EU industry chief tells Facebook to adapt to EU, not other way round

[webfact]

EU industry chief tells Facebook to adapt to EU, not other way round

By Foo Yun Chee

 

Facebook Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg meets with European Commissioner for Values and Transparency Vera Jourova at the EU Commission headquarters in Brussels, Belgium February 17, 2020. REUTERS/Yves Herman

 

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - EU industry commissioner Thierry Breton said on Monday it was for Facebook to adapt to Europe's standards, not the other way round, as he criticized the U.S. social media giant's proposed internet rules as insufficient.

 

The blunt comments came after a short meeting with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and two days before Breton is due to present the first of a raft of rules to rein in U.S. tech giants and state-aided Chinese companies.

 

"It's not for us to adapt to this company, it's for this company to adapt to us," Breton, a former CEO at French telecoms provider Orange and French technology company Atos, told reporters after the meeting.

 

Zuckerberg had earlier told reporters he had a good, wide-ranging conversation with Breton.

 

Breton also said he would decide by the end of the year whether to adopt tough rules as part of the digital services act to regulate online platforms and set out their responsibilities.

 

He dismissed a discussion paper issued by Facebook on Monday that rejects what it calls intrusive regulations and suggests looser rules whereby companies would periodicially report content and publish enforcement data.

 

"It's not enough," Breton said, adding that Facebook had omitted any mention of its market dominance and also failed to spell out its responsibilities.

 

FORCE FOR GOOD OR BAD?

EU justice chief Vera Jourova, who also met Zuckerberg, was equally adamant on Facebook's role in the fight against online hate speech, disinformation and election manipulation.

 

"Facebook cannot push away all the responsibility. Facebook and Mr Zuckerberg have to answer themselves a question 'who do they want to be' as a company and what values they want to promote," she said in a statement.

 

"It will not be up to governments or regulators to ensure that Facebook wants to be a force of good or bad."

 

Breton will announce proposals on Wednesday aimed at exploiting the EU's trove of industrial data and challenging the dominance of Facebook, Google and Amazon. It will announce rules to govern the use of artificial intelligence too, which will also affect companies such as Facebook.

 

Referring to the possibility that the EU may hold internet companies responsible for hate speech and other illegal speech published on their platforms, Facebook in its discussion document said this ignored the nature of the internet.

 

It urged regulators to understand the capabilities and limitations of technology in assessing content and allow internet companies the flexibility to innovate.

 

Zuckerberg's visit came on the heels of visits by Alphabet Chief Executive Sundar Pichai and Microsoft President Brad Smith to Brussels last month.

 

(Reporting by Foo Yun Chee; Editing by Alison Williams and Gareth Jones)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-02-18

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Tippaporn]

Europe doesn't have a dictator.  It has an entire commission of dictators.  Must be maddening to be forcefully subjected to the diktats of unelected bureaucrats.

[ThaiBunny]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Europe doesn't have a dictator.  It has an entire commission of dictators.  Must be maddening to be forcefully subjected to the diktats of unelected bureaucrats.

Every modern government has laws that are enforced by unelected bureaucrats, often through their own regulations. These include the EPA, various commissions enforcing electoral laws, the FCC and so on

[FritsSikkink]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Europe doesn't have a dictator.  It has an entire commission of dictators.  Must be maddening to be forcefully subjected to the diktats of unelected bureaucrats.

"the EU may hold internet companies responsible for hate speech and other illegal speech published on their platforms, Facebook in its discussion document said this ignored the nature of the internet."

In Europe we condemn hate speech. Facebooks reaction that measures against is ignoring the nature of internet is laughable as they DO know how to delete a picture of a pair of tits. 

[JAG]

I wonder if I can see what is coming here? An "EU" browser, an EU " Facebook", an EU alternative to Google.

Setup at vast cost - funded by the EU of course as no commercial undertaking will go near it, controlled from Brussels. Just wait for the argument over whether it is to be in French ( cultural leaders) or German (we are paying): maybe they will alternate on a monthly basis?

