-
Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Censorship's got a foot in the door:
Anti-terror censorship: France blocks 5 sites without court order
Published time: March 17, 2015 04:02 Get short URL
Islamic-news.info visitors are redirected to a warning
France has blocked five websites suspected of condoning terrorism and spreading hate speech, marking the first usage of new anti-terrorism powers approved by parliament last year that allow such bans without court orders.
“I do not want to see sites that could lead people to take up arms on the Internet,” French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said at a public meeting Monday.
“I make a distinction between freedom of expression and the spread of messages that serve to glorify terrorism. These hate messages are a crime,” he added. Internet service providers were given 24 hours to comply.
Among the sites that are being restricted is al-Hayat Media Center, accused of possible links with Islamic State militants, according to Cazeneuve. The ministry also says it plans to target “dozens” of other similar websites.
Internet service providers have been given 24 hours to take “all necessary measures to block the listing of these addresses” under the new rules introduced in November last year.
It is the first time the new powers have been put to use to block websites without going through a court with due diligence. Visitors to the sites are now redirected to a page from the French Interior Ministry, containing a warning graphic of a big red palm, reading “the contents...incites terrorism or justifies terror acts.”
France is still on high alert under Operation Sentinel which mobilized over 10,000 troops on French soil to protect 682 sensitive sites across the country including religious sites, railway stations, airports, and tourist attractions in the wake of a rise in religious tensions following Charlie Hebdo attacks in January.
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
yep, censorship is inevitable, its the biggest threat to the best kept secrets and power. False flase terror attacks, coming somewhere near you soon, will be blamed on social media sites.
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Quote:
“I do not want to see sites that could lead people to take up arms on the Internet,”
... with:
Quote:
These hate messages are a crime,”
My bet: "Quenelles" sites are soon to follow:
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
it's interesting to see how the gov't ignores its own mistakes and missteps and punishes the individual lol :(
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Back in 2000 I was amazed at how the internet was taking off and wondered when THEY would step in and control it. I knew it wouldn't be a free and open place for long. It lasted another 15 years (in the West, China stepped in quicker).
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
This is relevant for Americans.
THE INTERNATIONAL FORECASTER - Net “Neutrality,” or, How To Regulate the Internet to Thunderous Applause
by James Corbett
corbettreport.com
March 14, 2015
Everything is marketing. Observe.
Want to overturn basic protections from unlawful government searches and seizures? Just write some new laws and bundle them up in something called the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.” The media will universally and unquestioningly refer to it as the USA PATRIOT Act and you can paint any would-be detractors as disloyal terrorists. Bingo. Done.
Want to do damage control after the illegal surveillance activities of your National Security Agency have been revealed to the general public? Simple. Get some of the agency’s biggest critics in the House to forward a bill that promises to protect everyone from the illegal surveillance. Call it the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection and Online Monitoring Act” so everyone gets the idea that this about protecting USA FREEDOM. Then add a bunch of provisions during the passage of the bill that hardwire in all the worst surveillance abuses and make sure no one will ever be held accountable for them. No sweat. Done.
Want to implement total federal regulatory control over the internet? No problem. Just call it “Net Neutrality” and watch trendy internet activists blindly rally around the idea, even though they can’t read the actual laws underlying it. Piece of cake. Done.
For those who aren’t up on their lingo, “net neutrality” refers to a network (in this case, the internet) in which all data is treated equally. In practical terms, this means that your ISP can’t form a special deal with a big company like Netflix to let their data pass through the network more quickly (prioritizing traffic) or relegate other sites to an internet “slow lane” where data passes to users more slowly (throttling traffic). It also means that ISPs can’t interfere with traffic based on protocol (like when Comcast tried to block peer-to-peer file sharing), perform “deep packet inspection” to censor certain types of data (like that employed in the national censorship schemes in Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Ethiopia, Iran and elsewhere), or favoring private networks (like Comcast did in a special deal with Microsoft).
Now let’s make one thing clear: net neutrality is a good thing for the average internet user and it’s only the real-life grinches at the cable companies or certain misguided libertarians who think that throttling won’t be used against them who argue otherwise. But it’s easy to get everyone (or basically everyone) to agree on the goal. It ends up being much more important how you get there.
Before we get into the specifics of the FCC regulation that has just radically transformed the ISP industry in the United States, let’s just take a moment to review who it is that is supposedly championing the little guy by implementing it.
wheelerFirstly we have Tom Wheeler, the current FCC Chairman. Even that bastion of truthiness Wikipedia has it right when it describes him as “an American businessman and politician” in that order and in that many words. He is the chairman of the FCC, and, as such, the “defender of the public interest” entrusted with regulating the cable companies and telecoms. So what did he do before becoming FCC Chairman? Oh, that’s right, he’s the former President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and the former CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. Yes, the man who has presided over the most significant regulatory framework ever imposed on the internet in the history of the United States is a lifelong lobbyist for the very industry he is supposedly regulating (the only ever double inductee of the Wireless Hall of Fame and the Cable Television Hall of Fame, no less).
