Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
EU The Internet

EU Adopts Rules on One-Hour Takedowns for Terrorist Content (techcrunch.com) 52

The European Parliament approved a new law on terrorist content takedowns yesterday, paving the way for one-hour removals to become the legal standard across the EU. From a report: The regulation "addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online" will come into force shortly after publication in the EU's Official Journal -- and start applying 12 months after that. The incoming regime means providers serving users in the region must act on terrorist content removal notices from Member State authorities within one hour of receipt, or else provide an explanation why they have been unable to do so. There are exceptions for educational, research, artistic and journalistic work -- with lawmakers aiming to target terrorism propaganda being spread on online platforms like social media sites.

The types of content they want speedily removed under this regime includes material that incites, solicits or contributes to terrorist offences; provides instructions for such offences; or solicits people to participate in a terrorist group. Material posted online that provides guidance on how to make and use explosives, firearms or other weapons for terrorist purposes is also in scope. However concerns have been raised over the impact on online freedom of expression -- including if platforms use content filters to shrink their risk, given the tight turnaround times required for removals.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Adopts Rules on One-Hour Takedowns for Terrorist Content

Comments Filter:
  • Capability (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tinkerton ( 199273 ) on Thursday April 29, 2021 @02:35PM (#61329048)

    That means by law everything posted should be monitored so that for whatever reason we come up with later it can be taken down within the hour. In the short run the argument is terrorism but the central part is capability. It becomes possible to block any form of unwelcome mobilisation , any form of unwelcome viral news instantly.

    • Re:Capability (Score:5, Insightful)

      by maxeji9815 ( 8040160 ) on Thursday April 29, 2021 @03:09PM (#61329166)
      It also limits the number of companies that can allow posting on the Internet to companies and organizations that have the tech capability to provide this sort of response time. Essentially it will be only companies like Twitter, Facebook, etc which will be able to provide posting capability since smaller sites won't be able to provide that guarantee. But the EU and the US like that idea anyway. It makes it much easier to control the Internet when there are only a handful of companies that use to to disseminate information and control discussion.
      • I hadn't even thought of that. I agree. Maybe there are loopholes but it does raise the cost of running a public forum.

        • That is the ultimate goal of regulation in general. It is usually written in conjunction with lobbyists from the incumbent companies in order to drive out competition from upstarts. That is why Facebook is talking so much about "regulation" recently. They would welcome it if it prevents another Facebook from rising up to challenge them. Plus the Big Government guys love it because they dislike free discussion in general. Free discussion breeds discontent.

          The idea that the threat of "terrorism" comes from
      • Even if companies have the budget and tech to be able to comply with a one-hour takedown notice, there's an important lesson to be learned from the DMCA: Unless there's a meaningful penalty for issuing a false or incorrect takedown request, the system will be abused to harass people posting anything those with the power to file a claim don't like. Whether such harassment is justified or not.
      • This is also why companies like Google and Facebook support these types of regulations. Any government regulation that requires a large expense or lots of lawyers to comply with creates a barrier of entry and creates defacto monopolies. While the cost of business might get a bit more expensive, the government protecting your turf for you and making it near impossible for any startup to even challenge you all without having to worry about taking any actions that might be construed as anti-competitive is a

      • by Tom ( 822 )

        Why?

        If they ask me to take down something, and I can't make the hour, I can explain it. "was sleeping, I'm a one-man show."

        There's a lot of shit in European politics, I'll be the first to admit that. But there's also reason still alive, especially when things go to court (can't count anymore the times the courts called the government to order and told them that they fucked up).

        • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          There is an easy balance in the law. The takedown must accompany a prosecution, it must in fact be proven as illegal content in court, post takedown is not as good as pretakedown but still acceptable. For the government to claim the content is illegal, they must prove it illegal in court and prosecute where possible the person who put it up. Otherwise it would be considered an illegal take down, failure to prosecute the content in court (to later pursue the individual who put it up). There must be a penalty

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      No it doesn't. This is a take down system, like the DMCA.

  • And this is why (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sabri ( 584428 )
    The U.S. has the 1st Amendment.

    The EUSSR is at it, again. This is nothing more than an attempt to further create the police state they so wish to have. And nobody voted for them in the first place.
  • by jm007 ( 746228 ) on Thursday April 29, 2021 @02:49PM (#61329096)

    my guess for the next 'logical' step is for companies, in their desire to reduce liability, will just give gov't agencies the magic button to remove it themselves; no notifying/compliance issues anymore and the companies can say their hands are clean... it's the gov't all the way

    scary stuff

    • Kind of seems that the "one hour limit" is written specifically to encourage this kind of response from the corporate side. Scary stuff for sure.
    • I am sure Slashdot will add support for that when they add support for Unicode.
  • This gives about one hour to storm the capital.

