This cannot end well: Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter sign onto EU “hate speech” code

According to the Guardian, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have agreed to comply with the European Union’s new “code of conduct” for the Internet.  You can see the code of conduct here, and the EU’s announcement of it, issued today, here. The Guardian notes this:

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft have all been involved in the creation of the code, which is particularly aimed at fighting racism and xenophobia across Europe. Such efforts are hampered by varying enforcement in different countries, something the code is tackling.

It also encourages the social media companies to take quick action as soon as a valid notification is received. [JAC: They say 24 hours, which means that if your Facebook page is taken down, it will take weeks to restore it, if you even can.]

A slim document, the code of conduct isn’t legally binding for the internet companies, even though many of its policies are already covered by other EU legislation such as the e-commerce directive. Instead, it establishes “public commitments” for the companies, including the requirement to review the “majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech” in less than 24 hours, and to make it easier for law enforcement to notify the firms directly.

While the motivation behind the code seems well-intentioned, the way that it’s defined seems deeply problematic. Here’s what the creator of the code, Vĕra Jourová, the EU commissioner for justice, consumers and gender equality, said about it, referring to the terrorism in Paris and Brussels:

“The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech,” she said. “Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalise young people and racist use to spread violence and hatred.

This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected.”

This is the problematic part, with some of the background:

Following the EU Colloquium on Fundamental Rights in October 2015 on ‘Tolerance and respect: preventing and combating Antisemitic and anti-Muslim hatred in Europe’, the Commission initiated a dialogue with IT companies, in cooperation with Member States and civil society, to see how best to tackle illegal online hate speech which spreads violence and hate.

The Framework Decision on Combatting Racism and Xenophobia criminalises the public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. This is the legal basis for defining illegal online content.

Freedom of expression is a core European value which must be preserved. The European Court of Human Rights set out the important distinction between content that “offends, shocks or disturbs the State or any sector of the population” and content that contains genuine and serious incitement to violence and hatred. The Court has made clear that States may sanction or prevent the latter.

Unfortunately, the line between hate speech and “freedom of expression” is not a clear one; as well all know, one person’s free speech is another person’s hate speech. Drawing a cartoon of the Pope is okay; drawing a cartoon of Muhammad is hate speech, and can get you killed.  Do we trust the EU, or Facebook, to judge wisely?

And freedom of expression in Europe, which is apparently what the EU is codifying as a guide for the social media platforms, differs from free speech in the U.S.  While it’s not clear from the EU “Justice” guidelines what constitutes incitement to hatred, some European countries have banned mockery of religion, denial of the Holocaust, and incitement of hatred against races, nationalities, ethnic groups, or religions (see here and here). In the U.S. such expressions are legal so long as they don’t incite imminent violence against groups.

What I expect is that there will now be a rash of complaints by various groups who feel that mockery of their religion, ethnicity, or ideology is ‘hate speech’. Will anti-Zionist speech be banned? What about mockery of Islam, or cartoons about Muhammad? Both should be allowed.

My own personal Facebook page has been taken down twice for “violating community standards”, all because a different page on which I’m a moderator, the Global Secular Humanist Movement—which criticizes religion but doesn’t by any rational standard incite hatred—published something taken as offensive. I suspect that it was cartoons depicted Muhammad or criticizing Islam, but I’m not sure.

The new EU/social media policy necessarily involves a lot of arbitrary decisions. It would be much easier to implement if those organizations adhered to the American standard: let everything be expressed except for repeated harassment of individuals (itself a bit hard to adjucicate), slander and libel, or posts meant to create immediate violence or recruit individuals to terrorist organizations. While most of these criteria are also somewhat subjective, they are much less subjective than the new standards.

Welcome to Big Brother on the Internet.


A recipe for disaster

h/t: Grania


  1. BobTerrace
    Posted May 31, 2016 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    If that applied in the US, then everything Trump says would be forbidden to be published.… Wait, maybe I like this!

  2. jaxkayaker
    Posted May 31, 2016 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    ‘“The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech,” she said.’

    Sure, if you like false equivalency. Otherwise, not so much.