But the regulatory plan that the FCC ultimately adopted wasn’t Wheeler’s. In fact, it was proposed by the Liar-in-Chief himself, Obama, last November. That’s right, the same man who was against warrantless wiretapping before he was for it. The same man whose second largest campaign donor was Goldman Sachs and who supported the bank bailouts from the get go. The same man who promised to close Guantanamo and promised not to appoint any lobbyists to his administration. The same man who oversees a secret presidential kill list that allows him to mark anyone on the planet (even American citizens) for death without so much as a court trial. But trust him on this one, guys. He’s got your back.
“But all of this is circumstantial,” the dear trusting internet activists will argue. “Show us the proof that these net neutrality rules aren’t what they say they are!” Would that it could have been refuted before it was voted on. Sadly, in an all-too-familiar repeat of the we-passed-the-PATRIOT-Act-without-reading-it syndrome and the “you’ll have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it” disease, the new FCC regulations, too, were held secret from the public until after the plan was voted on last month. It was finally published (all 400 pages of it) on the FCC’s website earlier this week, but before that all that was available was a five-page press release of fluffy rhetoric about “preserving the internet.” In other words: “Trust us. Have we ever lied to you?”
So what did the FCC actually do? It reclassified internet service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, as well as Title III of the same Act and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Previously, cable modem service and wireless broadband service had been classified under the far less regulated status of “information services” under Title I of the Communications Act. Now the FCC has the authority (even if it claims it won’t use it at the moment) to regulate the practices and agreements that ISPs engage in and even the rates which they charge their customers.
Or, translating from legalese gobbledygook: the internet is now classified by the U.S. government as a public utility and treated in the same way that the phone system was treated back in the days of Ma Bell. Yes, US ISPs are now subject to the same regulations that created the AT&T monopoly and arguably held back advancements in the telecommunications industry by half a century or more.
What does this mean?
It means that the US ISP industry is now in a “whack-a-mole” environment of uncertain regulations that will be subject to massive litigation for years to come.
It means that local, state and federal fees that apply specifically to Title II services will create billions of dollars in new charges that will be shunted on to American internet users.
It means that ISPs and wireless providers who are already struggling to break into a competition-adverse market will have an even harder time as a host of new legal roadblocks and pitfalls are placed in their way, and lawyers and consultants become necessary to ensure compliance with industry standard practices.
fccinternetBut most chillingly of all it means that any future bunch of FCC commissioners (or even this particular bunch if they so desire) will be able to wield broad powers to enforce vaguely-written rules over any service on the internet in any way they see fit. In effect, the keys to the future of the internet have just been handed over to the FCC, not just today, not just this group, but anyone who ever steps into that position. Ever.
And it’s not just fringe conspiracy theorists like me that think the FCC has just given itself far too much power to regulate the internet as it sees fit. Even the EFF, one of the main (Soros-funded) groups arguing for net neutrality in the first place wrote a letter to the FCC arguing against the vague, ominous “general conduct” provision that allows the FCC to regulate against anything it decides will cause “harm” to consumers or content providers. The clause is so nebulous as to allow any FCC Commission to effectively attempt to regulate against any practice, standard or company it wishes in the future.
Don’t worry, though, the FCC promises it won’t use most of the power its given itself…at this point. Just like Obama promised he wouldn’t use the indefinite detention clause in the 2012 NDAA. Just like Bush promised all that NSA wiretapping business was above board and legal. Go on, trust them. Has a politician ever lied to you?
Oh, and to top it all off the FCC slips this little gem into their new rule package: obligations for ISPs to conform to rules like the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act “could in some circumstances intersect with open Internet protections,” but don’t worry. “Most commenters recognize the benefits of clarifying that these obligations are not inconsistent with open Internet rules,” they insist. That’s probably because most commenters have no idea what CALEA is or how it hard wired backdoor access to the internet and telecom equipment two decades ago.
If the problem is the threat of an overly restricted internet, does anyone really think that the answer is another layer of government bureaucracy operating with a 400-page instruction manual to micromanage the most pervasive and free network ever devised using a carte blanche “general conduct” clause?
And if that isn’t the answer, is there an alternative way of ensuring net neutrality? One that doesn’t require government “regulation” by bought-and-paid for corporate lobbyists?