  • So long archive.org. Nice knowing ya!
  • by BAReFO0t ( 6240524 ) on Thursday April 29, 2021 @02:58PM (#61329120)

    Or are they just leaving it at the usual "whatever our gut feels like on that day and will get us the most power and votes"?

    Like when Pakistan got money from the US to "fight terrorism", and promptly gave it to the northern Pakistani terror camps ... yes, precisely those camps... because by their definition, the USA were the terrorists and those camps were the freedom fighters... Definition is everything.
    (Fun fact: We found out. Yet we [well, the CIA] gave them money again. And again the same thing happened. Sorry, at that point it is not an accident anymore.)

    And here too, the EU themselves do much of that terrorism too... if you define it in a fair manner that just looks at the harm and not at "sides" or ideologies.

    So... Yay, free censorship of everything! China style! All hail big brother! Terror in the name of terror!

    And the besr part: Obviously, this will just hide it from good people. Those who are seeking it out will still share it Just now well-hidden from the rest of us. Congratulations! Again, since they would know this, at this point, it would not be an accident anymore.

    • by schwit1 ( 797399 )

      'Terrorist' will never be precisely defined. EU learned this from Twitter and Facebook, and their TOS. This is by design so disagreeable people or ideas can be censored. Days later they will blame a glitch.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Terrorist is defined in law, yes. Certain crimes are described as acts of terrorism or in support of terrorism.

      Where it potentially gets tricky is that the definition varies from country to country within the EU. There is a legal process for sorting this stuff out.

      • Even being defined in law doesn't mean that its applied same one day to the next. You can have violent rioting for months in 1 place but 1 riot happens in another its called terrorism.
        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          That's more to do with you not understanding the law than it not being applied evenly.

  • Blowback... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ctilsie242 ( 4841247 )

    This is only going to result in blowback. I'm reminded when spammers were tracked by IP and blocked... they decentralized and went after any SMTP server or compromised account. Similar when Napster and Audiogalaxy were shut down, it created decentralized protocols that couldn't really be stopped.

    If this keeps up, I wouldn't be surprised to see a decentralized social network, something that it like TOR, but has persistence, perhaps using cryptocurrency microtransactions as payment for people's posts, or ev

    • by Tom ( 822 )

      Push too hard on this stuff, and things go dark, making it far harder for LEOs in the end.

      A number of the recent terrorist attacks in Europe were done by people with no direct affiliation with islamic groups, but idiots with brain damage and too much religion in their head who found exactly this kind of propaganda online, bought into it hook, line and sinker, and went on to do to infidels what the Koran says you should do.

      Laws like this don't stop organized terrorism. But they will go a long way to make it more difficult for the every-muslim-is-a-sleeper-cell terrorism that ISIS went on to promo

      • by Cederic ( 9623 )

        who found exactly this kind of propaganda online

        Mosques aren't online.

        they will go a long way to make it more difficult for the every-muslim-is-a-sleeper-cell terrorism

        No, the Imams will now be telling their foot soldiers "look, they're scared of Allah's work, this is why it's important" and "They try to hide the truth from you, they must be punished".

        If you want to stop Islamic terrorism close all the fucking mosques.

        • by Tom ( 822 )

          Mosques aren't online.

          Agree, there is also the radicalisation that happens in the mosques. That is another factor here. That doesn't mean that making it more difficult for would-be-terrorists to be exposed to propaganda online isn't something that would help.

          If you want to stop Islamic terrorism close all the fucking mosques.

          I agree with you on that. Sadly (or maybe fortunately for the rest of the continent), neither of us is Emperor of Europe, and the current governments have some pesky laws about religious freedom to deal with. So that's not really an option.

          Also: specific mosques do get close

  • providers serving users in the region must act on terrorist content removal notices from Member State authorities within one hour of receipt, or else provide an explanation why they have been unable to do so

    Explanation for not complying in time: greylisting [wikipedia.org] delayed the request for more than one hour.

  • ..for doing journalism that exposed US warcrimes and crimes against humanity.

    What the absolute fuck is going on?

    It's like various influential entities are trying their damnedest to shut down 'unauthorised information' and roll back civilisation to the 1950's.

    • by Cederic ( 9623 )

      Clearly you missed the part that stated "There are exceptions for [..] journalistic work"

  • Seriously, it would take the EU bureaucrats a month to decide something was "terrorist content", unless it concerned themselves. Add this to GDPR and the "right to be forgotten" and they're working towards a pretty totalitarian censorship mechanism.
    An example of the infuriating stupidity of GDPR is you can no longer find out about the previous owners of a second hand car where GDPR applies (I guess until the police call to charge you with their crimes!). How's that protecting anybody's rights?

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...