EU Justice Commissioner Quits Facebook, Describing Her Experience as 'Channel of Dirt' (washingtonpost.com) 127
The European Commissioner for justice, consumers and gender equality shut down her Facebook account, describing her experience on the social network as a "channel of dirt." From a report: At a news conference Thursday in Brussels, Vera Jourova said that she received an "influx of hatred" on the popular platform and decided to cancel her account as a result. "I don't want to avoid communication with people, even with critical people," she said, noting her decision to leave Facebook was not to avoid public criticism. Her mailbox is filled with critical comments, she said, and she responds to those people who don't use vulgar language. "This is my nature, I speak to everybody who wants normal, honest, descent communication." Euractiv earlier reported on Jourova's remarks. At the same news conference, Jourova warned Facebook that it faces the prospect of sanctions from European member states if the company does not comply with consumer protection rules.
Qhy quit when you can ban it? (Score:2)
Why doesn't Europe just fine Facebook $100B and then ban it from operating in Europe?
No need to quit it.
Re:Qhy quit when you can ban it? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd argue that Facebook and Twitter do more overall harm than good.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
fuck off you piece of shit fucktard and fuck your fucking mother too
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe she should just grow a little skin over those nerve endings.
If only. TFA just goes to show that no matter how hard you work not to offend a "diversity leader", you will fail and offend them unacceptably. The right answer is to not set a foot down that path, and tell them to GTFO and come back when they have, as you say, grown a thicker skin.
It's not like Facebook lacks controls on who gets to talk to you (other than advertisers). If you're constantly offended by people you've chosen to associate with, or people you must associate with, chances are in this century
Re: (Score:3)
She is not banning anything, she just unsubscribed. People need to grow thicker skins and not freak out every time someone criticizes socila media.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly. But she *is* a justice commissioner, whatever that means, and Facebook *is* coming in front of the EU Court.
That said, it could reasonably be argued that she has valid experience with the Facebook environment, and has valid reasons based on actual interactions, i.e. evidence and expertise.
Personally, I find her sentiments quite believable, based on the reports of many other women who have had publicly noticeable accounts on this or that internet forum. There's a question in my mind as to whether
Re: (Score:2)
Uh....check your sarcasm detector man. The batteries may be out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Even if that were the case it's about a third more than live in the US...
Soon, most of Africa may be living there too.
Re: Qhy quit when you can ban it? (Score:3)
"I don't like something, it should be banned."
Brilliant logic there.
Re: (Score:3)
"I don't like something, it should be banned."
Brilliant logic there.
Well, it seems to be the EU motto.
Re: (Score:2)
What, are you suggesting that Facebook is a tax cheat like Apple?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but a hundred other reasons do.
Nothing New (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember the flame and channel wars on IRC and FidoNet. When a friend of mine signed up with his ISP (HomeNet) back in the 90s he laughed about their description of IRC in their brochure. "If you don't like being harassed, attacked, hacked and otherwise subjected to hate and vile behavior, stay off IRC. It's the Wild, Wild, West of the Internet." And that summed it up perfectly. I loved it!
Re:Nothing New (Score:5, Interesting)
I firmly believe anonymity has benefits for democracy, but it has this unfortunate drawback as well. We need to come up with ideas for how to keep those advantages while discouraging the disadvantages. The real problems are the people who think this is justification for eliminating anonymity entirely, and the absolutists who defend anonymity to the point where they won't accept any compromise.
Re: (Score:1)
I dunno. There's plenty of "verified" users on Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms that whose internet "bad behavior" rivals anything you'd find on an anonymous posting site like 4chan.
They're allowed to get away with it because what they write aligns with the bias and prejudices of the owners of the platforms.
Re: (Score:3)
The real problems are the people who think this is justification for eliminating anonymity entirely, and the absolutists who defend anonymity to the point where they won't accept any compromise.
I agree with you in general, though I've never used my legal name online in any way publicly visible, and I don't understand why anyone would. I like the Slashdot middle ground, when we're effectively anonymous, but there are at least some incentives to not pseudonymously be an ass.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are right, but even people who aren't anonymous are more nasty online than in person, just because there is a screen in the way.
Re: (Score:1)
We need to come up with ideas for how to keep those advantages while discouraging the disadvantages.
Easy idea: Grow a pair.
Testicles, ovaries, it doesn't matter which. Hell, you can even have one of both if you want.
If you curl up into a ball and cry for days because of random assholes, how the fuck do you even survive in the real world, let alone on the Internet?
Re:Nothing New (Score:4, Interesting)
Not to even mention servers. I've never seen this sort of stuff on IRC in significant numbers, largely because mods in major channels I frequented usually had direct talking line to server admins, who really weren't interested in tolerating pointless trolling. You didn't just get banned from the channel, you got thrown off the server.