As a matter of fact, there is. It doesn’t take an economics professor to realize that the best way to ensure the consumer gets what he/she wants is to foster competition for services. In that regard, the average American household is stuck with, at best one or two major broadband providers, and has to take what they’re given…
radio…Unless, that is, they create their own competition. I’ve talked before on The Corbett Report about wireless mesh networking as an alternative to the existing internet backbone. Although this technology truly does offer the promise of an alternate infrastructure that evades the current NSA track-and-control matrix and could be configured to be as neutral (or not-neutral) as its users want, the idea of a wireless mesh network that could truly rival the scope and penetration of the existing internet is not realistic in the short term. In the meantime, though, mesh networking could still be used to harness an already untapped potential of available bandwidth: unlicensed spectrum, i.e. the wi-fi connections that remain locked away behind passwords by their owners. As Peter van Valkenburgh writes in a compelling Wired op-ed, the combination of bitcoin micropayments, traffic encryption, and peer routing could create a mesh network that would in effect be a ready-to-go competition to the broadband monopoly giants. In effect, a community of interest could set up its own broadband network by pooling together the resources of its constituent members. The best part about this plan? It’s the peer-to-peer economy at play in the process of providing peer-to-peer connections through a peer-to-peer network itself. Talk about Inception.
Of course, now that we have Title II regulation of the internet, the FCC could regulate that such community broadband efforts are against the interests of the public and thus impermissible. And so here we find ourselves yet again subject to the whims and fancies of a bunch of bureaucrats and their political puppetmasters.
Whatever else there may be to say about this subject, there’s at least one important lesson to take from this: everything is marketing. Just calling the wholesale regulation of the internet “net neutrality” made it possible in the first place. Perhaps the freedom movement can do some marketing of its own to sell the idea that freedom is the answer to every political question.
Anyone got a catchy slogan?
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Quote:
Posted by
Hervé
[...]
My bet: "Quenelles" sites are soon to follow:
How predictable:
French comedian sentenced for ‘condoning terrorism’ in FB post
Published time: March 19, 2015 00:06
Edited time: March 19, 2015 04:57 Get short URL
Amid a crackdown on hate speech and “condoning terrorism” online, a French court has handed out a two-month suspended prison sentence to prominent comedian and political activist Dieudonne over a Facebook post in the wake of Charle Hebdo attack.
The 49-year-old Dieudonne M’bala M’bala, or simply Dieudonne has been convicted for being “an apologist for terrorism” over a Facebook post he made following attacks in France that killed 17 people.
“I feel like Charlie Coulibaly,” he wrote in a coined phrase on Facebook on January 11, four days after the Charlie Hebdo attack, allegedly making a mockery of the slogan “Je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie) a global rallying cry against extremism. The second part of the phrase mimicked the name of Amedy Coulibaly, the gunman who killed four people at a Paris kosher supermarket.
Prosecutor Annabelle Philippe argued that Dieudonne is guilty of presenting “in a favourable light the acts committed by Amedy Coulibaly.”
“The feeling of hostility towards the Jewish community that Dieudonne kept up in front of a public attracted by his charisma increases his responsibility,” the court argued. The prosecution was seeking a harsher sentence of up to 7 years in prison and a potential 100,000 euro ($106,000) fine.
Dieudonne, who was not present at court during the sentencing on Wednesday, was also fined €30,000 ($35,000), which, if not paid, will result in a prison term.
According to French daily, 20minutes, Dieudonne argued in court on January 28 and February 4 that he has condemned the Charlie Hebdo attacks “without restraint and without any ambiguity.” Dieudonne also claimed at the hearing that he wished to participate in the march in Paris against the extremism, but the Interior Ministry had requested that he be “excluded” and treated as a “terrorist.”
The comic’s case was the most prominent case of several dozen investigated in France in connection to hate speech and allegations of “condoning terrorism.”
The comedian is known for his extreme right views and has been credited with inventing a hand gesture called the “quenelle,” interpreted by many as an inverted Nazi-like salute. He had previously been found guilty seven times for slander or anti-Semitic statements. A Paris court has also recently banned the sale of a DVD featuring Dieudonne on the grounds that it is anti-Semitic, condones the Holocaust and “collaboration with the enemy”.
Amid fierce debates in France over whether the authorities are guilty of double standards on freedom of speech, France blocked five websites suspected of condoning terrorism and spreading hate speech earlier in March. It marked the first usage of new anti-terrorism powers approved by parliament last year that allow such bans without court orders.
France is still on high alert under Operation Sentinel which mobilized over 10,000 troops on French soil to protect 682 sensitive sites across the country including religious sites, railway stations, airports, and tourist attractions in the wake of a rise in religious tensions following the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January.
Read more
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
And here in South Africa, they have an even more novel approach.
Bear in mind that 65% of South African households have NO access to the Internet, and of the 35% that do, only 10% have Internet access from home (Other access points are from work, educational institutions, or Internet cafes)
From Right2Know:
Quote:
The Right2Know Campaign calls on the public to reject the Film and Publications Board’s (FPB) proposals to censor the internet in South Africa. The FPB wants
broadly defined powers to police everything published on the Internet – including blogs, personal websites and Facebook pages.
