussels laws.
If that leads to a removal of Twitter from app stores in the EU, yes, please!
If he wants to leave the European market he is free to do so, but unless he wants to provide Twitter without getting any revenue stream, closing physical offices is not enough.
As long as he wants to sell ads here, Twitter must comply with our rules and laws and can be cut off from it's (paying) customers otherwise.
As long as he wants to sell ads here, Twitter must comply with our rules and laws and can be cut off from it's (paying) customers otherwise.
idk, i think it would be really cool if more companies started closing any remaining eu servers and just telling these regulators to go pound sand. DSA is anti-free-speech so no American company should in good conscience comply.
always funny how the same people who support working towards open communications in e.g. iran and china by ignoring their laws get mad when somebody suggests this.
always funny how the same people who support working towards open communications in e.g. iran and china by ignoring their laws get mad when somebody suggests this.
> DSA is anti-free-speech so no American company should in good conscience comply.
American's version of free speech*, as much as Americans want it to be true you can't apply US laws in foreign countries
American's version of free speech*, as much as Americans want it to be true you can't apply US laws in foreign countries
Restriction vs non-restriction is a fairly clear axis. Not saying Europeans are wrong, but their laws are objectively more authoritarian when it comes to expression than American ones.
More restrictive, for certain categories of speech, like hate speech, certainly. More authoritarian?
As a European (well, in the UK - can I still consider myself European?), I do not find my right to speak, or speak truth to power to be restricted unncessarily. I see what is happening in the US with the rise of genuinely authoritarian politics fueled by misinformation and hate speech and find it genuinely disturbing.
I guess a lot depends on the cultural context you grow up in.
As a European (well, in the UK - can I still consider myself European?), I do not find my right to speak, or speak truth to power to be restricted unncessarily. I see what is happening in the US with the rise of genuinely authoritarian politics fueled by misinformation and hate speech and find it genuinely disturbing.
I guess a lot depends on the cultural context you grow up in.
no, restrictive of what you consider hate speech. here's a example: it is pretty common for my generation (zoomers) to joke about suicide. so if i mention i got a 89 on a recent exam a friend might reply "lol kys". this isn't actually hateful. similarly, i was talking with a few friends. one mentioned her boyfriend broke up with her suddenly, and another female friend rolled her eyes and said "kill all men". again, not actually hateful.
now apply this problem of "potentially hateful depending on context" to more important stuff. some racists have abused studies on demographic differences to give hateful rhetoric some "scientific" backing, ignoring that you can't generalize from a population to an individual. this has led to mention of demographic differences being very sensitive subjects and sometimes labeled as "hateful". but i don't think we want to stop all research involved with this.
i do not trust the government to make these determinations about when context is hateful and not. since Americans are much less trusting of government than most europeans maybe you can see why we come down on a much higher bar for the government restricting speech and even higher for prior restraint.
let's take a counterexample from your country, where a man was sentenced to community service for a "grossly offensive tweet": the only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella buuuuurn
he faced possible jail time. now i think this is more easy to identify as "hateful" than prior examples i've listed. i don't know if this was the person's intent, but in this case hate can serve a legitimate political purpose (anti-imperialism/anti-military industrial complex). similar to how "all cops are bastards" is "hateful" towards cops but again serves a legitimate political purpose (protesting police brutality, racial profiling, etc.)
so again, should anyone really trust a government to be the entity to determine what is "too hateful"?
now apply this problem of "potentially hateful depending on context" to more important stuff. some racists have abused studies on demographic differences to give hateful rhetoric some "scientific" backing, ignoring that you can't generalize from a population to an individual. this has led to mention of demographic differences being very sensitive subjects and sometimes labeled as "hateful". but i don't think we want to stop all research involved with this.
i do not trust the government to make these determinations about when context is hateful and not. since Americans are much less trusting of government than most europeans maybe you can see why we come down on a much higher bar for the government restricting speech and even higher for prior restraint.
let's take a counterexample from your country, where a man was sentenced to community service for a "grossly offensive tweet": the only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella buuuuurn
he faced possible jail time. now i think this is more easy to identify as "hateful" than prior examples i've listed. i don't know if this was the person's intent, but in this case hate can serve a legitimate political purpose (anti-imperialism/anti-military industrial complex). similar to how "all cops are bastards" is "hateful" towards cops but again serves a legitimate political purpose (protesting police brutality, racial profiling, etc.)
so again, should anyone really trust a government to be the entity to determine what is "too hateful"?
It's a legitimate point, but the courts decide, not the executive.
I do not find my right to speak, or speak truth to power to be restricted unncessarily
Again, this is not an axis with good on one end and bad on the other. It's an axis between fewer limits and more limits.
Again, this is not an axis with good on one end and bad on the other. It's an axis between fewer limits and more limits.
I don't understand your point. I agree the law is more restrictive in Europe, but not restrictive in ways that limit my freedom in ways that matter to me.
I was questioning why you see it as authoritarian. Are you saying that any law is authoritarian?
I was questioning why you see it as authoritarian. Are you saying that any law is authoritarian?
I said it was "more authoritarian". Perhaps it was a poor choice of words.
That could be it. I think this relates to the cultural context. People in the US are fierce defenders of free speech, and I can see why any attempt to restrict it there would be seen as authoritarian.
In Europe, after the horrors of the second world war (and our entire history really) we aren't so keen to let people stir up hatred among us. So restricting things like that is not being imposed on the majority of us;we want those restrictions for the most part. So doesn't feel authoritarian at all.
In Europe, after the horrors of the second world war (and our entire history really) we aren't so keen to let people stir up hatred among us. So restricting things like that is not being imposed on the majority of us;we want those restrictions for the most part. So doesn't feel authoritarian at all.