    • Mark Sturtevant
      Posted May 31, 2016 at 11:34 am | Permalink

      I first heard about this the other day on NPR, and I was astonished to hear the newsreader strongly imply that the recent attacks were b/c of the commentariat on social media.

    • Posted June 1, 2016 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

      In other words, let’s react to terror by banning survivors from criticism of the religion/ideology that inspires terror.

  3. abram
    Posted May 31, 2016 at 9:43 am | Permalink

    This is bad news, and may explain why I just spent a week in Twitter jail, why I don’t know (I have an all-palindrome feed there which also goes to Facebook, and while I consider it a good clean fun mental exercise it may come off to some benighted vulgarians as unhinged, even deranged).

    • barn owl
      Posted May 31, 2016 at 10:28 am | Permalink

      Egad! A base tone denotes a bad age.

  4. Adam M.
    Posted May 31, 2016 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    I believe speech that is meant to “recruit individuals to terrorist organizations” should also be protected. First, it’s in line with the protection of speech that doesn’t incite immediate violence, and these “terrorist organizations” are branded so without any trial and often without any (publicly visible) evidence. Belonging to a group should not in itself be a crime, nor should inviting people to join a group. Committing acts of violence or terrorism is already illegal enough.

    (I believe that the terrorist organizations are probably up to no good, but that should be proven in a court before they and their members are punished. The list of terrorist organizations is also known to be politicized, and Congress has offered to take groups off the list for political favors.)

    • Mark Sturtevant
      Posted May 31, 2016 at 11:40 am | Permalink

      I am not sure if I agree with that one, but I do see that there is a gradient and it is hard to draw a line across it. I agree that strong, Islamic criticism of the West and Westerners should be permitted. But permitting such material from identified sources whose purpose is to recruit future terrorists? I would have to look at and think carefully about them before being ok with it.

  5. somer
    Posted May 31, 2016 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    All very bureaucratic and a blunt instrument even if it does mention taking of “offence” can not be taken to constitute hatred against a minority, race, religion, ethnic group etc, its contradictory to the rest of what the document says. Groups of people can always get things removed. As it is already the commercial internet providers respond to pressure from large groups of users for commercial reasons with no way of checking allegations are true – just fill in an online form – and now EU pressure is weighing in as well. Its appalling.

    Meanwhile the BBC keeps referring to Turkey as a country in Europe, whilst EU leaders like Merkel allow criminal penalties to people who lampoon President Erdogan.
    BBC reported 30 May that
    “In a speech broadcast live on TV, Erdogan said “no Muslim family” should consider birth control or family planning.
    “We will multiply our descendants,” said Mr Erdogan, who became president in August 2014 after serving as prime minister for 12 years.
    He has also urged women to have at least three children, and has said women cannot be treated as equal to men.
    The Turkish Statistical Institute says that the country’s fertility rate was 2.14 children per woman in 2015, which is just above the replacement level and half the rate in 1980.
    Despite this decline, Turkey’s fertility rate is one of the highest in EUROPE and the country’s relatively young population (compared with other EUROPEAN countries) is still growing. The population is just under 80 million.”

    • Roland Gosebruch
      Posted June 1, 2016 at 12:32 am | Permalink

      “whilst EU leaders like Merkel allow criminal penalties to people who lampoon President Erdogan.”

      And who has been punished yet? Exactly. Nobody.

      Have you heard about the separation of powers? It’s not the executive’s role to allow or deny criminal punishments.

      • somer
        Posted June 1, 2016 at 4:32 am | Permalink

        Turkish lawyers are in the process of pursuing the case. Extract from:

        “Turkish prosecutors are continuing to pursue a case against German comedian Jan Boehmermann, who mocked Mr Erdogan on German television.

        Under an obscure German law, it is a criminal offence to insult a foreign head of state. But the law requires both a complaint from the offended party and permission from the government.

        German Chancellor Angela Merkel last month gave permission for Turkey to pursue the case.

        Boehmermann has accused Ms Merkel of “filleting” him and serving him for tea.”

      • Posted June 1, 2016 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

        According to German law, Ms. Merkel specifically had to give a go-ahead for that comedian to be prosecuted.

  6. Posted May 31, 2016 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    whats wrong with xenophobia?

    Xeno is Greek for foreign, there are some foreign cultures that I may not like or want to see come into my country, not all cultures are equal or have values I agree with.