The Right2Know Campaign demands that the Film and Publications Board to scrap the
Draft Online Regulation Policy document gazetted on Wednesday, 4 March 2015. The FPB must desist from any attempt to exercise pre-publication censorship of Internet content...
According to the document,
anyone wishing to publish or distribute content will have to first apply for a digital publisher’s online distribution agreement with the FPB, which will require a subscription fee. Once paid, the publisher would have to submit the content to the FPB for classification prior to publishing. This effectively is a specific form of pre-publication censorship, which is not acceptable.
Moreover, the
time spent on the pre-classification of content would undermine one of the most valuable traits of the internet – its immediacy. There is also a very real threat that in the future, organisations lacking in resources and unable to afford costly subscription fees, such as community-oriented news outlets and civil society groups, will be severely hampered by the unnecessarily bureaucratic regulations envisioned by the FPB. These online media outlets provide a valuable contribution to the diversity of the South African media landscape. The FPB draft regulations will disenable this diversity.
Worryingly, the regulations would allow the FPB to “
dispatch classifiers to the distributors’ premises for the purposes of classifying digital content.".
Full article: #HandsOffOurInternet!
If this actually goes through, I will not be able to post anything to the Internet anywhere anymore, as I am not prepared to pay an already ragingly corrupt government ONE CENT towards my own censorship.
Only in South Africa, where you pay them to censor you. :tape:
You gotta admit, Avalonians, that's pretty hard to beat! :rolleyes:
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
I am in Canada and I am having a lot of trouble using my more controversial sites and no trouble using the usual sites. I am unable to use my seen.is page at all, the CTM page at seen.is I can not use either, when I log onto Caravan To Midnight all the weird stuff starts there too! Other sites I get the ERROR message, site does not exist etc. even though I know they are still there. Some books I perused and went back to purchase just disappeared altogether like they do not exist. I ordered a perfectly legit item from a U.S. supplier and was put on the DEA suspect list, this came first hand to me via the RCMP who have since dealt with that for me. Apparently freedom is over even in the mundane day to day things I/we do.
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
It continues
I use Google, Bing, whatever, go to the usual news sites, local weather etc, all is well. Then I go to Beforeitsnews, seen.is, CTM, etc, my computer screen cuts in and out, slows down, locks up, becomes totally unusable.
Example:
I tried to open a page on Jade Helm, WAM, everything locks up. I have to not only shut down (if possible) but also unplug the computer from the wall power source. I come to Project Avalon, no problem. :confused:
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Whenever I have tried to log in to PA while using google chrome, unlike Firefox or Internet Explorer, it has not let me in.
GoogleChrome blocks Project Avalon with the caption "unsafe site" and it will simply not navigate to the log in page.
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
I have not the bandwidth to watch this yet (I have to wait for next month for more quota), but this looks like a very relevant and pertinent discussion to this thread, with some impressive participants.
Topic: Big Brother out of control
Sacha Stone and Paul Seils from New Earth Nation spoke with:
Foster Gamble (Creator and producer of the THRIVE movie)
Noam Chomsky (MIT Linguistics professor and political commentator)
Paul Craig Roberts (author, economist and former Assistant Treasury Secretary in the Reagan Administration)
Max Igan (Australian filmmaker and radio host)
Pippa King (advocate for protecting children from in-school bio metric invasion of privacy)
Gerald Celente (founder of the astoundingly accurate Trends Journal)
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Thanks !
Would like to hear peoples opinions on Foster Gamble; I did watch all of THRIVE, but was left with idea that, as a Multi (Billion... ) -Millionaire, he and the Missus, have jumped on a very nice, lucrative bandwagon ?
As Stalin pointed out, best way to Control opposition , is to lead it............ I cannot put my finger on it, it's a little like trusting Mr. Farage, with dismantling government and Banksters....
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
To any and all who follow(ed) this thread, see this other one for the why behind all these connections difficulties:
Is the deprecation of insecure HTTP an attack on alternative media?
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Africa's Worst New Internet Censorship Law Could be Coming to South Africa
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Defending your rights in the digital world
May 21, 2015 | By Jeremy Malcolm
Quote:
Only once in a while does an Internet censorship law or regulation come along that is so audacious in its scope, so misguided in its premises, and so poorly thought out in its execution, that you have to check your calendar to make sure April 1 hasn't come around again. The Draft Online Regulation Policy recently issued by the Film and Publication Board (FPB) of South Africa is such a regulation. It's as if the fabled prude Mrs. Grundy had been brought forward from the 18th century, stumbled across hustler.com on her first excursion online, and promptly cobbled together a law to shut the Internet down. Yes, it's that bad.
But don't just take our word for it—read some of its provisions for yourself. First, the regulation applies, in the first instance, to films and games (regardless of subject matter), as well as to publications containing certain loosely-described forms of sex, violence and hate speech.
Full article can be read here.
