EU Targets Pornhub, XVideos, Stripchat Under New Content Rules (reuters.com) 79
The European Union on Wednesday added three adult content companies - Pornhub, Stripchat and XVideos - to its list of firms subject to stringent regulations under new online content rules. From a report: The new rules, known as the Digital Services Act (DSA), require companies to conduct risk management, undergo external and independent auditing, and share data with authorities and researchers. In April, the EU designated five Alphabet subsidiaries, two Meta Platforms units, two Microsoft businesses, X and Alibaba's AliExpress among 19 companies under the rules. Such designated companies will have to do more to tackle disinformation, give more protection and choice to users and ensure stronger protection for children or risk fines of as much as 6% of their global turnover. "Pornhub, Stripchat and XVideos meet the user thresholds to fall under stricter #DSA obligations," the bloc's industry chief Thierry Breton said. "Creating a safer online environment for our children is an enforcement priority under the DSA."
Wait, what? (Score:4, Insightful)
I get that the EU wants to regulate what is happening within their borders, but in what world is it sane to demand compliance under penalties based on the company's GLOBAL operations?
Penalties should be limited to activities entirely within or with an endpoint within the EU's jurisdiction. Anything beyond that should be simply, "you can't do business here".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I get that the EU wants to regulate what is happening within their borders, but in what world is it sane to demand compliance under penalties based on the company's GLOBAL operations?
Penalties should be limited to activities entirely within or with an endpoint within the EU's jurisdiction. Anything beyond that should be simply, "you can't do business here".
Take a look at GDPR, which "governs the transfer of personal data outside the EU and EEA."
Not like that respected mere borders.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Take a look at GDPR, which "governs the transfer of personal data outside the EU and EEA."
Not like that respected mere borders.
To be precise, it governs the transfer of data from within the EU and EEA to the outside of the EU and EEA.
That is a perfect example of what respecting borders means.
If you want to transfer personal data out (from within) the EU and EEA, then you need to respect the fucking rules pertaining to said data.
Not hard to understand.
Re: Wait, what? (Score:1)
If they don't want their citizens seeing my content then that's on them. They need a great firewall of the EU. Expecting me to change my speech because their people aren't adult enough is ridiculous empire building bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
There are two sides to this, as there is in any story.
On the one hand, the EU is seeing a lot of terrorism sponsored by outside entities, domestic terrorism sponsored by extremists, attempts to disrupt essential services such as healthcare through disinformation, the rise of new cults that disrupt civilisation, the murder of free speech activists by religious individuals radicalised by online hate. And they have seen an armed insurrection in the US, combined with a hostile takeover of the courts, State gove
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Informative)
I get that the EU wants to regulate what is happening within their borders, but in what world is it sane to demand compliance under penalties based on the company's GLOBAL operations?
Penalties can be set arbitrarily in law, and are done so for every country on the planet. Given companies' shitfuckery around moving revenue to tax havens it not only absolutely makes sense to link penalties to global operations, but it is actually essential to do so.
Penalties should be limited to activities entirely within or with an endpoint within the EU's jurisdiction.
They ARE linked to within the EU's jurisdiction. The EU can only apply penalties for something which happens within its borders, obey the law for EU citizens, fuck the rest of the world. But if you don't obey the law for EU citizens, then the penalties applied will be based on a formulation defined in EU law.
Re: Wait, what? (Score:3)
They can apply laws to people and companies in other countries as well. Never heard of extradition, I see? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how extradition works. If I murder someone in Canada, the US isn't going to extradite me. If, however, I murder someone in Canada and then flee to the US, Canada will extradite me from there.
There are also some laws countries apply to their citizens no matter where they travel, so you can end up not being able to go home if you do something particularly nasty that happened to be legal wherever you were.
Random countries don't just get to decide they don't like what you did in another country and
Re: (Score:2)
They can apply laws to people and companies in other countries as well. Never heard of extradition, I see? :-)
False. Extradition treaties only work on the basis of common illegalities and involve jurisdiction too. No countries extradite people for crimes which aren't common in both countries, and countries don't extradite people without a direct link to either the crime being committed in the target country, or the victim being from said country.
You can't simply make up a law and demand an extradition of someone. Well you can, but it will be turned down.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if I opened a website, hosted in the USA with myself being a US citizen, and that website became VERY popular worldwide, then the EU gets a say in how I run my site?
Let's start with only my money going to running the site.
Then, let's move onto the site being supported by advertisers.
Finally, let's move on to accepting direct financial transactions.
At what point does the EU get a say in what I do?
Recall that I have no physical presence in any other country. That is important.
From my own point of view, I
Re: (Score:2)
Anything beyond that should be simply, "you can't do business here".
Any company is free to leave. Look up every Slashdot article where a major tech company got fined in the EU. People are just like 'hahaha they will just pay the fine and continue'. Well the EU listened to our comments and decided to make fines related to what companies can bear instead of fixed amounts that work for everyone.
These type of large fines will realistically only be given after deliberately ignoring the law or ignoring a measure the company is ordered to take. Companies are well adviced to eithe
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, fucking bullshit. You cannot just "leave the internet".
Mate your UID shows you are too old to behave like this. Why do you start swearing the moment you have a slight disagreement? Do you behave like this with everyone?
All of these are businesses that have EU based subsidiaries and make money in the EU. This is not your blog with 3 EU readers.
These companies are very much free to just kill their EU site and leave. All of these sites make an enormous amount of money in the EU though so they will likely play ball.
The EUSSR is trying to enforce its own bullshit laws extra-territorial.
Are you like 15 and you bought this account on eba
Re: Wait, what? (Score:1)
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I get that the EU wants to regulate what is happening within their borders, but in what world is it sane to demand compliance under penalties based on the company's GLOBAL operations?
Penalties should be limited to activities entirely within or with an endpoint within the EU's jurisdiction. Anything beyond that should be simply, "you can't do business here".
The USA does this ALL the time. Just one example; the US forces EU banks (and all banks around the world) to collect egregious information about any customers who are US citizens and to send that information to the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
I get that the EU wants to regulate what is happening within their borders, but in what world is it sane to demand compliance under penalties based on the company's GLOBAL operations?
Penalties should be limited to activities entirely within or with an endpoint within the EU's jurisdiction. Anything beyond that should be simply, "you can't do business here".
The USA does this ALL the time. Just one example; the US forces EU banks (and all banks around the world) to collect egregious information about any customers who are US citizens and to send that information to the USA.
Or how Visa and Mastercard can force a Swedish porn site out of business even though that porn site is 100% legal in Sweden because Americans have some outdated hangups over sex.
Or how the US writes it's laws, notably copyright laws, into the books of other countries via trade agreements which completely bypass the governments of those countries (I.E. the laws are not even discussed in that countries parliament/assembly).
If you're going to talk about not respecting borders with your laws, there is no
Re: (Score:2)
I get that the EU wants to regulate what is happening within their borders, but in what world is it sane to demand compliance under penalties based on the company's GLOBAL operations?
Penalties should be limited to activities entirely within or with an endpoint within the EU's jurisdiction. Anything beyond that should be simply, "you can't do business here".
The USA does this ALL the time. Just one example; the US forces EU banks (and all banks around the world) to collect egregious information about any customers who are US citizens and to send that information to the USA.
Or how Visa and Mastercard can force a Swedish porn site out of business even though that porn site is 100% legal in Sweden because Americans have some outdated hangups over sex.
Or how the US writes it's laws, notably copyright laws, into the books of other countries via trade agreements which completely bypass the governments of those countries (I.E. the laws are not even discussed in that countries parliament/assembly).
If you're going to talk about not respecting borders with your laws, there is no more egregious violator than the US.
America is just exceptional!!