    The mass importation of working class Sunnis straight from Idlib or Anbar into Western countries has been a colossal disaster for everyone from women to atheists to artists and cartoonists.

    Im 100% xenophobic against conservative Islam coming over to western democracies and imposing its disgusting illiberal values on the birthplaces of the Enligtenment.

    Just another good reason for UK to throw off these pathetic EU bureaucrats, unelected do-nothings that write endless laws and regulations, policing their slave-citizens on everything from business hiring to enforcing SJW Groupthink. Its tyrannical in every sense of the word.

    • yiamcross
      Posted May 31, 2016 at 10:42 am | Permalink

      One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter and all that. The Syrian rebels are terrorists to the Syrian regeime but not to those who consider Assad to be a totalitarian criminal who is himself employing illegal terror tactics on his own people.

      Free speech is free speech and there are enough laws to define what is criminal incitement to commit harm or prejudice against the rights of others without adding more. Who gets to decide who can offend who, Imean I find many religious statements cause me alarm and offence. Many atheists in America suffer real harm at the hands of the religious but somehow I doubt these new regulations will be used against the faithful who find the fact that others do not believe to be offensive in itself.

      Slippery slope, more like a black run (that’s a ski term, not a racist comment- or is that something that we’ll have to change now?)

      • yiamcross
        Posted May 31, 2016 at 10:58 am | Permalink

        Sorry, this should not have appeared as a reply to russofrevo, I’ve no idea why it did. Should have waited to get to my PC instead of rushing and using my phone.

      • gravelinspector-Aidan
        Posted May 31, 2016 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

        The Syrian rebels are terrorists to the Syrian regeime but not to those who consider Assad to be a totalitarian criminal who is himself employing illegal terror tactics on his own people.

        Same could be (and has been) said of the PKK and their long – running self-determination dispute with the Turkish government. Or the (approximate) pIRA in Ulster until about 1974.

    • yiamcross
      Posted May 31, 2016 at 10:45 am | Permalink

      Except that it would make no difference if we were in or out, Facebook would apply the same rules and we would have had no input into the process of formiulating them. It’s not a sovereignty issue, it’s a corporate decision to accept or reject them.

    • jay
      Posted May 31, 2016 at 11:34 am | Permalink

      The European definition of hate speech in this area has become: anything that is critical of government immigration policy.

      There are serious assimilation issues with the unvetted crowds of ME Muslims which the central EU government refuses to recognize on blind ideological grounds (news outlets cannot specify nationalities of sex offenders and other violent individuals, for example). It’s actually dangerous to discuss this in media in Europe, hence a lot of it is covered from sites located in US with no EU presence.

    • Torbjörn Larsson
      Posted May 31, 2016 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

      oh yes, the 20 % of Sweden’s population that is working immigrants that traveled here the last century has been a ‘colossal disaster’ with our economy now at 4 % increase/year and both Sweden’s and Europa’s unemployment rates at ever lower numbers. … oh, not so much a ‘colossal disaster’ then. If a century of mohammedanist and other immigrants haven’t managed to “imposing its disgusting illiberal values”, what can an influx of a tenth the size do?

      This week an updated economical forecast claimed *again* that we will get back double the investment even on the poor war refugees. And I heard earlier from a UK economist that the last decade immigration into EU was no higher than the decade before, despite the influx of help seekers.

      Honestly, why do people kvetch when the facts that says different are out there to google in a few minutes? If insecurity is threatening, isn’t it better to take a peek? (Especially as the situation often is better than people are scared of.)

      • Adam M.
        Posted May 31, 2016 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

        Isn’t it also true that immigrants in Sweden are about 6 times as likely to be charged with committing rape, and several times as likely to commit robbery and murder, according to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande rådet)? I’ve also read that according to the same Brå reports, North African and Middle Eastern immigrants are about 20x as likely to commit rape than native Swedes, although they don’t break the numbers down by nationality in the English summary so I can’t confirm that part for myself.

        So while they may be good for the economy, they may not be good for women and public safety.

        • Posted June 1, 2016 at 11:30 am | Permalink

          That *is* unfortunate, but it seems to me that even just looking at Sweden’s small population one should wonder about small number effects here… any absolute figures?