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Quote:
Posted by
Ioneo
Want to implement total federal regulatory control over the internet? No problem. Just call it “Net Neutrality” and watch trendy internet activists blindly rally around the idea, even though they can’t read the actual laws underlying it. Piece of cake. Done.
Censorship of the internet has arrived and we have not even witnessed the tip of the iceberg. Over the coming months and years, we will start to feel and see the impact of net neutrality laws in both Europe and the USA.
Regulating the Internet as a public utility is a terrible mistake. The Internet is full of possibilities we haven’t even imagined yet. Leave it to politicians and bureaucrats to believe they are smart enough to control something as dynamic and ever-changing as the Internet. Politicians fear what they can't control, especially the flow of information. Most politicians have learned over years to view catastrophic events as opportunities to pass unpopular legislation. These new laws and regulations (many passed under public duress) ensure that only the big boys with enough money can play in the game, exactly as pubic utilities have been setup. It is much easier to control a handful of big companies with money than thousands of small companies just trying to start up and succeed.
As these internet laws and regulations unfold and morph into what the government wants I am afraid they will become a very popular topic on Avalon..............that is if Avalon is "allowed" to continue.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Microsoft threatens to take down Gab:
Attachment 38705
And so it continues...
MM
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Quote:
Posted by
Hervé
My bet: "Quenelles" sites are soon to follow:
Good old Mr. Shoahnanas. :bigsmile:
I'm not really a fan of EU immigration policies as a whole, inasmuch as they follow the Kalergi Plan, but in this case you guys found a real gem. Congrats. :)
"Tu me prends par la Shoah, je te prends par l'ananas…." I laugh every time.
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Soros' Role in Social Media Censorship
August 26, 2018
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...eaked-document
Leaked document
http://theduran.com/leaked-49-page-m...ia-censorship/
Media Matters founder, David Brock, working at Soros behest.
MM
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
This is troubling on so many levels.
It is with the tools that we have, and created over time, that we owe our existence here on this planet. Whether it be the tool of communicating to alert others to danger, or the tools to build our homes, or the tools or weapons we create to protect ourselves.
The "Tool" of the day is open communications across boundaries, or the internet... When society gets to the point where they take away ANY of the tools of the day.. That we face a serious issue as a whole...
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Quote:
Posted by
Ioneo
Anyone got a catchy slogan?
"Just can't wait for Neural Lace and The Neural Net!"
NOT
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Quote:
Posted by
Michelle Marie
Original source, tells a little about the meeting it came from - Read the Confidential David Brock Memo Outlining Plans to Attack Trump (Jan 26, 2017).
* * *
For a broader look at Soros’ worldwide network of influence and how he does it...
DCLEAKS WEBSITE DOWN, TWITTER SUSPENDED AFTER RELEASING SOROS DOCS (Aug 27, 2016).
The Soros section of DCLeaks is still gone and their Twitter is still suspended but The Wayback Machine captured 6,838 URLs for that domain, HERE’s the list (give it a few moments to load).
For example, here’s a sample: US Sourcing and Grantmaking Practicalities, copyrighted by OSI (Soros is founder and chair).
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
No wonder our two "primary" TV Stations for "NEWS" (aka TV1 & TV3 and their subsidiaries) are so anti-Trump, basically parroting everything the Fakestream media tell them to - guess who "runs" them here in NZ? :facepalm:
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Quote:
Posted by
Rachel
A couple of more resources for information on Soros influence...
From sorosfiles.com, Open Society Institute (OSI) Top 150 Grantees (2011).
From discoverthenetworks.org, Organizations Funded Directly by George Soros and his Open Society Foundations.
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
EU in 'final stages' of crafting bill forcing big tech censorship
Joseph Jankowski Planet Free Will
Wed, 05 Sep 2018 13:36 UTC
https://www.sott.net/image/s24/48707...eech_800x4.jpg
EU Commissioner in charge of Justice, Consumers and gender equality, Věra Jourová , speaks at a news conference on a second monitoring of the illegal online hate speech code of conduct in Brussels, Belgium, 1 June 2017. © Olivier Hoslet/EPA
The European Union is in the final stages of crafting legislation that will force big tech and internet companies to censor "extremist" content and cooperate with law enforcement, Reuters reports.
The bill is expected to be released by the end of the month and will absolutely require companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter to swiftly remove any content considered terroristic from their platforms.
In March, the European Commission told such companies that they had three months to show they were removing "extremist" content more rapidly or face legislation forcing them to do so.
EU recommendations were sent out at the time regarding the speedy removal of all content including terrorist content, incitement to hatred and violence, child sexual abuse material, counterfeit products, and copyright infringement.
The threat eventually led to the creation of an online "code of conduct" aimed at fighting racism and xenophobia across Europe, an effort both the EU and big tech collaborated on.
According to European Justice Commissioner Vera Jourova, that an existing code of conduct to counter hate speech could remain voluntary.
