[dotandgtfo]

Thanks to some frankly amazing American propaganda there's a surge of interest in free speech in Europe. Funnily the same regulations that aim to remove toxic products, make platforms more transparent, and hold platforms more accountable for breaking the law all are being attacked for encroaching on free speech.

I don't see it succeeding.

It's hard to explain just how much shit these digital platforms pull when serving a small market they don't care much about. People are rightfully pissed. It's seeped deeply into the public sphere the last ~8 years. Much more than I imagined possible even 2-3 years ago. Doubly so with the recent merging of the Republican party and technology leaders.

While Temu is in a class of its own - it's obvious that hyperscaling and postponing QC, moderation and compliance with a very American approach to safe harbour laws will not continue being the premier way to skirt laws for much longer.

[fxtentacle]

One big factor that I observe in Germany is that the general public has stopped trusting what American companies say. For example, when you contact the Amazon support, they will try very hard to gaslight you into believing that your consumer protection only lasts for 30 days. But by now mainstream media is reporting about it that they’re just lying to your face. And, indeed, casually mentioning the correct law immediately extends your warranty to the full (legally required) two years.

I fully agree with you, by now no new company will grow that large using this American approach, because nowadays the German public will expect them to skirt the law and call them out on it immediately.

[pjc50]

Meanwhile the free speech debate rages on over itch.io versus the two giant US payments firms under pressure from an Australian group.

[mytailorisrich]

> Funnily the same regulations that aim to remove toxic products, make platforms more transparent, and hold platforms more accountable for breaking the law all are being attacked for encroaching on free speech.

That's what a clever law looks like, it bundles things together.

So now if someone complains about threats to free speech they can be told "Oh so you prefer toxic products, then? Think of the children!" in the same way you are doing.

[dotandgtfo]

That would make more sense if the law was limiting speech. But it has been clearly designed to not give governments the power to remove content/services/products that are not illegal.

Content which is not directly illegal is covered by the voluntary code of conduct on disinformation [1]. If you can point out to me a provision which allows the governments to force platforms to remove content which is not explicitly illegal I'll be very impressed. Because it ain't there.

It does say that algorithms should be tweaked to not spread "damaging disinformation" - e.g. reduce amplification of it. And it does say that these platforms shouldn't be allowing users who create disinformation to monetize their content like the good old Macedonian troll farms [2]

But in the end - there are no sanctions. These are guidelines. And if platforms consistently ignore these and it turns into a systemic harm then fines can start piling up. But never for a single piece of content - just a systemic malpractice.

Yes. It's a clever law because it doesn't give governments the power to remove content which is not illegal. But it does still force platforms to do something about their incentives they create for third-parties around content.

And no. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater and letting foreign companies self-regulate illegal content is frankly ludicrous considering their stellar track record of not giving a shit because it's the cheapest option.

[1] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/code-conduc...

[2] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science...

[mytailorisrich]

That's clearly not the case as the provisions against "disinformation" and "misleading information", which are very vague and subjective thing to judge, are aimed at constraining freedom of speech and to censor legal speech.

Someone's "misleading information" is someone else's political campaigning.

The EU commission is guilty of hypocrisy and doublespeak on this when it states that "the Code of Conduct aims to combat disinformation risks while fully upholding the freedom of speech" when those two things are obviously mutually exclusive.