 

Then the dawning realisation after the trumpeted inaugurations, (Beethoven Symphonies all round, blue flags everywhere, Ms Sturgeon demanding that she be allowed to play too - after all Tim Berners-Lee is known to have enjoyed a holiday in the Highlands) that no one is using it..

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by JAG

[damascase]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Europe doesn't have a dictator.  It has an entire commission of dictators.  Must be maddening to be forcefully subjected to the diktats of unelected bureaucrats.

Congratulations with a very clear demonstration of your total ignorance of the EU and the way it works.

[gargamon]

Good for the EU. Somebody needs to keep these internet monstrosities under control. They were the first to enforce some semblance of personal information privacy which is still lacking anywhere else. Now on to hate speech, white supremacy, etc. Keep it up.

[GeorgeCross]

and if they don't?

 

EU goes back to its people and says no facebook for you proles.

 

yeah, right 

 

 

[JonnyF]

The EU doesn't adapt. It doesn't negotiate. It dictates the rules, and then over-regulates. Which is why it will fail.

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, FritsSikkink said:

"the EU may hold internet companies responsible for hate speech and other illegal speech published on their platforms, Facebook in its discussion document said this ignored the nature of the internet."

In Europe we condemn hate speech. Facebooks reaction that measures against is ignoring the nature of internet is laughable as they DO know how to delete a picture of a pair of tits. 

When you have unelected bureaucrats deciding what is OK to say and think then you have failed as a society.

 

 

 

Next up, EU army enforces EU regulations on free speech and thought crime while Ode to Joy blares out of the loudspeakers ????.

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

"the EU may hold internet companies responsible for hate speech and other illegal speech published on their platforms, Facebook in its discussion document said this ignored the nature of the internet."

In Europe we condemn hate speech. Facebooks reaction that measures against is ignoring the nature of internet is laughable as they DO know how to delete a picture of a pair of tits. 

What is hate speech?  And who gets to decide?  Perhaps you'll think differently when your voice is targeted next.

 

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

Martin Niemöller

 

The idea of regulating speech is one held by people who do not yet understand the fundamental underlying and intrinsic nature of existence itself . . . freedom.  Regulating speech is an impossible task and can only lead to bad outcomes.  The idea of freedom for some is that it good for them and others like them but not for others.  George Orwell stated it succinctly:  "Some pigs are more equal than others."

 

I love the "in Europe we condemn hate speech" as if to imply that Europe speaks with one voice (yours).  That's not quite the state of reality.  LOL  So many misguided souls in my opinion.

 

Edit:  BTW, I am by no means a fan of FaceBook.  They do quite well censoring content they disapprove as it is.

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Tippaporn

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, JAG said:

I wonder if I can see what is coming here? An "EU" browser, an EU " Facebook", an EU alternative to Google.

Setup at vast cost - funded by the EU of course as no commercial undertaking will go near it, controlled from Brussels. Just wait for the argument over whether it is to be in French ( cultural leaders) or German (we are paying): maybe they will alternate on a monthly basis?

 

Then the dawning realisation after the trumpeted inaugurations, (Beethoven Symphonies all round, blue flags everywhere, Ms Sturgeon demanding that she be allowed to play too - after all Tim Berners-Lee is known to have enjoyed a holiday in the Highlands) that no one is using it..

 

To answer your question.

 

No, you obviously cannot see what’s coming here, so you filled in your blind spots with imagined ramblings.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, damascase said:

Congratulations with a very clear demonstration of your total ignorance of the EU and the way it works.

Sorry if I object to the concept of unelected bureaucrats.

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

What is hate speech?  And who gets to decide?  Perhaps you'll think differently when your voice is targeted next.

 

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

Martin Niemöller

 

The idea of regulating speech is one held by people who do not yet understand the fundamental underlying and intrinsic nature of existence itself . . . freedom.  Regulating speech is an impossible task and can only lead to bad outcomes.  The idea of freedom for some is that it good for them and others like them but not for others.  George Orwell stated it succinctly:  "Some pigs are more equal than others."