"(But on) terrorist content, we came to the conclusion that it is too serious a threat and risk for European people that we should have absolute certainty that all the platforms and all the IT providers will delete the terrorist content and will cooperate with law enforcement bodies," Jourova said on Wednesday.
"Yes, this is in the final stage," she added, addressing the new bill.
While details of the new legislation remain hidden, the Financial Times in August learned that law enforcement will be in charge of flagging content for censorship.
EU security commissioner Julian King also had mentioned last month that the bill will "likely" turn the agreed upon "code of conduct" into mandatory law, placing the prediction by Jourova that it will remain voluntary on shakey grounds.
The big tech - EU code of conduct establishes "public commitments" for tech companies, including the requirement to review the "majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech" in less than 24 hours. It was also crafted to make it easier for law enforcement to notify firms directly of any unwanted content.
Within the code is a narrow explanation of "hate speech," being defined as "all conduct publicly inciting 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."
The nature of enforcing censorship based on a narrow and subjective term such as "hate speech" is likely to keep suspicions high that these types of decision aren't about creating a safer world, but rather a world in which superstates like the EU control the content people see online for political purposes.
Related:
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
EU approves controversial Copyright Directive, including internet 'link tax' and 'upload filter'
James Vincent The Verge
Wed, 12 Sep 2018 07:12 UTC
The European Parliament has voted in favor of the Copyright Directive, a controversial piece of legislation intended to update online copyright laws for the internet age.
The directive was originally rejected by MEPs in July following criticism of two key provisions: Articles 11 and 13, dubbed the "link tax" and "upload filter" by critics. However, in parliament this morning, an updated version of the directive was approved, along with amended versions of Articles 11 and 13. The final vote was 438 in favor and 226 against.
The fight is far from finished
The fallout from this decision will be far-reaching, and take a long time to settle. The directive itself still faces a final vote in January 2019 (although experts say it's unlikely it will be rejected). After that it will need to be implemented by individual EU member states, who could very well vary significantly in how they choose to interpret the directive's text.
The most important parts of this are Articles 11 and 13. Article 11 is intended to give publishers and papers a way to make money when companies like Google link to their stories, allowing them to demand paid licenses. Article 13 requires certain platforms like YouTube and Facebook stop users sharing unlicensed copyrighted material.
Critics of the Copyright Directive say these provisions are disastrous. In the case of Article 11, they note that attempts to "tax" platforms like Google News for sharing articles have repeatedly failed, and that the system would be ripe to abuse by copyright trolls.
Article 13, they say, is even worse. The legislation requires that platforms proactively work with rightsholders to stop users uploading copyrighted content. The only way to do so would be to scan all data being uploaded to sites like YouTube and Facebook. This would create an incredible burden for small platforms, and could be used as a mechanism for widespread censorship. This is why figures like Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee came out so strongly against the directive.
The Copyright Directive is set to reshape the internet globally
However, those backing these provisions say the arguments above are the result of scaremongering by big US tech companies, eager to keep control of the web's biggest platforms. They point to existing laws and amendments to the directive as proof it won't be abused in this way. These include exemptions for sites like GitHub and Wikipedia from Article 13, and exceptions to the "link tax" that allow for the sharing of mere hyperlinks and "individual words" describing articles without constraint.
In remarks following the vote in Parliament this morning, MEP Axel Voss, who has led the charge on Articles 11 and 13, thanked his fellow politicians "for the job we have done together." "This is a good sign for the creative industries in Europe," said Voss. Opposing MEPs like Julia Reda of the Pirate Party described the outcome as "catastrophic."
Despite these disagreements, what's clear is that if the Copyright Directive receives final approval by the European Parliament in January, it will have a huge, disruptive impact on the internet, both in the European Union and around the world. Exactly how the legislation will be interpreted will be up to individual nations, but the shift in the balance of power is clear: the web's biggest tech companies are losing their grip on the internet.
--------------------------------------------------
SOTT Comment: But it's far from only the web's biggest tech companies that will suffer under these draconian new rules. This will fundamentally change how people are able to use the internet, and it's hard to see any positives. Far from being an empowering platform on which people are free to creatively express themselves, under these new rules, the internet could potentially become a limited platform that places overly restrictive limits on what one is able to publish. The only ones who benefit from these new rules will be big media monopolies. Essentially, they're trying to turn the internet into TV.
Related:
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Jim Stone's take on the above:
Europe to force tech giants to censor EVERYTHING
EVERYTHING, from memes to music to news will be outlawed
I had to make sure this was not from one of the alt media sites I shun before I posted it, because it is THAT outrageous, but this time it is real: Europe is going to force the tech giants to continuously scan all news the MSM or anyone else produces, all pictures the MSM or anyone else produces, all music, video, the whole 9 yards, and then cross check that text and video and pictures against what people are uploading. If it matches what anyone else uploaded it will be blocked from uploading.
