Big Tech Firms To Face 6% Fines If Breach New EU Content Rules (reuters.com) 42
Big tech firms such as Google and Facebook will face fines of up to 6% of turnover if they do not do more to tackle illegal content and reveal more about advertising on their platforms under draft European Union rules. Reuters reports: The EU's tough line, which is due to be announced next week, comes amid growing regulatory scrutiny worldwide of tech giants and their control of data and access to their platforms. EU digital chief Thierry Breton, who has stressed that large companies should bear more responsibility, will present the draft rules known as the Digital Services Act (DSA) on Dec. 15.
The Commission document on the DSA seen by Reuters defines very large online platforms as those with more than 45 million users, equivalent to 10% of the EU population. Additional obligations imposed on very large platforms are necessary to address public policy concerns and the systemic risks posed by their services, the document said. The tech giants will have to do more to tackle illegal content such as hate speech and child sexual abuse material, misuse of their platforms that impinges on fundamental rights and intentional manipulation of platforms, such as using bots to influence elections and public health. The companies will be required to publish details of their online advertisers and show the parameters used by their algorithms to suggest and rank information. Independent auditors will monitor compliance, with EU countries enforcing the rules.
The Commission document on the DSA seen by Reuters defines very large online platforms as those with more than 45 million users, equivalent to 10% of the EU population. Additional obligations imposed on very large platforms are necessary to address public policy concerns and the systemic risks posed by their services, the document said. The tech giants will have to do more to tackle illegal content such as hate speech and child sexual abuse material, misuse of their platforms that impinges on fundamental rights and intentional manipulation of platforms, such as using bots to influence elections and public health. The companies will be required to publish details of their online advertisers and show the parameters used by their algorithms to suggest and rank information. Independent auditors will monitor compliance, with EU countries enforcing the rules.
Operating expenses (Score:2)
Negligible cost of doing business for them... sigh
Re: (Score:2)
Negligible cost of doing business for them... sigh
6% of turnover (presumably global) doesn't sound negligible. Facebook has a revenue of 70 billion (6% is 4.2 billion), with a profit of 18.7 billion. 6% wouldn't stop them being profitable, but that's a good chunk out of the profits.
They could ignore it for sure and simply pay 4 billion a year to the EU, for sure, but I don't think it's a "cost of doing business" thing. For Intel with their risible 1 billion settlement, that definitely was. They crippled the
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure why you were downmodded. I think you make a reasonable point, though I don't think the numbers support it.
The alternative is that those companies kick every EU user off their platforms, block EU address blocks from reaching their servers and stop operating arma od their businesse in EU countries. Everybody takes their toys and goes home.
Well...
Mission.
Fucking.
Accomplished.
It's also not especially likely. Facebook is a company interested in profit. They'd be leaving around 18 billion dollars of reve
Re: (Score:2)
No, the alternative is for those companies to respect the rules in the markets they want to operate in. Which they will, as the markets are lucrative.
It is only their fault that they failed to manage themselves better, so a government intervention became inevitable.
If every Country does this... (Score:2)
I wonder what the result would be if all ~195 countries put customized restrictions and penalties on those big tech companies?
Nickel and dime then down into oblivion under a weight of laws and regulations?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, things seem to be headed that way. What one should expect is more nation-specific sites, with lots of other countries blocked...or at least where the company doesn't have any assets located in those "other countries". This doesn't strike me as all bad, but it sure isn't necessarily great.
Re: (Score:2)
More likely - some form of franchise model like McDonalds. The local branch complies with the local law and it has a few hundred thousands or a few M users, not 45M. The parent company is in the Cayman islands or on an asteroid somewhere (in the near future) and firmly outside local jurisdiction.
My worry (Score:3)
misuse of their platforms that impinges on fundamental rights and intentional manipulation of platforms, such as using bots to influence elections and public health
My worry with this type of requirement is that it might lead to mandatory real-life identity proof when using a service, which would likely result in more privacy invasions.
Follow (Score:1, Troll)
Gotta get fingers deeper into that pie somehow.
Follow the money. It doesn't lie. That this is about two completely unrelated issues shows it.
Re: Follow (Score:3)
Sorry, Americans. You seem to confuse humanity with the Ferengis. But that's just you.