 

I love the "in Europe we condemn hate speech" as if to imply that Europe speaks with one voice (yours).  That's not quite the state of reality.  LOL  So many misguided souls in my opinion.

 

Edit:  BTW, I am by no means a fan of FaceBook.  They do quite well censoring content they disapprove as it is.

 

You seem not to understand the absurdity of quoting Niemöller in the context of Facebook and its ambivalence towards hate speech.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Sorry if I object to the concept of unelected bureaucrats.

Object to whatever you wish, you clearly don’t understand the topic of the thread, so trot out canned rightwing talking points.

[Rookiescot]

Think Twitter is far worse if I'm honest.

[JAG]

33 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

To answer your question.

 

No, you obviously cannot see what’s coming here, so you filled in your blind spots with imagined ramblings.

Parked our sense of  of humour and awareness of cynicism for the duration have we?

Edited February 18, 2020 by JAG

[JonnyF]

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You seem not to understand the absurdity of quoting Niemöller in the context of Facebook and its ambivalence towards hate speech.

The point is who gets to decide what's the "correct" opinion to have? An unelected EU official? No thanks.

 

These leftists trying to ban/deplatform any opinion that differs from their own is getting old.

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

23 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

What is hate speech?  And who gets to decide?  Perhaps you'll think differently when your voice is targeted next.

 

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

Martin Niemöller

 

The idea of regulating speech is one held by people who do not yet understand the fundamental underlying and intrinsic nature of existence itself . . . freedom.  Regulating speech is an impossible task and can only lead to bad outcomes.  The idea of freedom for some is that it good for them and others like them but not for others.  George Orwell stated it succinctly:  "Some pigs are more equal than others."

 

I love the "in Europe we condemn hate speech" as if to imply that Europe speaks with one voice (yours).  That's not quite the state of reality.  LOL  So many misguided souls in my opinion.

 

Edit:  BTW, I am by no means a fan of FaceBook.  They do quite well censoring content they disapprove as it is.

 

You seem not to understand the absurdity of quoting Niemöller in the context of Facebook and its ambivalence towards hate speech.

From your reply you seem to not understand my post in the least.  Are you one who embraces censorship?  The Niemöller quote is certainly apropos as it relates to the direction that censorship would take.  First it's hate speech, then it's conservative speech (as it is already happening), and next it's yours.  You wouldn't object to the censorship of hate speech and wouldn't speak out since you agree.  You wouldn't object to the censorship of conservative speech and wouldn't speak out since you're a lefty.  But you would object to the censorship of your ideas but by then it would be too late to object.  Too few voices left to object.

 

People have this strange idea that things in this world that one doesn't like or approve of must be completely eradicated.  Little do they understand that for one it's impossible and secondly it would defeat the entire purpose of this existence.  When, or if ever, you come to the understanding of those two points you will never embrace censorship of any kind.  For you will know the futility of it and you will know that it runs in direct contradiction to basis of life.

[Tippaporn]

44 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Object to whatever you wish, you clearly don’t understand the topic of the thread, so trot out canned rightwing talking points.

My talking points are neither left nor right but are the talking points of free men (and women) everywhere.

[Chomper Higgot]

45 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

From your reply you seem to not understand my post in the least.  Are you one who embraces censorship?  The Niemöller quote is certainly apropos as it relates to the direction that censorship would take.  First it's hate speech, then it's conservative speech (as it is already happening), and next it's yours.  You wouldn't object to the censorship of hate speech and wouldn't speak out since you agree.  You wouldn't object to the censorship of conservative speech and wouldn't speak out since you're a lefty.  But you would object to the censorship of your ideas but by then it would be too late to object.  Too few voices left to object.

 

People have this strange idea that things in this world that one doesn't like or approve of must be completely eradicated.  Little do they understand that for one it's impossible and secondly it would defeat the entire purpose of this existence.  When, or if ever, you come to the understanding of those two points you will never embrace censorship of any kind.  For you will know the futility of it and you will know that it runs in direct contradiction to basis of life.

