HAX

Category: Censorship

  • Russia to make TOR and VPN illegal

    Yesterday, Friday, the Russian Duma held its first (of three) readings to adopt a law making use of TOR and VPN illegal.

    The plan is to make access to sites blocked by net censor authority Roskomnadzor illegal. And there are plenty of them.

  • Committee vote on EU Copyright: No to the censorship machine. Yes to link tax.

    Today the European Parliaments committee for the internal market (IMCO) has voted on the new EU copyright package.

    The »censorship machine« (demanding that net platforms and ISP:s should filter all user uploaded content) fell. This is a victory for a free and open Internet.

    (But still, the proposal is not quite dead. It can be re-tabled for the main vote in plenary.)

    However, the »link tax« (license fees for linking to mainstream media content) still stands.

    This terrible idea must be stopped in plenary!

    It ain’t over ’till the fat lady sings.

    Update » A more detailed report » IMCO Vote on Copyright in the DSM: crying tears of…? »

    Update 2 » Pirate MEP Julia Reda » 5 takeaways from the first important copyright reform vote in the European Parliament »

  • EU to move on the Internet Censorship Machine and Link-tax

    Next Thursday, June 8, the European Parliaments Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) will have its main vote on the EU Copyright Package.

    Here a proposal will be hammered out for the parliament’s final plenary vote later this summer. So it’s a very important event. And there are dark clouds on the horizon.

    Key points are the EU Censorship Machine (forcing internet platforms to control and, in relevant cases, censor content uploaded by its users) and the Link-tax (a license fee for linking to media news articles).

    This is the best – and maybe last – opportunity to stop this from becoming EU law.

    Take action, spread the word and please contact your elected members of the parliament.

    Julia Reda (German Pirate MEP): Just 9 days left to reject the worst version of EU copyright expansion plans yet »

    BoingBoing: ACT NOW! In 9 days, the European Parliament could pass a truly terrible copyright expansion »

  • G7 Group unite to limit free speech

    Dear all,

    Please take notice that the G7 meeting just decided to beef up censorship and control of the Internet.

    If you make censorship possible at all – sooner or later it will be used by sinister minds.

    Please – do not limit the freedom of speech. We cannot silence or put people in prison, simply because we do not agree with whatever they are saying. (Unless they are a direct threat to other people’s immediate security. And if so, only after a fair trial respecting fundamental human rights.)

    Giving Big Government and Big Data control over the freedom of the word – that must not happen.

    / HAX

  • EU member states pushing for video censorship and cultural protectionism

    In the EU, member states are pressing on for censorship of online video:

    European Union ministers have approved proposals to make social media companies such as Facebook, Twitter and Google’s YouTube tackle videos with hate speech on their platforms.

    The proposals, which would be the first legislation at EU level on the issue, still need to be agreed with the European Parliament before becoming law.

    And, under the same scheme, there is a totally unrelated proposal for cultural protectionism:

    The proposals also include a quota of 30 per cent of European films and TV shows on video streaming platforms such as Netflix and Amazon Prime Video.

    Member states will also be able to require video-sharing platforms to contribute financially to the production of European works in the country where they are established and also where they target audiences.

    Daily Mail: EU ministers approve plans to force Facebook, YouTube and Twitter to tackle hate speech videos »

  • Open letter to the EU on German »NetzDG «

    This bill asks social media companies to take down content, including perfectly legal material, that social media companies like Facebook can arbitrarily label as “hate speech”, “fake news”, “pornographic content”, among other categories. In addition, the draft law de facto imposes filtering of content, despite the fact that such technology cannot understand context and will, therefore, inevitably lead to still more legal content being deleted. The basic aim of the bill is, of course, well-intentioned. However, the way this bill is drafted appoints social media companies as arbiters of legality and “the truth”. Furthermore, this bill breaches EU law, which establishes that all restrictions to fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, must be provided for by law, necessary and proportionate (Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union). In addition, EU law also prohibits imposing general monitoring obligations on companies. If adopted, this unprecedented law would serve as a bad example for other states, including countries with serious democratic deficits.

    EDRi » EU action needed: German NetzDG draft threatens freedom of expression »

  • »Theresa May to shut down the internet as we know it«

    “Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet,” it states. “We disagree.”

    The Independent: Theresa May to Crete New Internet that would be Controlled and Regulated by Government »

    Pull the various tech-related manifesto pledges together and – if the polls are correct and May wins a majority in next month’s election – the Conservatives could have a mandate from the British public for a significant extension of internet regulation, all based on the idea that a government’s duty to protect citizens exists just as much on the internet as it does in the real world.

    Buzzfeed: Theresa May Wants To Regulate The Internet »

    “Balances” freedoms? Freedoms aren’t supposed to be “balanced.” They’re supposed to be supported and protected. And when you have your freedoms protected, that also protects users. Those two things aren’t in opposition. They don’t need to be balanced. As for “obligations for businesses and platforms” — those five words are basically the ones that say “we’re going to force Google and Facebook to censor stuff we don’t like, while making it impossible for any new platform to ever challenge the big guys.” It’s a bad, bad idea.

    Techdirt: Theresa May Plans To Regulate, Tax And Censor The Internet »

  • Where Facebook draws the red line

    From Facebooks content moderation guidelines:

    We aim to allow as much speech as possible but draw the line at content that could credibly cause real world harm. People commonly express disdain or disagreement by threatening or calling for violence in generally facetious and unserious ways.

    We aim to disrupt potential real world harm caused from people inciting or coordinating harm to other people or property by requiring certain details to be present in order to consider the treat credible. In our experience, it’s this detail that helps establish that a threat is more likely to occur.

    Ars Technica: Facebook content moderation guidelines leaked »

    The Guardian: Revealed: Facebook’s internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence »

  • Sweden, an Orwellian state

    Something remarkable happened in Sweden this week: a list of 15,000 people with the wrong political opinions was used to block those people from the @Sweden account, and thereby preventing these people from communicating over Twitter with that part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The government tried defending the block as only concerning neo-nazi right-wing extremists, which was a narrative that held water in legacy media until somebody pointed out that the Ambassador of Israel (!) was among the blocked.

    Falkvinge: What do you do when you realize your government has blocked you for Wrongthink? »

  • Is EU slowly killing the Internet?

    Article 13 (in the European Union’s draft Copyright Directive), fewer than 250 words, is designed to provoke such legal uncertainty that internet companies will have no option other than to block, filter and monitor our communications, if they want to have any chance of staying in business. Ultimately, only the current internet giants, shedding crocodile tears at the prospect, will be able to survive. From global internet to “Googlebook”.

    Joe McNamee, EDRi: Killing parody, killing memes, killing the internet? »