Over here, it's a bit more what troglodyte has the biggest "club" in town.
It's about things money can't buy. Like looking good in front of global substitute-daddy.
"Illegal content" what bullshit (Score:2)
But, no free speech rights in Europe, so, whatever
Re:"Illegal content" what bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly enough, there are restrictions on speech in America also...
Re:"Illegal content" what bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that really what you want?
Freedom to threaten lives?
Freedom to encourage others to do violence?
You would be powerless to stop libel and slander against you.
Re: (Score:1)
You nail the followers, the believers in libel and slander and the people that do violence. They are the enemy foot soldiers. Without followers there is nothing but hot air. So you have to address the right target, not just go for expedience.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There is no right to regulate speech, only the act.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There a huge difference. One you can tune out. It is totally ethereal. The other is truly physical, particles with a punch. Words have no such thing. The speaker may be as ass, but the listener is always responsible for his (re)action, not the speaker
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The verbal is always an ethereal thing with no physical impact. The listener is responsible how he acts when he sees/hears something. A reaction has to be completely involuntary by nature, not something that is conditioned by society, for you to have a case for censorship. Anytime something happens you have to sanction the listener for lack of self control
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. The decibel level is the only thing anybody has a right to regulate. As for the "rest of it", you're just being obtuse. The message is crystal clear. The audience, and only the audience is responsible for what they do, nobody else is. Lack of self control should be an actionable offense, with fines and prison time.
Re: (Score:2)
So you honestly believe all those judges and lawyers that claim to be involved in upholding the law (including the constitution) are actually [i]all[/i] violating it by legislating first-amendment-violating precedent from the bench? That's some massive coordinated conspiracy there.
Might I be so bold to propose an alternate explanation? You misunderstand the protections the constitution grants. It does not grant license to say whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want, regardless of the co
Re: (Score:1)
upholding the law
Read the amendment. It says no law. What does no law mean to you? If they want restrictions they must write another another amendment to authorize them, otherwise, yes, the judges are in violation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There is no free speech legislation outside the US that explicitly says no law. They are all conditional.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
On stupid arguments, you're on your own there, buddy. There is a local translation for the same thing, "no law" also means kein Gesetz, and there are many more, but it's not on the books.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"no law" includes case law We can't allow the sidestepping bullshit. That would enable the judge to write law. Fuck that. We shall allow no law while the amendment is still in full effect. Lucky for you the big guns are on your side, so the words mean nothing, goes to show just how ethereal they are. Happy hunting
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not true. The courts have no right to regulate speech until the constitution specifically permits it
Can they get those 6% back from breachers? (Score:3)
In don't know how it's in your country, if I leave me front door open, and sleep naked in my front yard, andsomebody comes and steals my stuff and rapes me, I can be called a bit naive, but it's still him who goes to prison.
Oh, and in any case, aren't it the police and government that fucked up, that we even have people in situation where they are both desperate enough and mentally damaged enough to think they should do that?
So, in a sane world, wouldn't it be the thug who's getting a therapy, or ideally, much earlier, protection from what changed him into this a long time ago? And me being able to sue the government for failong to do its job?
Re: (Score:2)
"I didn't become a theiving rapist, so he shouldn't either" is the usual response to your argument. A fixation on individual responsiblities means truisms like "It takes a village to raise a child", "Society works only when we work together" and "All lives matter" are dumped for "Only you can change your destiny", "self-made" and "Fuck you, I've got mine". The biggest blind-spot with this fixation is that much of human behaviour enables bad behaviour from the minority (*). We ignore that character flaw u
Jordan Peterson has been called hate speech (Score:1, Insightful)
Free speech is a fundamental human right. Hate speech laws are inherently dangerous and will be used as political weapons. We've already seen this happen throughout history (usually leading to totalitarianism). What counts as hate speech is never clearly defined and changes with each generation. The goal post is constantly moved and new precedents only make that easier. Dystopias you see in sci-fi works don't happen overnight. It's an inch here and there. When Jordan Peterson is unironically used as an exam
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Moderating incorrect, hateful vile content on your own servers is in no way censorship.
Private property rights is a thing.
Tagging the orange turd's lies as such on Twitter is not censorship either, it is simply pointing out lies.