          (This is the same as when people say that X increased the number of cancers 100% and it is from 1 guy per million to 2.)

          • Posted June 1, 2016 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

            The problem is, no matter how many girls and women are raped or even enslaved (e.g. in Rotherham), they are somehow always too few to be a ground to question the immigration policy.

    • Hermericus
      Posted May 31, 2016 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

      That doesn’t make it a phobia though, since a phobia is irrational fear of something.

      Yours seems very rational.

    • Posted June 1, 2016 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

      I agree. About the UK, however, I fear that leaving the EU will be of little help, because there is already too much cultural diversity inside Britain.

  7. Diana MacPherson
    Posted May 31, 2016 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    Ugh. This censorship is the lazy way out.

  8. Marc
    Posted May 31, 2016 at 11:28 am | Permalink

    If I learned anything from my experience with Twitter, this isn’t good. Normally they put these measures in place to simply protect those most willing to use personal offense as proof of “hate speech”. And those people are people who harbor incoherent ideas which are unsustainable in the face of evidence and open debate.

    As an example, my twitter account got suspended after a feminist sending me incessant death threats tagged her radical feminist friends in our conversation where I was offending her for disagreeing that racism was invented by white Europeans. Twitter support ignored me even when I linked directly to her death threats and her obvious abuse of the reporting system by brigading. They never informed me of why I was suspended. They simply link you to the rules of Twitter and assume you’ll figure out why you broke the rules.

    Stopping what the average person can potentially see as racism or xenophobia means stopping almost all important conversation regarding gender, racial, religious and cultural relations.

    • Cindy
      Posted May 31, 2016 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

      Disagreement is actually *violence* (according to tumblr feminists)

      • Posted June 1, 2016 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

        That’s an interesting take. If someone disagrees and it is violent, who gets to decide which side is doing the disagreeing? Surely, an authoritarian statement that invokes disagreement is itself a disagreement with someone else’s previous statement which also disagrees with a prior statement, thus creating an infinite regress of violence (or at least back to the point where we can determine who it was who made the first statement on the topic).

        • Cindy
          Posted June 1, 2016 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

          If someone disagrees and it is violent, who gets to decide which side is doing the disagreeing?

          The side that claims to be the most oppressed gets to decide.

          Oh, you say, but what if someone from that side disagrees regarding this supposed oppression? Well, they are just suffering from internalised misogyny/homophobia/transphobia/racism etc so their opinions can be ignored.

          • Posted June 1, 2016 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

            This is more or less the attitude of some of the BLM activists in my family. Racism is only systemic and only oppressors can be racist. Therefore, black people can’t be racist. They can’t seem to answer (nor am I sure they even comprehend) the question when I ask what this philosophy means when the oppressors become the oppressed. Of course, I’m a white, straight, upper middle class man, so my question is probably null and void in their view.

  9. jay
    Posted May 31, 2016 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    Meanwhile our friends north of the border have added saying offensive things (not necessarily violence inciting) about transgendered folks to the categories (religion, culture, nationalities etc) that will get you JAIL TIME (not just getting your postings blocked).

    Not to defend rude speech, but there’s a lot of social stuff to be sorted out and pre-emptively criminalizing opinions about the cause du jour is a poisonous trend.

    • Cindy
      Posted May 31, 2016 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

      Yeah I have been on pomo feminist blogs where the term ” biological male” is considered hate speech. Commenters who dare to use such terms have their comments deleted and they are sometimes banned.
      One commenter patiently explained that male and female pelvises are shaped differently and his comment was removed because it was considered to be offensive.

  10. Posted May 31, 2016 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    Suppose I have sincerely held beliefs that mockery should be sacred and those who hate mockery are deeply offensive and hateful toward my beliefs. Who determines who is hating who?

  11. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted May 31, 2016 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    About 10 years ago, I spent an informative albeit rather painful Saturday afternoon (in a scenic relaxing location) watching both D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation” (3 hours) and Leni Reifenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will”. (1 & 1/2 hours) They were not on YouTube but the Internet Movie Archive which hosts every available movie that is in public domain.