Re: (Score:2)
The US taxes all income, regardless of which country it is made in. So dual citizens in the UK pay British income tax AND American income tax.
Most countries have sex tourism laws, where they apply their own national laws on what people do overseas, even if it's legal in that country. So Americans visiting England are subject to their State's age of consent laws, not the English laws.
So the whole global jurisdiction thing has been around for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Consent is a thing.
Big businesses will consent to follow the EU laws in exchange for being allowed to do business in the EU. It is a simple cost/benefit analysis.
If the cost of complying is too high, they will choose not to do business in the EU. Since the internet is multinational, companies don't have to have an entity in EU jurisdiction for EU citizens to do business with them. But it does make things easier, and there is a value to that ease. Compare the cost of compliance with the value of the ease
Re: (Score:2)
What is happening here is a long delayed response the US's Cloud Act, and Patriot Act (and maybe some others), which too are extraterritorial laws.
I for one welcome this very funny clusterfuck of mutually incompatible extraterritorial laws.
There is also a political component to this: what we're witnessing is the beginning of digital protectionism.
Bullshit Detector Overload (Score:5, Insightful)
"Creating a safer online environment for our children is an enforcement priority under the DSA."
Anybody wanting to regulate porn sites to make "a safer online environment for our children" needs to be busted in the chops at least twice. Once for being a grandstanding moron pandering to the lowest common denominator, and once for assuming there are zero responsibilities on parents' shoulders when it comes to online content.
We can't sanitize the entire universe to make it safe for your three year old. It can't be done. You don't toss the kids out into the street at that age with no guidance or supervision. Why is it assumed that you should be able to turn them loose online with no supervision?
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you believe regulating porn and social media sites is "for the children", why is an e-commerce site like AliExpress on this list? What all the targeted sites have in common is that they are not European. This is just more bullshit EU hidden trade tariffs.
Re: Bullshit Detector Overload (Score:3)
AliExpress sells a lot of sex toys and the ad decorations are not very well controlled, the job is too big to be done successfully. So there is sexual content there. And you will see those products mixed in with other stuff indiscriminately because their search tool is poop. I buy stuff from there occasionally when there is no US seller or the markup is ludicrous.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why the discussion got stuck in the save the children lane. The only European company on the list I immediately recognized sells shoes.
Looking at https://digital-strategy.ec.eu... [europa.eu] There are 7 major areas of regulation affecting companies (opportunistically snipped):
Easier reporting of illegal content:
The DSA requires platforms to put in place measures to counter the spreading of illegal goods, services or content online, such as mechanisms for users to flag such content and for platforms to coo
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why the discussion got stuck in the save the children lane.
Because we're used to the UK pulling some nanny shit? For example the "new obligations for providers of online marketplaces to counter the spread of illegal goods", or actually "goods illegal in the UK" which is once again their problem and not mine unless I have a presence in their jurisdiction. Pretending that my putting up a website that they can access is that is, once again, overreach. If they don't want their people to see it, that's their responsibility. If they don't want my packages entering their
Re: (Score:2)
What all the targeted sites have in common is that they are not European.
What all the "targeted" sites have in common is purely their size and customer base within the EU. The law applies equally to everyone, and there's no "hidden trade tariffs" here. In fact there's no fees or tariffs at all... unless it is you want to knowingly break the law, that could be considered a voluntary tax donation, much like speeding.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I should have said "hidden trade barriers" rather than "tariffs" if you're going to be pedantic. The clear goal here is to block or disadvantage foreign competitors, not save the children.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should read the full summary. There are three things the listed companies have to do. Item number three in particular seems tailored to porn sites.
Re: (Score:2)
If you go to the horses mouth so to speak, I count 7 areas of regulation https://digital-strategy.ec.eu... [europa.eu]
Re: (Score:2)
We can't sanitize the entire universe to make it safe for your three year old. It can't be done. You don't toss the kids out into the street at that age with no guidance or supervision. Why is it assumed that you should be able to turn them loose online with no supervision?
Perhaps we should ask a trillion-dollar cellular industry hell-bent on convincing parents that the dangerous world their kids go out in, is somehow made much "safer" by giving children a smartphone. Also known as a hardcore porn surfing device.
As if 50% of children died off in every generation prior to smartphones, because no smartphones.
Re: (Score:2)
We can't sanitize the entire universe to make it safe for your three year old. It can't be done. You don't toss the kids out into the street at that age with no guidance or supervision. Why is it assumed that you should be able to turn them loose online with no supervision?
Perhaps we should ask a trillion-dollar cellular industry hell-bent on convincing parents that the dangerous world their kids go out in, is somehow made much "safer" by giving children a smartphone. Also known as a hardcore porn surfing device.
As if 50% of children died off in every generation prior to smartphones, because no smartphones.
They've convinced a lot more than just parents of this nonsense. My wife gets paranoid if I go out highway riding on my bicycle without the tracking device on me and enabled. I used to ride my bikes all over the country with nobody tracking me and survived every time. Funny how that works.
Re: (Score:2)
you shouldnt ride your bike on the highway..
It's a road bike and I live in South Dakota. I can literally ride all day long and see nothing more than a pickup or two and maybe a tractor. Rarely, other cyclists.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe parents should just be held responsible for actually PARENTING their children and not allowed to dump that responsibility on third parties who don't want it.
I didn't have a smartphone... or even a regular cell phone... as a kid, and I got along just fine. Hell, if I'd asked for something like an iPhone, and expected to take it to school with me, not only would the answer have been a hard "no," I might have even been punished for such a stupid and unreasonable ask in the first place. But even with
Re: (Score:2)
That is UvdL and other cretins that try to get political credit by pushing through useless measures that sound good to the clueless. It is also very likely they have censorship and surveillance goals in addition.
My take is the porn sites will just work around them and that is it. Once again, porn distribution will advance the state-of-the-art in Internet technology, to the benefit of everybody. Oh, and there is still no scientifically sound evidence that access to online porn is more harmful to children tha
Re: (Score:2)
That is UvdL and other cretins that try to get political credit by pushing through useless measures that sound good to the clueless. It is also very likely they have censorship and surveillance goals in addition.
This is what we always figure in the states when somebody does the breathless, "Think of the children," then gasp and faint on a couch. It's all targeted at showing us how we must be monitored 24/7 for our own good. And some people seem to be lapping that garbage up.
My take is the porn sites will just work around them and that is it. Once again, porn distribution will advance the state-of-the-art in Internet technology, to the benefit of everybody. Oh, and there is still no scientifically sound evidence that access to online porn is more harmful to children than, say, the daily news (which is _known_ to be pretty harmful to smarter children, with all the crap going on on the world). That there is no such evidence strongly suggests it is actually not harmful, because with the ease of access we would be seeing something by now. But there are too many fuckups that just cannot accept that their victorian and repressive views may actually be wrong and disconnected from reality.
I'm not exactly sure at what point we turned the corner, but there is definitely a regression among the western nations right now when it comes to views on sexuality. The free spirit hippies all turned into fearful grandparents and great-grandpa
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not exactly sure at what point we turned the corner, but there is definitely a regression among the western nations right now when it comes to views on sexuality. The free spirit hippies all turned into fearful grandparents and great-grandparents that want to make sure no child of now grows up to have near as much freedom as they did. Says a lot about how horrible they feel about their lives.
Seems to be something like that, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
We can't sanitize the entire universe to make it safe for your three year old. It can't be done. You don't toss the kids out into the street at that age with no guidance or supervision. Why is it assumed that you should be able to turn them loose online with no supervision?
