How the EU set up a private-public forum to censor the Internet – and denied EDRi access to documents, as it would expose the bureaucracy’s »decision-making process«.
Which pretty much is the whole idea. You should not have extrajudicial censorship, especially not without democratic accountability.
EDRi: The tale of the fight for transparency in the EU Internet Forum »
The debate on »fake news« might be new to some. But for us who are activist when it comes to a free and open internet, privacy and civil rights – this is what we have been fighting for a very long time.
Governments strive towards »total information awareness« has always been excused with e.g. the war on terror, the war on drugs, child protection, fighting organized crime and national security.
The same arguments – and some other, like hate speech – have been used to restrict free speech and freedom of information.
Then we have the corporatist battle over copyright vs. the Internet – sacrificing a global, free flow of information to save outdated business models.
When activists find out and go public, the reaction from politicians and bureaucrats is normally that we have got it all wrong. But the swarm is resourceful, and often we find some sort of a smoking gun. In a few cases, we manage to stop what is going on (like ACTA). In some cases, we manage to change details (like the EU telecoms package). But normally we loose. Then the proposals become law. And most things we warned people about is actually happening.
Told you so.
(In some very rare cases – like EU data retention – the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights objects strongly enough to stop what is happening in its’ tracks.)
Today the concept of total information awareness is a reality in countries like the U.S., the U.K., and France. In Germany, it has just been legalized.
And after decades of legal battles, it seems as if Big Entertainment is getting closer to having the Internet Service Providers to police the Internet – leading to extrajudicial filtering and censorship without the possibility to redress.
During the processes leading up to all of this – politicians and bureaucrats have labeled resistance as delusions and activists as tin foil hats. Doing so, they have managed to keep their plans under the radar, away from the public eye and the media. Until it’s too late.
I have seen lots of disinformation, faked news, and cover-ups trough the years. It has been used by politicians, governments, and special interests – forcing their restrictions on our free and open internet, undermining a democratic society and disturbing the free market.
The concept of fake news might have become a bit more obvious lately – but it is nothing new. The only reason it’s such a big thing at the moment is that it has been used by others than governments, mainstream politicians, bureaucrats and special business interests.
/ HAX
Bad journalism and propaganda have plagued publishing and governments for thousands of years. Donald Trump’s violently-adversarial relationship with facts and Vladimir Putin’s warehouses full of paid internet trolls have simply taken the conversation to an entirely new level in the internet age. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that many of the folks who believe they can somehow legislate this problem away may be doing more harm than good.
Milo Yiannopoulos Press Conference
https://youtu.be/ABJo7w-efTA
PewDiePie: My Response
https://youtu.be/lwk1DogcPmU
https://youtu.be/UqrcXtGalF4
“However, there is one right that young people are less keen on extending to others: the right to say what you want. Overall, fewer than half of those polled agreed that people should be allowed to express non-violent opinions even if they offend minorities. In Britain and Germany, for instance, only 46% and 48% did.
The right to free speech is not absolute, as anyone who shouts “fire” in a crowded theatre will soon discover. At the same time, the recent polling data bolster the view that today′s youth are embracing a right not to be offended, which threatens to squelch necessary debate. Time will tell whether this group starts to dedicate itself to winning arguments rather than to preventing them from occurring.”
The Economist: Young people and free speech »
A Hamburg court Friday barred a TV comedian from reciting in full his so-called “defamatory poem” against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan which sparked a diplomatic row last year. (…)
The Hamburg civil court, upholding a ruling from last May, barred Böhmermann from repeating lengthy passages of the poem, objecting to 18 of its 24 lines.
The Local.de: Hamburg court bans large parts of poem insulting Erdogan »
Techcrunch: Twitter rolls out changes to silence abuse on its service »
BBC: Twitter rolls out new anti-abuse tools »
The Next Web: Twitter is rolling out three new ways to manage abusive tweets and users »
Many people fear the new U.S. president, Donald Trump. They might be right. Or not. But I think that we might oversimplify this issue.
Yes, Mr. Trump has the image of a despot. But it might be dangerous to judge a book by its’ cover. Not that we should »underestimate« Trump – but because it might lead to a false sense of security in other cases.
Presidents Bush and Obama were the ones expanding the Surveillance State that has now been handed over to the new administration. Their responsibility is immense. And the way they themselves used mass surveillance justifies very strong criticism.
In Europe, democratically elected leaders are rolling out the most massive mass surveillance regime in history. May in the UK, the »Großkolaition« in Germany and the French – they are all creating tools that can very easily be used to oppress the people. This even goes for countries with strong(ish) democratic and human rights credentials, like Sweden.
The EU is setting up the first major system for selective censorship of the Internet. And it’s being done outside the democratic process and institutions, outside the rule of law.
There is every reason to closely watch what the new U.S. administration is up to. But there are equally strong reasons to watch what is going on in the rest of the western world, under the cloak of parliamentary democracy.
It’s not just about what first meets the eye, but what is being done.
/ HAX
Blocking a website is like trying to stop lots of trucks from delivering a banned book; it requires an infrastructure of technical tools (things like China’s “Great Firewall”), and enterprising users can often find a way around it. Banning an app from an app store, by contrast, is like shutting down the printing press before the book is ever published. If the app isn’t in a country’s app store, it effectively doesn’t exist. The censorship is nearly total and inescapable.
NYT » Clearing Out the App Stores: Government Censorship Made Easier »