    Any policy which would entail the removal of these films from YouTube or Facebook is fundamentally flawed.
    I don’t know if that will happen, but there’s a fine line between this and recent 6 hour documentary on Hitler which praises him as a great savior of humanity, which I got through 20 minutes of a year ago…on YouTube!!!

    This could turn against the very best humanist groups quite easily.

    Secular Amen to the next to last paragraph.

  12. Posted May 31, 2016 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    I am really worried that this new policy only means that if enough people complain you will get banned from the net. At the same time it is clear that those who engage in real hate speech will generally be preaching to their choir and thus not amass complaints.

    They are really setting us up for a woo-friendly internet.

    • somer
      Posted June 1, 2016 at 4:34 am | Permalink


  13. Craw
    Posted May 31, 2016 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    This will be used primarily against posts like the one above on FGM or post posts about bad behaviour in the name of religion. Watch for links to WEIT to be pruned soon.

  14. Posted May 31, 2016 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    Another example of why I’m not sure where to side in the Cincinnati gorilla incident. Save the human, or save the ape.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted May 31, 2016 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

      Which primate, which primate…..

  15. Bettega
    Posted May 31, 2016 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    You can be damn sure that no one will be persecuted for promoting revolutionary communism and calling for the massacre of bourgeois classes. But if you criticize immigration policies of Western countries, you will be arrested for hate speech.

    This is just the end result of decades of Cultural Marxism control over universities.

    “Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: … it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word.”

    Herbert Marcuse, Father of the New Left

  16. somer
    Posted May 31, 2016 at 11:27 pm | Permalink

    Its entirely inappropriate for the blunt instrument of bureaucracy – let alone a multinational one like EU – to shove itself into the arena of internet free speech in this way. It will only be interpreted clumsily according to the loudest voices or the biggest legal consequences. Govts in Europe already have anti hate speech provisions and there are already plenty of free speech abuses on twitter and Facebook. However they cave into govt pressure for $ like Apple in China (its even given some of its code details for mobiles, peripherals etc to that govt though we don’t know what). But unlike the Chinese case this will start to be felt outside EU countries.

    Meanwhile the ever Regressive UK National Union of Students under Malia Bouttalia (who is Algerian and not black) is proposing to amend the term “Black” in its charters to “Politically Black”. From Student Voices -“For the politically black the fight against white racism and oppression is central to their identity and purpose, for the other, blackness reflects their ethnic and cultural heritage related to their “race”.”
    Voila criticism of any aspect of non western culture or religion can becomes a race issue.

    NUS needs to evaluate the use of “political blackness” in the student movement
    NUS at war over “politically black”: British Students’ Union own “Rachel Doleful”

    • somer
      Posted May 31, 2016 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

      Extract from Student Voices Article:

      Let’s face it; in the real world, outside the bubble of NUS and the Black Students Campaign, anti-blackness exists among our ethnic minority communities.

      “Black” in its ethnic definition is being marginalised within the NUS, in favor of the dominant perspective of ‘political blackness’, used to denote all people who are not White.
      For advocates of political blackness, Blackness rooted in African ancestry is too restrictive and a source of disunity among minority groups who are seen to need to unite to overcome racism and oppression. However, racism does not function in a simple Black/White dynamic. Different minority groups are subject to different processes of racial discrimination. The use of `black’ as the primary identifier, falsely equates racial discrimination with colour-discrimination and thereby conceals the cultural antipathy to other ethnic minorities and the character of the discrimination they suffer.”

  17. Wunold
    Posted June 1, 2016 at 12:40 am | Permalink

    That’s why free communication networks trump any walled garden community.

    I always find it a little strange when users of company-controlled services complain when their warders actually exercise the power they freely accepted being subject to.

    Moreover, the majority of the protesters will keep using those services like nothing had happened, as usual.

  18. Joshua Thom
    Posted June 1, 2016 at 1:50 am | Permalink

    GamerGate won every battle but lost the war.

  19. Mike
    Posted June 1, 2016 at 7:20 am | Permalink

    Well thats opened a Pandoras Box of perceived “hate speech” let the fun begin.

  20. Cindy
    Posted June 1, 2016 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    From Atheism+, a safe space where speech can be curtailed based on the subjective feelz of some of the most-oppresed, most speshul-snowflake participants:

    I haven’t posted to this site in several years but I’ll miss it. I found A+ to be one of the most useful and the most frustrating sites I ever posted to. I think that the reason that the site is getting less and less posts is because of what the business world calls barriers to entry. When the site was first set up most of the people who joined shared the same views and history. They had discussed this with each other so much that they developed their own set of rules that worked well for them. When they set the site up, the place was overrun with trolls. Certain discussions became toxic for good reason. But the problem is that a huge set of unwritten rules developed. Newcomers, even ones that had been interested in social justice for many years didn’t know all of the rules. Fewer and fewer new members join. Established members got bored with rehashing things over and over.

    I was referred to a site that talked about issues for trans people a few days ago. The site said that the terms should be spelled trans women, trans men, and trans people without the spaces. They said that spelling it without the spaces is very insulting. When I came here, I see the words spelled without the spaces in many places. Once you get past the basics, different SJ sites have different rules and different things are considered very insulting. It can be difficult to remember all the rules for all of the different sites, especially for people like myself who have a disability.

    When I posted here I learned a lot. I also found that this place was one of the least safe places I’ve ever posted to. I’ve had places that called me names, but this is one of the few places that gave me nightmares. I never had a clue what would insult people and it was impossible to look up. Most of the things were not in the facts, couldn’t be googled and were radically different than other SJ websites. I once really insulted and hurt someone by saying (Not a quote) that people who really loved each other usually enjoy pleasing their partner(s). It was a general comment not directed at any individual. I am an empathetic man who really doesn’t like hurting people. My nickname is scenario because I always try to look at every issue from as many different angles as I can. I want to try to put myself in others people shoes even though I know that I really cannot. I found that anything I said, no matter how basic or noncontroversial could be considered hurtful at this site. I began to doubt myself too much so I had to stop posting.


    A space is not ‘safe’ when you can be attacked for simply *opening your mouth* because some people find any and all speech to be offensive.

  21. Posted June 1, 2016 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

    Today, a genius move like this, and tomorrow, someone will again wonder why EU voters increasingly turn to far-right parties.

  22. JMW
    Posted June 3, 2016 at 3:44 am | Permalink

    Facebook has a policy on dealing with requests for data or personal details which involves court orders etc.
    These companies have formerly been very unhelpful to the authorities in revealing data or taking action. They have protected their members above and beyond.

    So this is a considerable about face. It doesn’t just involve removing web sites or posts, it allows the EU the use of these media to propagate its own message.

    And one wonders why and especially if they are so resistant to the pleadings of the US government agencies, a democracy, why have they rolled over so completely for the EU which is a nascent totalitarian regime?
    This is the regime which dislikes criticism of its self.
    “THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties.” (Daily telegraph March 2001)

    This is the thin end of a wedge which will ultimately not only suppress free speech and criticism of the EU but expose the posters to the full wrath of the EU.
    It will start with the obvious terror sites but quickly morph (mission/message creep) to anything the EU considers undesirable.


    I am reminded of the irony in Microsoft’s terms and conditions which open with “Your Prvacy is important to us” and the following new terms allow Microsoft to violate our privacy in every possible way and these terms also apply to skype. Tried logging into the skype website using your skype login recently? You now need your windows account and that means agreeing to the terms and conditions.

    So why? We were once the clients, the source of revenue. SO why has Microsoft given away so many millions of free copies of Win 10 (which is now classified as a recommended update which allows it to install whether you want it or not and simply clicki8ng the X in the top corner of the popup instead of rejecting is now considered to accept the installation)? each is worth £99. That’s a lot of money.
    The reason can only be “Big Data”.
    We are a cash crop and this deal with the EU presumably has something in it for the microsofts and Googles.
    My guess is that the EU will not take any action on bringing the data protection act up to date, will do nothing to interfere with the way in which the dotcoms exploit their users, will do nothing to help protect our privacy. Nothing that will affect the value of “Big Data”.

  23. Gayle
    Posted June 6, 2016 at 5:44 am | Permalink

    As usual, nothing about misogyny.

One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] companies before corporate imperialism takes over their sovereignty. And unsurprisingly, the EU doesn’t give a damn about the nuances of our […]

%d bloggers like this: