As I predicted, you can only refute a soundbite and not dig into the links to actually correct your ignorance.
There is no reason to dig into your conspiracy theories. You were not be able to quote the part of GDPR that addresses hate speech and/or caused the ban of Alex Jones / Infowars. If you're having a problem with some other law or regulation you need to articulate yourself better lest you sound like a witless oaf.
You understand nothing about law if you think law is only what is written in the law. My father is former West Coast Division Head Attorney for Exxon who graduated top of his class in one of the top law universities in the USA.
Armstrong is also an autodidact legal scholar.
Dimwit, here is one example of the specific way that GDPR forces tech companies to ban hate speech because the law can put them into a liability quandry:And that's not all that's dangerous about the current rules. They also deal a huge blow to anonymous speech and privacy:
A second glaring problem with the GDPR process is its requirement that companies disclose the identity of the person who posted the content, without any specified legal process or protection. This is completely out of line with existing intermediary liability laws. Some have provisions for disclosing user identity, but not without a prescribed legal process, and not as a tool available to anyone who merely alleges that an online speaker has violated the law. It’s also out of line with the general pro-privacy goals of the GDPR, and its specific articles governing disclosure of anyone’s personal information -- including that of people who put content on the Internet.
Yes, that's right. In an effort to protect privacy, the drafters are so focused on a single scenario, that they don't consider how the process will be abused to weaken the privacy rights of others. Want to know who said something anonymously that you don't like? File a privacy complaint and the service provider is just supposed to cough up their name. Again, given how often we've seen bogus defamation claims made solely for the purpose of trying to identify those who speak anonymously, this is a major concern.
Dear Europe: Please Don't Kill Free Speech In The Name Of 'Privacy Protection'
About a year and a half ago, we wrote about how the new European "General Data Protection Regulation" (GDPR) was potentially
very problematic for free speech. That is, well-meaning "data protection" folks wrote up the GDPR, but it appears they did so with little thought towards what the impact might be on free speech. So, specifcally, when they include something like a right to "erasure" for certain information, you can understand, from a privacy standpoint why people may want certain data and information to be deleted from certain databases. But bring that over to the open web, rather than private databases, and you're talking about a censorship tool around a "right to be forgotten" system.
FIGHTING FOR THE INTERNET: SOCIAL MEDIA, GOVERNMENTS AND TECH COMPANIES
Free speech or illegal content?
Whether hate speech, propaganda or activism, governments across the globe have upped efforts to curb content deemed illegal from circulating on social networks. From drawn-out court cases to blanket bans, DW examines how some countries try to stop the circulation of illicit content while others attempt to regulate social media.
Social media law
After a public debate in Germany, a new law on social media came into effect in October. The legislation imposes heavy fines on social media companies, such as Facebook, for failing to take down posts containing hate speech. Facebook and other social media companies have complained about the law, saying that harsh rules might lead to unnecessary censorship.
Regulation
In China, the use of social media is highly regulated by the government. Beijing has effectively blocked access to thousands of websites and platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Pinterest. Instead, China offers its citizens access to local social media platforms, such as Weibo and WeChat, which boast hundreds of millions of monthly users.
Twitter bans Russia-linked accounts
Many politicians and media outlets blame Russia's influence for Donald Trump's election victory in 2016. Moscow reportedly used Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Instagram to shape public opinion on key issues. In October 2017, Twitter suspended over 2,750 accounts due to alleged Russian propaganda. The platform also banned ads from RT (formerly Russia Today) and the Sputnik news agency.
Facebook announces propaganda-linked tool
With social media under pressure for allowing alleged Russian meddling, Facebook announced a new project to combat such efforts in November 2017. The upcoming page will give users a chance to check if they "liked" or followed an alleged propaganda account on Facebook or Instagram. Meanwhile, Facebook has come under fire for not protecting user data in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Have you been sleeping under a rock lately.
Establishing that governments have the power to regulate the Internet is the camel’s nose under the tent of the end of freedom on the Internet. But of course they sell it to the public as protecting their human rights. Lol. And the dumb ass sheep like yourself fall for it.The US has been reluctant to step in on tech regulations. Europe has moved ahead.
That Europe would be quicker to act on regulating Facebook and other tech companies hardly comes as a surprise. It has emerged as a leader in the arena in recent years, while the United States has taken a back seat.
[…]
Germany at the start of the year began enforcing a new hate speech law that gives social networks just 24 hours to act on hate speech, fake news, and illegal material.
I read that in some countries is Europe men can’t urinate in a standing position because it might make noise or make transgenders feel uncomfortable.
My Swedish friend tells me that Swedes are not allowed to rent a house or apartment if their tax reported income is not above a certain level every year.With the way Europe approaches technology, sometimes I get the feeling that over time it will look rather Amish -- but without barn raising, since that would probably be illegal too.
When companies are effectively forced by economics to turn off their websites for the EU, that is censorship by the EU for their enslaved sheep citizenry:But for businesses, the GDPR is a little vague and more than a little scary. It gives EU citizens the right to be forgotten – which means when they ask, the business has to delete everything about that customer. Plenty of gotchas apply – like you have to keep enough to still pass a tax audit – but as an example of a really curious gotcha, what about your backups? For example, do you have to delete the customer’s data inside your past backups?
The max penalties are terribad.
Up to €20M or 4% of your company’s annual worldwide revenue, whichever is higher.
See, under the GDPR, if someone asks us to delete their data, we not only have to delete it, but we have to audit that we deleted it, and maintain those records for EU authorities. And then respond to EU requests for that documentation.
?? Well sir, I BEG TO DIFFER