Terrorist Law

#1

So, we have one standard earth-hour to dismiss “terrorist content”. Who decided that? Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft(?). The so-called enemies that EU is “combating”. What is one hour of those platforms who capture 80+% of Internet traffic? 1 million? 5 million views?

Then this should be the threshold: you must dismiss “terrorist content” before it reaches 5 million views – that’s 1% of the population of Europe. Out of logic and fairness, it took one individual, me, to come up with this ballpark figure in much less than an hour…

But had I been sleeping, and an angry competitor would have had uploaded “terrorist content” to my site, I would not have been able to respond within one hour, because I am not a transnational corporation with an army of people working around the clock to ensure censorship works fine where it “should”.

Actually, it could take me days, or weeks before I can address this issue, and yet not a vulnerable soul would be affected by this “terrorist content”. Most probably, one of my readers would point me to it before I even notice. At this point, maybe 10 or 100 people would have seen it. This is much, much less than a whole hour of impressions on Facebook.

Yet, as the political power granted Faceboogle the task to figure out a “solution” to “terrorist content”, they found one that applies to their own gigantic scale, taking everyone else hostage by the way. Now any crooked politician can bring down their opponents with ease by exposing them to “terrorist content” while they sleep.

0 Likes

#2

“As a member of the expert group, I am disappointed with the result that has now been presented. The guidelines are lukewarm, short-sighted and deliberately vague. They ignore long-term risks, gloss over difficult problems (“explainability”) with rhetoric, violate elementary principles of rationality and pretend to know things that nobody really knows.”

0 Likes

Hybrid & Fragile Aesthetics  |  ParticipateEngageCooperate