Because ultimately we do turn them loose online with no supervision, certainly by age 18, sometimes a few years earlier. And it's our job as parents to prepare them for that. We're not going to suddenly throw them into the deep end at that age with no preparation. Instead we'll be gradually ramping down the supervision over the years. At younger ages it means only using an allow-list of safe things under constant supervision. Later it means relaxing the supervision and granting them age-appropriate autonomy
Re: (Score:2)
We can't sanitize the entire universe to make it safe for your three year old. It can't be done. You don't toss the kids out into the street at that age with no guidance or supervision. Why is it assumed that you should be able to turn them loose online with no supervision?
Because ultimately we do turn them loose online with no supervision, certainly by age 18, sometimes a few years earlier. And it's our job as parents to prepare them for that. We're not going to suddenly throw them into the deep end at that age with no preparation. Instead we'll be gradually ramping down the supervision over the years. At younger ages it means only using an allow-list of safe things under constant supervision. Later it means relaxing the supervision and granting them age-appropriate autonomy and privacy. Later it means allowing more things but checking frequently what they're accessing and talking about them with it. Later it means allowing much more, and checking sporadically and retrospectively.
The challenge then is -- to what extent is the internet such a hostile place that the pitfalls in this gradual process are too severe? vs an okay place where the pitfalls are just an okay learning experience?
I don't think your black-and-white post is a good basis for discussion on this topic.
See, you're speaking in a reasonable manner on how children should be raised. Meanwhile, some parents seem to think "electronic device = babysitter" and that's the end of the discussion. So the black-and-white view I've seen, multiple times, from the parental side. There's zero reason to sanitize the entire internet, when there is responsibility on parents to parent their children, which your post seems to indicate at least one person understands.
Re: (Score:2)
And then there's me. I've got a 10 year old daughter, and she's had non-monitored internet access for more than a year already.
I don't intend to start monitoring it. This might change, if I for some reason think that I need to. I don't think it will. I've had pretty much non-monitored BBS'es and then Internet since I was 14. It was *nasty* out there back then. Today, it's a pretty well moderated landscape compared to the 90s.
Remember peacefire.org ? That was teens avoiding censorship and especially "
Re: (Score:2)
> zero responsibilities
That reminds me of another Thierry Breton project, Zero Email:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/d... [forbes.com]
Wrong Target (Score:2)
Why is it assumed that you should be able to turn them loose online with no supervision?
Probably because historically kids playing inside the house were safe but, with the advent of the internet, that's no longer true and until recently most parents of kids old enough to access the internet had no experience of using something akin to today's internet themselves while young kids. This will improve with time although there will always be parents who either don't care, can't be bothered or lack the understanding needed.
However, the problem I see here is that they have the wrong target. If th
Re: (Score:2)
However, the problem I see here is that they have the wrong target. If they want to prevent harm to kids then all the studies seem to suggest that social media is where they should be turning their attention.
Agreed 100%. Social Media is an actual society-level harm that should be dealt with. Prudishness shouldn't be codified into law, but that day seems to be swinging back around anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because historically kids playing inside the house were safe [...]
You were allowed INSIDE? During the DAY?!
Gen-X was told to "Go outside and play. Be back for dinner."
Some of us lived.
Re: (Score:2)
You were allowed INSIDE? During the DAY?!
Yes, I grew up in the UK where it rains a lot and our kids grew up in Canada where the winter is cold enough to kill young kids which is why schools don't allow outdoor playtime when the temperature is below -23C.
Spoken like someone without children (Score:2)
for assuming there are zero responsibilities on parents' shoulders when it comes to online content.
We can't sanitize the entire universe to make it safe for your three year old. It can't be done. You don't toss the kids out into the street at that age with no guidance or supervision. Why is it assumed that you should be able to turn them loose online with no supervision?
You sound like someone who doesn't have kids or who wasn't really involved much with his kids as they were growing up. It's fun and convenient to hide behind simple slogans, but life is complex and messy. If you spent more time around kids, you'd not be so confident in your views of the world. I certainly had stronger opinions on these things and directly shared yours...until I had kids of my own, now I don't know what to think.