You might want to read the definition of the big words you use
> Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting.
Now if you think sharing nazi ideas on twitter is actually beneficial for society it's your call, Europeans made a choice a while ago about what they want to tolerate or not
> Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting.
Now if you think sharing nazi ideas on twitter is actually beneficial for society it's your call, Europeans made a choice a while ago about what they want to tolerate or not
No they are not. They are designed to prevent authoritarianism. The Weimar republic with all of its absolute, unqualified freedoms didn't work out that great.
Freedom is not defined by its consequences or its positive/negative outcome. Total freedom will of course devolve into a total shitshow but that doesn't make it not freedom.
Seing how freedom is a human construct, it makes sense only in context of the human condition. So treating it as something separate from outcomes for people isn't helpful.
Freedom for whom? Total freedom means freedom for the strongest. Laws exists to ensure there is more freedom for the weaker and less freedom for the stronger. They prevent a stronger person from doing something that allows a weaker person to decide whether or not to do something else.
I clearly said "when it comes to expression". There are many other ways in which Europeans are freer than Americans.
uhh well no i'd say the "American version" is much closer to actually free speech. it implies things like freedom to hate and freedom to lie that y'all don't have.
and yes it can, because the internet reaches pretty much everywhere. as long as there is no server or physical office what can brussels do but scream into the wind about it?
aren't we doing the same thing with iran, belarus, china, other places where we support "American's version" of free speech despite local laws?
and yes it can, because the internet reaches pretty much everywhere. as long as there is no server or physical office what can brussels do but scream into the wind about it?
aren't we doing the same thing with iran, belarus, china, other places where we support "American's version" of free speech despite local laws?
Freedoms are limited by fundamental human rights. You have the right to choose your own profession freely. But nobody complains about not being able to choose "murderer" freely.
Well if they want European money they better comply with the ruled as they are or lobby a government to get better ones.
(If they are tiny they might fly under the radar but since FAANG and friends aren't charities that won't work)
It's really "unfortunate" that they managed to piss if their own government so that Washington doesn't feel like helping them out much.
(If they are tiny they might fly under the radar but since FAANG and friends aren't charities that won't work)
It's really "unfortunate" that they managed to piss if their own government so that Washington doesn't feel like helping them out much.
> it implies things like freedom to hate and freedom to lie that y'all don't have
Am I supposed to want that ?
Also, no. You have libel/defamation/slander laws in a lot of US states, "b-bu-but muh 1st amendment"
> as long as there is no server or physical office what can brussels do but scream into the wind about it?
Hm, ban these websites out of europe lol ?
> where we support "American's version" of free speech despite local laws?
I know the US think they're the center of the universe and the world's police but what "we" defend there is called "human rights"
Am I supposed to want that ?
Also, no. You have libel/defamation/slander laws in a lot of US states, "b-bu-but muh 1st amendment"
> as long as there is no server or physical office what can brussels do but scream into the wind about it?
Hm, ban these websites out of europe lol ?
> where we support "American's version" of free speech despite local laws?
I know the US think they're the center of the universe and the world's police but what "we" defend there is called "human rights"
yes you are supposed to want that. because there are plenty of cases where truthful and legitimate points have been classified as lies or hate.
ofc defamation law exists. the difference is that is decided in court not by some eurocrat apparatchik. and there has to be some harm demonstrated. and there are special protections for e.g. journalists (see times v. sullivan) that make it even harder in those cases.
how is brussels going to "ban those websites out of europe lol"? license the great firewall from china? hmm yes definitely sounds like a free and open society to me.
> what "we" defend there is called "human rights"
ok cool y'all think that. we think that y'all's vision of "free" speech is authoritarian and necessarily prevents civil disagreement on some important issues, it's already obvious we don't agree on that. but that's not the problem, it's how to reconcile 2 different legal concepts on the same platform. tbh there's no reason why an American would care. if anything it's the euros expecting the rest of the world to police their speech to euro standards that think they're the center of the universe.
ofc defamation law exists. the difference is that is decided in court not by some eurocrat apparatchik. and there has to be some harm demonstrated. and there are special protections for e.g. journalists (see times v. sullivan) that make it even harder in those cases.
how is brussels going to "ban those websites out of europe lol"? license the great firewall from china? hmm yes definitely sounds like a free and open society to me.
> what "we" defend there is called "human rights"
ok cool y'all think that. we think that y'all's vision of "free" speech is authoritarian and necessarily prevents civil disagreement on some important issues, it's already obvious we don't agree on that. but that's not the problem, it's how to reconcile 2 different legal concepts on the same platform. tbh there's no reason why an American would care. if anything it's the euros expecting the rest of the world to police their speech to euro standards that think they're the center of the universe.
> prevents civil disagreement on some important issues
Is "civil disagreement" what's feeding the current US political system ?
I see a whole lot of disagreement and hate, not a lot of civil or constructive talks
Is "civil disagreement" what's feeding the current US political system ?
I see a whole lot of disagreement and hate, not a lot of civil or constructive talks
like their's no nuance
The EU is now once again protecting me from Mr. Musk. I am so happy to be an EU citizen.
Spoke like real dinosaur, this guy should be already retired from any gov positions and not block productive people.
Free Twitter must look like real threat to corrupted thieves like Von Der Leyen and her Pfizer sponsors with their "fact checkers" promoting fake news and banning scientific facts.
Free Twitter must look like real threat to corrupted thieves like Von Der Leyen and her Pfizer sponsors with their "fact checkers" promoting fake news and banning scientific facts.
Is this referring to censoring Russian news like Starlink has declined to do?
tomcam(5)
A succinct argument against regulation
[deleted]
A form of this system already exists on German Reddit, I believe.
The tech-savvy can continue to use a VPN as usual.