When nickservs became a norm, this became even easier to enforce. Want to go into those good channels with interesting stuff? Register with nickserv and be registered for a certain minimum amount of time. That killed something like 99% or so of trolls, because trolling is rarely something you are willing to create an account and then come back to it in a week just to troll. The rage has long cooled off by that time.
Now artful trolling, that was generally appreciated. But that's nothing like the description given.
Re: (Score:2)
I was watching the BBS documentary a couple weeks back. I never was part of this piece of history myself as I was to young. It made me laugh that almost the moment people hooked up to each other they started talking shit, trolling and having holy wars over the types of computers they had. Same as it ever was I guess.
The important part of this article: (Score:5, Interesting)
— Vra Jourová
Too bad we don't have anybody looking out for regular people in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WHAT!? There are still people that do not understand this? What, the "special needs" community? If this is true (which I doubt - most people probably know but don't care), then I despair for the future of humanity.
I actually didn't know about the "full copyright" part, myself, but I also never even considered posting anything to Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you understand the basics of human management policies practised by your state?
This is a place for nerds, so we generally have in depth understanding of nerd related issues. Most of us have no clue on same in humanities fields.
Same applies to every non-nerd in the world and every field in the world. And they're in a huge majority.
anger at authoritarianism (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think people who send her nasty messages want to "speak" with her or debate her, they want to express their outrage at her policies. After all, she has all the power.
And right on cue, she threatens to use that power to hurt people and companies she doesn't like, in the guise of "consumer protection rules".
Re: (Score:1)
That isn't the issue - The issue is that a large portion of "internet users" can't seem to behave like adults. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter are now apart of countries foreign policy and we need to find ways to avoid rage enduing "internet outrage".
Like it or not, this isn't the IRC of the early 90s. Tweets and Facebook posts have real world consequence now and we can't afford to pretend they don't.
Re: (Score:2)
This is factually false. It's well documented psychological fact that people are much more hateful to people they only communicate to through text online than they are in a face to face situation. There are very strong unconscious triggers that adjust behaviour when in face to face situation, without any conscious input, and often even awareness of behavioural change having occurred.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Power of voodoo.
Who do?
Re: (Score:2)
You do.
Re: (Score:2)
She is an EU commissioner; that gives her a lot of power. Her decisions could cost Facebook billions, or shield Facebook from massive liabilities.
Re: (Score:1)
This power : "At the same news conference, Jourova warned Facebook that it faces the prospect of sanctions from European member states if the company does not comply with consumer protection rules."
There is nothing really stopping EUcracy from doing what it wants - as it chief said many times and as has been proven time and again - even if people of Europe raise against this cancer they can safely be ignored. Referendums can be repeated as many times to see the proper result coming.
Re: anger at authoritarianism (Score:2)
Actually no, EC commissioners aren't elected, they are appointed by national governments. I consider this the biggest democratic deficiency if the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
She has no "constituents". She is unelected.
No, what makes her an authoritarian is that she wants to interfere with free speech and freedom of association. The fact that she does this from a position of authority makes it worse, but she will continue to be an authoritarian after she retires and loses her pow
Re: (Score:2)
Technically she is elected. Just not by the people, but by the political aristocracy in EU. And not individually, but as a group of all commissioners, in a take it or leave it vote.
There are so many degrees of separation from democratic plebiscite in this selection process, it pretty much meets the criteria for "unelected".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You couldn't have stated the economic beliefs of fascism more clearly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that would be great. Corporations are much better created and run by voluntary private agreements.
Oh, I understand fascism quite well given that my family suffered greatly under it.
Re: (Score:2)
A "corporation" is a government-created entity. It cannot be created arbitrarily by private individuals.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to define "corporation" that narrowly, be my guest. I still agree with you that "we should just get rid of the government-created idea of a corporation".
Private businesses can operate under private contracts and reproduce all the desirable aspects of what you call a "corporation" through such contracts. As a bonus, the ability of government to regulate such webs of private contracts is greatly
Re: (Score:2)
Individuals cannot operate under private contracts that absolves them of financial and legal responsibility, and allows them to act as a single financial entity. A government has to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't thought that through. In any case, as I was saying, I agree with you that "we should just get rid of the government-created idea of a corporation". We'll just have to agree to disagree on what the consequences would be.
Re:anger at authoritarianism (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the neck beard in you talking. Let me lay this out from a normal persons perspective. You can disagree or complain about her policies, but try to present your statements in a civilized adult manner. If you start off as a screaming lunatic of course she isn't going to listen to you. I'm guessing the majority of messages she received was the typical internet outrage and death threats.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't defend the conduct, I explained it.
You obviously can send her angry messages as well. And she did listen: she closed her Facebook account, commented publicly, and then proceeded to use her office to threaten Facebook. I don't know whether that's the effect people wante
Re: (Score:2)
Stating that a company must follow consumer protection laws is threatening just as stating that I cannot stab people who merely annoy me is threatening.
