For your information…
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
The EU just destroyed the internet…March 28th, 2019 |
 16 comments to The EU just destroyed the internet… |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
We need to get out of the EU, and then burn down the UK politicians who also supported this.
It won’t end the internet.
It will merely force national boundaries onto the internet. What has been a mostly borderless domain will turn into several national domains.
Which serves the interest of every government that would like its subjects to look to it for information.
1. Sounds like it will stimulate independent reporting – and artistic creativity – and further undermine the authority of official media. Consider that “de-platforming” may be a blessing in disguise – or at least realize that any “freedom” based on major platforms is illusory.
2. It’s not trivial, but it IS possible to modify digital streams such that they are untraceable/unmatchable to databases.
While it is possible to use noise to confound automated algorithms as to the source of a digital media stream, humans are not so easily fooled. Individual exemplary cases will thus be selected for legal action, to shutter the bold and frighten the rest.
And how do these totalitarians propose to disrupt satellite links? Especially on satellites that are owned by non-EU countries.
And what, one wonders, are these clowns preparing that makes them want to destroy or disrupt an open network, personal data and communications network?
This is closely related to the perpetual question of “gun control”:
What is the government planning, that makes them think that the peasants will rise in armed rebellion against it?
“While it is possible to use noise to confound automated algorithms as to the source of a digital media stream, humans are not so easily fooled.”
Really? What methods of tracing them are you thinking of?
booby b – the internet companies will use the E.U. Directive as an reason to do this everywhere. “But I am posting from the United States” may not be accepted as a defence – not be Facebook, or even YouTube (remember YouTube is owned by Google – they have been hit by the E.U. already).
Do you really think American Corporations are going to make a stand for Freedom of Speech? I hope they do – but I doubt it.
Will the “deal” of Prime Minister May protect us in the United Kingdom from this censorship? No – I do not believe it will.
Hence my deep despair in relation to those Members of Parliament who are voting for this legally binding “withdrawal agreement” which is NOT withdrawal from the European Union.
Ben David – your ironic sense of humour passes me by.
Independent reporting and artistic creativity will be crushed by this Directive – and the authority of the (left) “mainstream media” will be reinforced, as dissent will not be allowed. So their “narrative” will not be challenged.
What matters is what most voters see and hear – not what a few people get in clever ways.
Do not bother with a “clever” reply – I am not in the mood for cleverness. Indeed I think I now understand why in British culture cleverness was traditionally despised.
I have been watching and listening to lots of clever Members of Parliament recently – and I wish that Dick Barton (sadly a fictional character) would hurry up and work his arm free of the ropes, as he listens to them explain (in detail) their evil plans, in order to punch them in the face.
Only for Europe
I hope so jorb – but I fear that the American internet companies will use this as a reason to push even more censorship than they already doing.
I do not often support government action, but President Trump should sign an Executive Order saying that American company that goes along with censorship can no longer do business (in any way) with the United States government.
I would include in that Executive Order banning companies who dismiss employees for their political or cultural opinions (expressed OUTSIDE work) from doing business with the United States government.
The United States – the PRESIDENT of the United States must make a stand against the creeping totalitarianism of the European Union (which sees the People’s Republic of China as a role model – not a warning) AND the so many American Corporations who go along with the censorship campaign of the European Union, just as they do with the censorship campaign of the People’s Republic of China.
The European Union AND any Corporations that go along with its censorship regulations, are a Clear and Present Danger to the survival of liberty – not just in European Union countries, but in the world generally (including in the United States of America).
Following on from this, the BBC now tell us that Mr Z of FB now wants govenment regulation, I almost hope he is rueful, one day, about what he wishes for, should AOC and the Big Talking Bull Forked-Tongued Squaw be in charge of that ‘regulation’.
An excerpt, and the article notes that FB is facing discrimination claims over housing ads.
“Following on from this, the BBC now tell us that Mr Z of FB now wants govenment regulation,”
That’s not quite what he’s asking for. What he’s trying to do is to shift the burden to government. Instead of leaving it to Facebook to design and implement rules and then carping and criticising when it goes wrong, he wants governments to agree a common set of rules internationally and make it clear, definitely, unambiguously, once and for all what is and is not allowed. He’s doing the equivalent of asking for a ‘reference implementation’, as someone described it on another thread.