Should you sanitize the world for my kids? Nope...that would be unreaso
Re: (Score:2)
PornHub has a child porn problem. A few years ago they deleted all user uploads because they just couldn't find and remove all the under-age stuff, the revenge porn, the AI nudes of children etc.
The EU is saying that they need to demonstrate that they are on top of this now. They originally started deleting stuff because of complaints from victims in the US, which eventually attracted the interest of politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
"Creating a safer online environment for our children is an enforcement priority under the DSA."
Anybody wanting to regulate porn sites to make "a safer online environment for our children" needs to be busted in the chops at least twice. Once for being a grandstanding moron pandering to the lowest common denominator, and once for assuming there are zero responsibilities on parents' shoulders when it comes to online content.
We can't sanitize the entire universe to make it safe for your three year old. It can't be done. You don't toss the kids out into the street at that age with no guidance or supervision. Why is it assumed that you should be able to turn them loose online with no supervision?
Erm... if you read the fine summary this is not what the EU is doing.
The EU doesn't have the hate boner the US does for people enjoying sex.
This is the same law that is being applied to Meta et al. regarding disinformation. They aren't regulating content as much as asking the sites to demonstrate what they're doing to combat egregious disinformation. Granted I've never put "anti-vaxxer" into Pornhub but I don't think there's a huge market for sexualised swivel-eyed loons but I can see where the EU is
Re: (Score:2)
"Creating a safer online environment for our children is an enforcement priority under the DSA."
Anybody wanting to regulate porn sites to make "a safer online environment for our children" needs to be busted in the chops at least twice. Once for being a grandstanding moron pandering to the lowest common denominator, and once for assuming there are zero responsibilities on parents' shoulders when it comes to online content.
We can't sanitize the entire universe to make it safe for your three year old. It can't be done. You don't toss the kids out into the street at that age with no guidance or supervision. Why is it assumed that you should be able to turn them loose online with no supervision?
Erm... if you read the fine summary this is not what the EU is doing. The EU doesn't have the hate boner the US does for people enjoying sex. This is the same law that is being applied to Meta et al. regarding disinformation. They aren't regulating content as much as asking the sites to demonstrate what they're doing to combat egregious disinformation. Granted I've never put "anti-vaxxer" into Pornhub but I don't think there's a huge market for sexualised swivel-eyed loons but I can see where the EU is coming from as porn sites have been used to distribute non-pornographic material in the past (usually jokes like putting up the latest episode of Rick and Morty or a video of a Boris Johnson presser with the title "Dumb Blonde fucks 65 million Britons"). All they'll need to do to comply with these regulations is show they have a policy to remove disinformation when it's identified. I gather the likes of Pornhub, Xvideos, et al. will already be removing Jewish Space Laser conspiracy videos when they find them. The EU isn't trying to sanitise the web. Rather just combatting disinformation is a minimally effective way. Good intentions, terrible execution.
Sorry. Apparently my years as a US citizen have caused me to get triggered when I see a politico spouting off about protecting children while introducing new regulations. Over here that's always, ALWAYS, a sign they're trying to crack down on something they don't particularly care for, whether it's actually harmful or not.
Re: (Score:2)
PornHub brought it on themselves by condoning underage and revenge-porn content.
Re: (Score:2)
PornHub brought it on themselves by condoning underage and revenge-porn content.
Condoning? I'd need a citation on that. They allowed user uploads, which probably led to some underage and revenge-porn being uploaded. I don't recall any public statement by the company saying that this was the goal of allowing user uploads. They just wanted to be youtube for porn, where anybody could share what they do with their partner(s).
I think the propaganda surrounding these sorts of issues gets believed far too quickly and easily by folks with a vendetta against sexuality in all forms. And of cours
Our way or the high way (Score:2)
The later wouldn't displease the EU statist busybodies, actually, forcing the creation of some local bred version of those websites, and excuse themselves on the red tape against any international trade repercussions "it's our law!".