Stop threatening me.
Re: (Score:2)
And expressing concern about a business is just being friendly, right? "Nice restaurant you have there, shame if anything were to happen to it!"
The question is whether government should cr
Re: (Score:2)
As if there was no pre-existing dispute with the EU concerning Facebook's compliance with consumer protection laws. Oh wait, there is [phys.org]!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and it is inappropriate for an EU official who is in charge of implementing those laws to talk about implementing them as part of a private spat with the company.
Jourova wants to criminalize speech she doesn't like; that's why many people despise her and abuse her online. And then she implied a threat against the
Re: (Score:2)
What private spat would that be?
Citation needed.
No, she really did not. She expressed the entirely lawful requirement that Facebook neede
Re: (Score:2)
I did: I think you are reprehensible authoritarians and I hope decent people will ostracize you for your beliefs.
That certainly explains your political positions, your affinity for European authoritarians, and your ignorance about Europe. (Though I get the impression that your law school short changed you on rhetoric and logic.)
Re: (Score:2)
Invalidated your entire argument in when posting under another article.
You're apparently insufficiently qualified to judge that.
Re: (Score:2)
See, the "accusation of bigotry" language would refer to an earlier instance where you'd called someone a bigot. You did, but not me:
"Jourova throws around accusations of hate crimes and right wing extremism freely; she may be more sophisticated than the people who send her nasty messages, but she herself is an intolerant bigot as well."
Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
Given your comments, it's clear that your claims of being a lawyer are either a lie or that you are a incompetent. I think there is nothing more to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, and in the case of Jourova, there was no need to point out that my statement represented my opinion. In responding to you, I highlighted that neither of our statements about each other is a statement that represents an objective truth, something you seem to have forgotten.
Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, really? Why was there no need then?
That's some bullshit handwaving right there.
You first. Making an illusory distinction between examples is simply sad. Justify it.
Re: (Score:2)
Good enough that you're stumped to justify adovating for "free speech" in the case of Europe yet authoritarianism oppression of networks distributing speech in the U.S.
Explain yourself.
Re: (Score:1)
You can disagree or complain about her policies, but try to present your statements in a civilized adult manner.
"Outrageous misogynist hate speech" occurs when a man disagrees with a woman, in any way, on any topic. By the new rules, it's not technically possible to "disagree or complain in a civilized adult manner" unless you're higher on the privilege scale, e.g., a lesbian woman of color cannot legitimately offend a straight white woman, and the latter must accept all criticism without complaint.
This shit was all more straightforward when it was "serf, Baron, Count, King" instead of the subtle modern privilege sc
Re: (Score:2)
You can disagree or complain about her policies, but try to present your statements in a civilized adult manner.
"Outrageous misogynist hate speech" occurs when a man disagrees with a woman, in any way, on any topic.
You just proved my point. You have no idea how to talk with other humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can disagree or complain about her policies, but try to present your statements in a civilized adult manner.
Definitely a good idea [lawsandsausagescomic.com].
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like a totally sane and rational individual. I can't understand why anyone would be uncomfortable in having a conversation with you. Please seek mental help before you harm anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Elitist announces they're quitting Facebook (Score:2)
Re: Elitist announces they're quitting Facebook (Score:1)
Except this is a politician threatening to fine or ban Facebook if they don't deal with all the meanies that hurt her feelings.
Re: (Score:2)
No, its a situation to ban Facebook for infringing on consumer protection laws, not because of her feelings as you stated.
Re: (Score:2)
When an angry politician weaponizes regulatory oversight, it's always legitimate and never mean spirited, right?
Re: (Score:2)
She's not doing it right (Score:1)
commentsubject (Score:2)
>>I don't want to avoid communication with people
You don't need facebook to do that.
To hell with any site, service, or so help me God, a fucking civic office that uses a socnet as their formally sanctioned primary (if not their ONLY) channel of communication and official announcement.
She's not wrong, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
I fully support someone that thinks "Facebook is dirt, I want nothing to do with it."
But when a politician says this, they mean "Facebook is dirt, nobody should be allowed to use it." Especially if those somebodies have something mean about the politician.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I bet she is getting crap (Score:2)
The EU is making some terribly bad mistakes. They are going to turn the internet in Europe into a snooze fest of unimaginative content. She probably feels since she deleted it that the hate has went away. Stop making tech related laws without the input of you're populace and you might not be so unpopular.
Little late there (Score:2)
How about you?
If it had been a man 'quitting' facebook... (Score:1)
The Slashdotters would've supported him. But because it was a woman, they treat her like a whore.
That's odd (Score:3)
There sure are a lot of posts here defending Facebook and blaming the woman for not enjoying the experience, despite the many, many, many previous posts on /. where people said nobody should use Facebook because it's trash.
When did /. fall in love with the privacy invading trash fire that is Facebook?
Re: (Score:2)