First, he knows it’s an impossible task. They’ll never be able to agree, and never get it right, and never get the public to agree with it either, in all the global jurisdictions it needs to be applied. Second, it deflects all the criticism from him to the governments setting the regulations. It deflects liability and risk. He can revert to the “Only following orders. More than my job’s worth” excuses. Third, it makes the technical problem simpler for him. Instead of having to figure out what the rules should be, that all parties will accept, and then implement them, he just has to implement them. Far cheaper and less risky. Fourth, heavy regulation applied universally tends to favour big players, as the only people with the resources and experiences to comply. It keeps out the competition and the start-ups and the ‘pirate radio stations’. It prevents competitors undercutting his business by offering different lower or higher levels of regulation. Fifth, at the moment the pro-regulation politicians are only going after the big players, making it manageable. If they have to go after everyone, big or small, in all jurisdictions across the world, they’ll be overwhelmed. Sixth, it deflects much of the hostility and political opposition away from his company and onto government. Also some of the costs of enforcement – since it’s now a matter of law rather than just his company policy. And seventh, if it results in the public getting a stronger taste of pervasive speech regulation and the consequences, it might change the public mood faster.
Although politicians and governments have their own reasons for wanting the internet filtered and regulated, a lot of the moralistic stuff is the result of public feeling. The public genuinely see hate speech as a problem they want government to do something about. They’ve not yet understood that “hate speech” can be applied to their opinions, too. Everyone believe in free speech for themselves, but not their political opponents. Until they realise these are actually the same thing, there is always going to be a public outcry for more regulation, which politicians are going to be all too willing to supply.
The op-ed looks like it’s being pro-regulation and anti-hate speech, but it contains an obvious (to anyone who has thought deeply about it) trap. I doubt the politicians are going to fall into it this time, but at least Zuckerberg can continue to pretend to be on their side, while trying to lure them into the tar pit.
“Common rules that all social media sites need to adhere to, enforced by third-party bodies, to control the spread of harmful content”
This is interesting. It comes close to, but then skirts away from, “Can’t you just make it flat-out illegal, please? Then it’s your job, rather than constantly berating me when someone acts like a knob on my company’s app”
Of course Mr Z. of Facebook wants more CENSORSHIP – he is a “liberal” a modern one (which is the OPPOSITE of a Classical Liberal) – he writes in the WASHINGTON POST (a newspaper that has pushed COLLECTIVISM for years – and is owned by the richest man in the world Jeff Bezos, who appears to believe that the socialists he backs will just rob-and-murder all the other “capitalists” but will leave him alone).
And OF COURSE Mr Z. wants government to enforce the CENSORSHIP – otherwise people will just go to free market alternatives such as Minds, Gab and Bitshoot.
The last thing a “liberal capitalist” wants is COMPETITION – Ayn Rand points this out in “The Fountainhead” (more than 70 years ago) with the “League of Liberal Businessmen”.
Jeff Bezos is just a scumbag (no apology to people who think he is wonderful – because he is going to take them to live another planet where there will be libertarianism) – he does not really believe in a word the totalitarianism-by-the-instalment-plan “Washington Post” writes, he just thinks if he gives them a lot of money the socialists will leave him alone (they will not – they will, eventually, come for him).
But there is a horrible sort-of sincerity about Mark Z. and the League of Liberal Businessmen (these days Businesspersons) – after all Mark Z. flung many millions of Dollars of his own money at the government schools of New Jersey – the socialist Senator Cory Booker was then dancing about as Mayor of Newark, claiming that if someone with Wall Street experience ran government it would work,
Newark does NOT work, the State of New Jersey does NOT work – the billionaire (a classic “Liberal Businessman” type straight from the world of BANKING) who used to be Governor there could NOT make it work.
Collectivism (now called “liberalism”) does not work – you stupid swine. If you do not believe me – then look at the State of New Jersey – with endless taxes, endless debt, endless government spending (not one penny of it on “the military” – so the left can use that excuse), and endless regulations.
By the way – I repeat Jeff Bezos knows everything I have just written (he has always known) – he is not like Mark Z. and the League of Liberal Businessmen types. Jeff Bezos KNOWS collectivism is nonsense – and his “Washington Post” backs it anyway.
Mark Z. and the other League of Liberal Businessmen types, love the European Union and its creeping totalitarianism – and they would pass a lie detector test (or whatever) on that. And they love WORLD “governance” on the European Union model. World “governance” being the agenda of the international “liberal” elite. The future of humanity being a human face with a BOOT STAMPING DOWN UPON IT (for ever).
Jeff Bezos might give money to people who support the creeping totalitarianism of the European Union, and WORLD (including the United States of America) “governance” – but he really DOES NOT BELIEVE A WORD OF IT.
That is the difference between the League of Liberal Businessmen types and Jeff Bezos.