The direct goal is to stop things from going viral on the web, and getting out of control of the powers that be. If the tech giants detect the same text, only the original copy will be allowed to exist. No more viral E-mails, because they will all be scanned and if they are duplicates of one someone else is sending, adios.
Most likely this is being done to stop social movements that are related to exiting the EU or stopping mass immigration. They want any "information disasters" to be contained within small clusters of people and for all information networking to stop, unless it comes from an official source, and is the original copy.
They do not want re-posts of MSM reports, because when people re-post they are able to put their own commentary along with the report and undermine it. Most likely, for all appearances, the material will be "allowed to post" and then be shadow banned, so people don't realize they have been silenced.
I have more detail above than what is in this CNBC report because I have been paying attention to this for a while.
The law behind all of this is stated to "protect original content developers" but the problem is, for example, that even though this web site says right on it that anything on it can be posted by anyone anywhere, the filters that will be put in place will automatically detect a duplicate and prevent anyone from re-posting, with permission or not. They will probably manage special tokens for sites like AP to make sure those reports can exist on multiple MSM outlets at the same time, but as for the rest of us, ADIOS.
NO MORE:
- Viral cop beating videos,
- evidence leaking out and spreading everywhere,
- loss of control of the official narrative,
WHO CARES if only 50 people see Aunt Judy's cat trick, Aunt Judy, a stolen child, and a frazzledrip expose' can just go to hell, "we" dont want that, we are in control, and you will see what we desire you to see and NOTHING ELSE.
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
How are they going to handle things already up, like this forum? In other words, is it going to retroactively delete things on here which aren't "original"?
I remember reading a post by Bill which basically said it would get to the point we could only talk about ourselves and nothing else. Will cutting and pasting work?
I can't believe we have gotten to this point. :facepalm:
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Quote:
Posted by
Hervé
The direct goal is to stop things from going viral on the web, and getting out of control of the powers that be.
The best and most concise article I've seen on this yet.
It could even be reduced to the above selection.
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Why do the Big Tech Co's have to obey the EU? Is that why Apple went to China? You can tell I am clueless! :sun:
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Quote:
Posted by
Foxie Loxie
Why do the Big Tech Co's have to obey the EU? Is that why Apple went to China? You can tell I am clueless! :sun:
They do if they want to operate there, Foxie. So, we're caught in the net with the rest of the fish. Everyone in EU countries are using the big tech companies just like we are.
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
It is time to create similar to facebook and all else, located in small countries, to avoid censorship.
Incredible, the banana republic small countries may become the free ones while they often have been dictatures. And Europe and North America are becoming the thought dictatures as China already is v
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Quote:
Posted by
Foxie Loxie
Why do the Big Tech Co's have to obey the EU? Is that why Apple went to China? You can tell I am clueless! :sun:
Because when dealing with EU sites and material, they have to abide by the EU rules.
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
The EU Internet legislation even tried to ban selfies with copyrighted objects in the background, and crowd photos of sports events !
A report on the Alex Jones Show (5 minutes)
MP3
https://app.box.com/s/5im2gf0m4mkg48jpl9d97llebipub9eu
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
France and Germany just cut a deal to save the EU's appalling #CopyrightDirective -- and made it much, much worse
Cory Doctorow BoingBoing
Tue, 05 Feb 2019 17:15 UTC
The EU's on-again/off-again Copyright Directive keeps sinking under its own weight: on the one side, you have German politicians who felt that it was politically impossible to force every online platform to spend hundreds of millions of euros to buy copyright filters to prevent a user from infringing copyright, even for an instant, and so proposed tiny, largely cosmetic changes to keep German small businesses happy; on the other side, you have French politicians who understand that the CEOs of multinational entertainment companies won't stand for any compromise, or even the appearance of compromise, and so the process fell apart.
That is until Chancellor Merkel and President Macron sat down to broker a deal, in which Merkel caved on every single measure that even looked like it might protect small businesses, co-operatives, nonprofits, and individuals, ending up with a deal that guarantees that every existing small platform will be destroyed and no new ones can be started, leaving Europe in the hands of US Big Tech -- forever.
Under the new deal, any platform where the public can communicate will have to buy copyright filters to intercept all public communications and compare them to a database of so-called "copyrighted works" (which anyone, anywhere, can add anything to), and then block anything that appears to be a match.
Not only will these cost hundreds of millions of euros to develop and maintain, they will also block mountains of legitimate speech -- speech that uses copyrighted works but falls under fair dealing, speech that is incorrectly identified as containing copyrighted works, speech that is deliberately suppressed by trolls, censors and frauds who deliberately claim ownership over works in the public domain, or works that other people hold the copyright to.
The "compromise" that Merkel has agreed to is this: platforms don't have to add the filters until they have been in business for three years, or until they make €10m in a single year. That means that every single existing online forum that has been in operation for three years or more must immediately buy filters, even if it's a small online community run by volunteers, or a commercial site with a tiny niche -- like this little, longstanding community for people who like to fish. Even Patreon -- which exists solely to get artists paid! -- would have to buy filters or pull out of Europe.