Niemöller Was not talking about ‘censorship’.

[JAG]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Niemöller Was not talking about ‘censorship’.

Censorship was absolutely central to the regime which Niemoller was talking about. Putting him in a concentration camp to shut him up was nothing if not a form of censorship. To deny the relevance of his commentary and experiences, in a discussion about, essentially, a government attempting to exert control over a form of public expression ( social media), and suggest that he has nothing to contribute and should be deemed irrelevant to the debate is also a form of censorship

[Tippaporn]

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Niemöller Was not talking about ‘censorship’.

Of course Niemöller's quote was not talking about censorship per se but for God's sake, Chomper, do you not see the correlation?  Quit pulling my leg.  It looks ridiculous.

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, JAG said:

Censorship was absolutely central to the regime which Niemoller was talking about. Putting him in a concentration camp to shut him up was nothing if not a form of censorship. To deny the relevance of his commentary and experiences, in a discussion about, essentially, a government attempting to exert control over a form of public expression ( social media), and suggest that he has nothing to contribute and should be deemed irrelevant to the debate is also a form of censorship

Well put!  

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, JAG said:

Censorship was absolutely central to the regime which Niemoller was talking about. Putting him in a concentration camp to shut him up was nothing if not a form of censorship. To deny the relevance of his commentary and experiences, in a discussion about, essentially, a government attempting to exert control over a form of public expression ( social media), and suggest that he has nothing to contribute and should be deemed irrelevant to the debate is also a form of censorship

Actually the regime that persecuted Niemöller was founded in lies, misinformation and hate.

 

Which Facebook plays a significant role in spreading.

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Actually the regime that persecuted Niemöller was founded in lies, misinformation and hate.

 

Which Facebook plays a significant role in spreading.

Which brings this discussion back to the question of whose interpretation of hate speech do EU citizens have to abide by?  Who's interpretation of what's a lie and what is not a lie?  Whose interpretation of what information is misinformation and what information is not misinformation?  Not to mention the question of how hate speech can be defined.

 

You make the assumption that these things can be agreed upon by everyone as a whole.  Well, they can't and never can be agreed upon as a whole.  Therein lie the impossibility of regulating speech or any information.  I, for one, would never abide by your standards.

[Benmart]

6 hours ago, ThaiBunny said:

Every modern government has laws that are enforced by unelected bureaucrats, often through their own regulations. These include the EPA, various commissions enforcing electoral laws, the FCC and so on

I believe the article is about the EU  and Facebook and not the US Government and Facebook.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Benmart

[FritsSikkink]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

What is hate speech?  And who gets to decide?  Perhaps you'll think differently when your voice is targeted next.

 

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

Martin Niemöller

 

The idea of regulating speech is one held by people who do not yet understand the fundamental underlying and intrinsic nature of existence itself . . . freedom.  Regulating speech is an impossible task and can only lead to bad outcomes.  The idea of freedom for some is that it good for them and others like them but not for others.  George Orwell stated it succinctly:  "Some pigs are more equal than others."

 

I love the "in Europe we condemn hate speech" as if to imply that Europe speaks with one voice (yours).  That's not quite the state of reality.  LOL  So many misguided souls in my opinion.

 

Edit:  BTW, I am by no means a fan of FaceBook.  They do quite well censoring content they disapprove as it is.

 

Your example of "who do they go for" has nothing to do with censoring hate speech, it is actually a thing which approves of the protection of people who are victims of hate speech. Orwell has nothing to do with it too. You haven't got a clue what you are quoting.

Hate speech is wrong and should be punished. 

[candide]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

The point is who gets to decide what's the "correct" opinion to have? An unelected EU official? No thanks.

 

These leftists trying to ban/deplatform any opinion that differs from their own is getting old.

As mentioned by Chomper, you have no idea of how the EU works. 

Edited February 18, 2020 by candide

[BritManToo]

4 minutes ago, candide said:

you have no idea of how the EU works. 

I'm not sure anyone knows how the EU works.