Re: (Score:2)
and will force the companies to comply or get out of the EU.
You just described literally every law in existence. Congratulations.
What are they implying?!? (Score:2)
That porn videos aren't factual and may be spreading misinformation about sexual interactions? OMG, no wonder I only get a scorched mouth when I order pizza and ask for a hot, hot, hot delivery.
Re: (Score:3)
It's true, they've been lying to you. In reality you'll never get a plumber over in such short time
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is, once they do arrive, do you have a way to pay them [youtube.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
It's item number three in the list that applies to porn sites.
Re: (Score:2)
That porn videos aren't factual and may be spreading misinformation about sexual interactions? OMG, no wonder I only get a scorched mouth when I order pizza and ask for a hot, hot, hot delivery.
Seemingly dis/mis-information concerns integrity of elections https://digital-strategy.ec.eu... [europa.eu] Hunter Bidens laptop?
It's a good day for smaller, more focused websites (Score:3)
They will only notice what they did after the EU parliament starts looking like a furry convention.
Slashdots's Heirarchy of Hypocrisy (Score:4, Interesting)
Nominally when the EU passes anti-market draconian BS. Slashdot cheers, because of course EU good USA bad, derp derp derp.
But here we seem them going after porn - Slashdot's scared cow and suddenly its - boo they can't be allowed to regulate stuff!
Re: (Score:2)
Nominally when the EU passes anti-market draconian BS. Slashdot cheers, because of course EU good USA bad, derp derp derp.
But here we seem them going after porn - Slashdot's scared cow and suddenly its - boo they can't be allowed to regulate stuff!
Or, and hear me out, over the sound of your fapping. Or, maybe, porn hasn't had near the negative repercussions throughout society that some of the massive social media giants, some of the hug tech pushing companies, and some of the fossil-fuel and spin-off industries have had. Sometimes, it's not because of what the thing is, but because we want to see justice served to actual harmful actors. And I don't know of anyone that doesn't see the social media sphere as harmful on some level.
Re: (Score:2)
But here we seem them going after porn - Slashdot's scared cow and suddenly its - boo they can't be allowed to regulate stuff!
They aren't going after porn at all. They are simply applying the DMA as intended for all companies that qualify, porn or otherwise. The DMA doesn't restrict porn in any way, and this won't change what porn is on offer.
You're suffering from severe observer bias. Slashdot has always had both pro and anti-EU people here. You can very much go back and find people defending Facebook from the "evil EUSSR" as well. You're reading into something which isn't there.
Censorship (Score:1)
In other words, forced to comply with draconian censorship mandates from unelected bureaucrats that if uncovered will be conveniently denied, disavowed, and classified.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Censorship (Score:1)
The EU is mostly made of unelected people that get much of the power. The only elected people are in the parliament but it doesn't have a say in every matters. "Community matters", for example, is under the EU comission which is not elected at all. And the people can't act on the EU directly, just elect some people that don't have full legislative power.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU is mostly made of unelected people that get much of the power.
No. Unelected people have zero power in the EU. The massive number of staff and contractors in the EC serve exclusively to make recommendations to the European parliament who must pass anything for it to take effect. Literally nothing gets don't without approval of democratically elected representatives, either directly as voted MEPs by citizens of the EU, or through the Council of Ministers - heads of state as voted by citizens of each country. Heck even the president of the EC and the president of the cou
It you want adult content (Score:3)
don't go to adult sites: go to Reddit or Tumblr.
Blaming the gun-maker (Score:2)
What's wrong with the current tools? How does a it's-your-fault law help children? I understand this is a regulatory dragnet but demanding blanket results doesn't work. This is blaming the gun-maker without giving him the tools to prevent trespass and burglary. A rule the UK has just adopted.
There's protecting children from the ugly details and there's pretending sex and nudity is more dangerous than drugs and money-laundering (and worse than guns): It only emphasizes how deranged adults (or the ones