But it gets even worse: under the terms of this deal, once a platform makes €5,000,000 in a year, it will be obligated to implement "notice and staydown" -- that is, copyright filters by another name.
And it gets even worse: the new deal requires that every site, no matter how small, noncommercial, or public spirited, must demonstrate that it has taken 'best efforts' to license anything their users might conceivably upload, which means that any time a rightsholder offers you a license for content your users might use, you are obliged to buy it from them, at whatever price they name.
This is the end of the internet as we know it, and the beginning of an era in which all our communications, all our familial relations, political engagements, educational activities, employment-related work, romantic questing, everything, is subordinated to turning the internet into a cable TV system, where the only materials available are those that multinational entertainment corporations approve of. Remember when cable operators promised a digital future where "500 channel universe" of entertainment options were on tap? It's arrived. We just had to kill the web -- the "two billion channel universe" -- to get it.
All is not lost: the next step will be a rubber-stamp where national negotiators for EU member states approve the deal, and then it will go for a vote in the European Parliament, who will have the final say, right before they stand for re-election in European elections this May.
In other words, of all the times that a catastrophic plan could come before Parliament, this is the best (or the least-worst): the moment at which Parliamentarians are most sensitive to their constituents' wishes.
What's more, Europeans hate this: so much so that the petition opposing it is now the the largest petition in European history, and within spitting distance of being the largest petition in the history of the human race.
There's lots more to come on this, getting people to contact their MEPs ahead of the vote. This is a terrible state of affairs, but at least it is now so obviously, visibly terrible that it's gotten a lot easier to explain to people on the sidelines. Mobilise your friends and family now: the future of our planetary-scale, species-wide electronic nervous system is at stake.
Related:
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
My hope is that the EU internet grab is their final move before the people wake up to them and reject them completely.
What this move means is that a huge number of NEW people will wake up and be very angry. People who, until now, have had nothing to do with conspiracy theories and tin foil hat people.
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Censorship is the worst human invention ever, and memes are the best. That's why they want to ban them.
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
European Parliament passes controversial "meme ban" under cover of copyright law
Victor Tangermann Futurism
Thu, 14 Feb 2019 00:00 UTC
Copyright Directive
The doomsday clock is ticking for European internet users.
Last night, the European Parliament approved the final text of a controversial online copyright law that would force internet platforms to filter everything users upload for copyright - including memes - and charge news aggregators to link to news publications.
The move comes after months of adjustments to the Parliament's proposed Copyright Directive. Parliament members will gather for a final vote later this year.
Most contentious of all are two Articles included in the proposed Copyright Directive:
Article 11
This rule, dubbed the "link tax," would force news aggregators - including heavyweights like Google News - to get a license from news publishers and remunerate them for linking to their articles.
Parliament member Julia Reda, a prominent opponent of the new law, has argued that small publishers with less brand recognition could lose out - and that the law could boost fake news by discouraging the sharing of reputable news that would charge more.
Article 13
Arguably even more controversial is Article 13, which some publishers have called a "meme ban." This rule would force major platforms like YouTube to filter every single upload to prevent copyright infringement.
That could end up severely limiting the freedom of expression and could end up force big corporations to install monitoring and surveillance technology, Reda argued. It could also spell doom for meme culture, according to critics. "Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the Internet, from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users," inventor of the internet Tim Berners-Lee declared in an open letter.
Vague Text
Many critics of the Directive argue that the vague wording could allow for overreaching new rules that could restrict freedom of speech even further. The Parliament's answer: the memes will live on.
A lot is at stake for European internet users. The rules that govern what is and what isn't copyright infringement are already hard to discern - and this law could make it even more difficult.
Comment: While we still can...
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
Quote:
Posted by
Hervé
Parliament member Julia Reda, a prominent opponent of the new law, has
argued that small publishers with less brand recognition could lose out - and that the law could boost fake news by discouraging the sharing of reputable news that would charge more.
In my cynical view, the arguments that Reda presents will motivate the EU Parliament to vote in favor of this new legislation.
-
Re: Internet Censorship: So it continues...
I just recognized the other day - the destroying of the internet is going on and on.......everything is just totally mixed up.
It use to be easy to look for certain informations by just typing in one or two words into the search engine, but it is not llike this anymore. All kind stuff pops up now, which does not have anything to do with what you did typ in at the first place.
It is sad.
And youtube is getting ruined too...by adds and stuff. And they took of the subtitles section which use to be there for a setting tool. If you want a translation of something now - you have to make your own translation by a seperate translation tool.
This is all backwards by now - steps backwards insteed of forwards.
Back to more complicated and time wasting....not to talk about all the other manipulations and censorships they run on the net today......:frusty:
