US Using Trade Deals To Shield Tech Giants From Foreign Regulators (nytimes.com) 80
The Trump administration has begun inserting legal protections into recent trade agreements that shield online platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube from lawsuits, a move that could help lock in America's tech-friendly regulations around the world even as they are being newly questioned at home. From a report: The protections, which stem from a 1990s law, have already been tucked into the administration's two biggest trade deals -- the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and a pact with Japan that President Trump signed on Monday. American negotiators have proposed including the language in other prospective deals, including with the European Union, Britain and members of the World Trade Organization. The administration's push is the latest salvo in a global fight over who sets the rules for the internet. While the rules for trading goods have largely been written -- often by the United States -- the world has far fewer standards for digital products. Countries are rushing into this vacuum, and in most cases writing regulations that are far more restrictive than the tech industry would prefer.
Europe has enacted tough policies to curb the behavior of companies like Facebook and Google and passed laws to deal with privacy, hate speech and disinformation. China has largely cordoned itself off from the rest of the internet, allowing Beijing to censor political content and bolster Chinese tech companies like Alibaba and Tencent. In India, Indonesia, Russia and Vietnam, governments are introducing regulations to ostensibly protect their citizens' privacy and build domestic internet industries that critics say will stymie the ability of American companies to provide services in those countries. The United States wants its more permissive rules to form the basis for worldwide regulation. But there is a rising debate about whether its regime of internet regulations has failed to protect consumer privacy, encouraged the spread of disinformation and supported a powerful forum for harassment and bullying.
The American rules, codified in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, shield online platforms from many lawsuits related to user content and protect them from legal challenges stemming from how they moderate content. Those rules are largely credited with fueling Silicon Valley's rapid growth. The language in the trade deals echoes those provisions but contains some differences. That freedom has come under intense criticism from lawmakers and advocates. They say the 23-year-old law has allowed companies like Facebook and Google to avoid responsibility for harm associated with content that reaches billions of users. That anger has been compounded by revelations about the role of Silicon Valley's business practices in the spread of disinformation and treatment of user data.
Europe has enacted tough policies to curb the behavior of companies like Facebook and Google and passed laws to deal with privacy, hate speech and disinformation. China has largely cordoned itself off from the rest of the internet, allowing Beijing to censor political content and bolster Chinese tech companies like Alibaba and Tencent. In India, Indonesia, Russia and Vietnam, governments are introducing regulations to ostensibly protect their citizens' privacy and build domestic internet industries that critics say will stymie the ability of American companies to provide services in those countries. The United States wants its more permissive rules to form the basis for worldwide regulation. But there is a rising debate about whether its regime of internet regulations has failed to protect consumer privacy, encouraged the spread of disinformation and supported a powerful forum for harassment and bullying.
The American rules, codified in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, shield online platforms from many lawsuits related to user content and protect them from legal challenges stemming from how they moderate content. Those rules are largely credited with fueling Silicon Valley's rapid growth. The language in the trade deals echoes those provisions but contains some differences. That freedom has come under intense criticism from lawmakers and advocates. They say the 23-year-old law has allowed companies like Facebook and Google to avoid responsibility for harm associated with content that reaches billions of users. That anger has been compounded by revelations about the role of Silicon Valley's business practices in the spread of disinformation and treatment of user data.
Pretty sure the EU won't back down (Score:4, Interesting)
As a UK citizen I'm sure our government will bend over and take it like a bitch. Go Brexit!
Re: (Score:2)
And as a bonus, since there's cameras all over the UK, they'll be able to post the video on YouPorn!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit like legalizing pedophilia but at the same time making the movies adult-only.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't but wonder, If Brexit is SOOOO important because it was a mandate from the people why can't they do a second vote?
From what I understand a lot of people voting didn't understand the full impact of Brexit. But now they do.
Just have a second vote just to be sure.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's worse than that, even the hardest of hard line Brexiteers like Nigel Farage promised a Norway style deal, as soon as they won the vote they went full on hard line destroy the British economy batshit no-deal.
We have to have a second referendum just to confirm that people actually want full on hard line destroy the British economy batshit no-deal, because literally no one offered that during the original referendum so the idea people voted for it is a farce because it just wasn't offered by even the most
Re: (Score:2)
What is the difference between a "soft" Brexit, like "Norway"....and a no deal Brexit?
What do those terms mean? What's on the line?
I thought the main thing was for the UK to get out from under the EU rule, be able to maintain their borders as they saw fit, etc.....
So, what's the difference and what's left on the table if going the lessor of the two?
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine a divorce where you can either give your wife everything she wants or have her become hellbent on destroying your life because she didn't get everything you had.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU is one large trading bloc with the same rules and regulations on all sorts of goods and services. This allows goods and services to flow effortlessly across all EU members. It also means that international trade agreements, are between the EU and the other country (countries).
If the UK leaves without a deal, it will also leave all trade agreements behind. This is a worst case scenario. The EU will suffer too, but not nearly as badly as the UK. The UK will no longer be able to effortless trade with th
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I understand, the EU does this with countries that they'd really like to have in the EU, since they are important trade partners. So they give them access to their markets, not have them to pay the EU directly, but also not give them any say in EU politics.
Theoretically, this is what the UK could do, since they factually are an important t
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I understand, the EU does this with countries that they'd really like to have in the EU, since they are important trade partners. So they give them access to their markets, not have them to pay the EU directly, but also not give them any say in EU politics.
That is not true. Norway contributes to EU budget to get access to EU market. Norway pays £140 per Norwegian, compared to £220 per Brit.
Source: https://fullfact.org/europe/no... [fullfact.org]
As far as I understand it, UK wants some kind of trade agreement where they would have free access to EU market, not being obliged by any EU regulations on production of articles (e.g. food norms) and at the same time not being bound by EU trade agreements and import duties so that they can strike their own deals with ot
Re: (Score:3)
(1) Norway does pay the EU. See here: https://fullfact.org/europe/no... [fullfact.org]
(2) The EU would be more than happy to give the UK a Norway option (see e.g. this slide: https://ec.europa.eu/commissio... [europa.eu] ) The Norway option is shown as the second step from the left, just past full EU membership.
It's the UK that doesn't want this Norway option because it (a) absolutely refuses to accept any further free movement of people between
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no deal brexit - No free trade agreements at all and full tariffs on all our exports as per WTO rules, no free access to the Single market and Customs Union.
Re: (Score:2)
There are only two ways to save Britain.
Fight another Civil War to decide if you really meant it about Parliament deciding these things, or if you want to switch to some other system like Democracy or having a PM in charge.
The other way would be to declare Lord Buckethead as Lord Protector.
Re: (Score:2)
There are only two ways to save Britain.
Fight another Civil War to decide if you really meant it about Parliament deciding these things, or if you want to switch to some other system like Democracy or having a PM in charge.
The other way would be to declare Lord Buckethead as Lord Protector.
Or let the people vote again now that they better understand the scope of the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. And if that doesn't "work" (nice word for "come to the conclusion that the left wants") do another, and another, etc. until the desired outcome is reached. Those people clearly don't know what's good for them.
Second referendum (Score:2)
The 2016 referendum wasn't the first, that was back in 1975 when we voted to stay in.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and you stayed in. Now, you've voted to leave, so time to leave. See how that works?
Re: Pretty sure the EU won't back down (Score:4, Insightful)
Because if you repeat an election or any public vote until you like the result, you could have done away with it from the beginning.
That first vote was either binding or useless.
What makes it even worse: it was never asked what they wanted instead of the EU, so that got them into the clusterfuck the British government is as of now.
Re: Pretty sure the EU won't back down (Score:2)
The first vote was not binding. The UK does not operate by referendum, and the referendum was by its own definition nonbinding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Pretty sure the EU won't back down (Score:2)
Or we can ignore your false dichotomy.
Re: Pretty sure the EU won't back down (Score:2)
The first vote was in 1975, so if referendum results are binding what the hell was the vote in 2016 about because surely the 1975 result being binding rulled out a second vote? Of course the 2016 vote was legally none binding, so best of three seems reasonable to me. Oh and there is the small matter of all the Tory's that where MP's in 1998 (generally a bunch of arch Brexitiers) being guilty of actually voting against Acts of Paliament designed to implement the results of two different referendum's. The ra
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. But government decided to honor it. They could have decided otherwise as indeed it was not legally binding. But again - when you are bound to the outcome either by law or by your own accord, you are bound to it and not bound-until-you-don't-feel-like-it-anymore.
It's like breaking a promise vs breaking a contract. One is legal, the other one isn't, but both will destroy any trust people are willing to put in you. OK for some jobs, really bad for politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to wonder.
If it's so bad for all parties involved, whats the up-side?
Is it just nationalism and fear of brown people?
Re: (Score:2)
Being able to shape your countries politics and not having everything overruled from Brussles. You could call that nationalsim but I understand if a country says that price is too high for the benefits received. Which again is no excuse to run the Brexit vote campaign with wrong numbers and fear of brown people. (usually from the coloni...aeeehhmm Commonwealth states, but that's a different joke)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the will of the people never changes over time as more information becomes available and as elderly people pass away and young people gain the right to vote?
If you won't allow a revote, then what you have is a sort of chronological tyranny where we make decisions for future generations that they can never vote to change.
Re: (Score:2)
Because if you repeat an election or any public vote until you like the result, you could have done away with it from the beginning. That first vote was either binding or useless.
Well considering the first vote wasn't binding I do agree it was useless, or at least highly damaging to the country. The referendum was very poorly administrated because it was never clear what leaving the EU actually meant. No deal had been struck with the EU yet so it was all conjecture.
A better way to run the referendum would have been to be clear a Brexit vote was merely to start negotiations with the EU. Then upon successful negotiations with the EU and a successful vote in Parliament, put another vot
Re: (Score:3)
Or so fragile, and based upon deception, that it cannot withstand an informed vote after it's all gone horribly wrong and the jig's come up.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't but wonder, If Brexit is SOOOO important because it was a mandate from the people why can't they do a second vote?
The results are in!
Oh, I'm sorry. This is unsatisfactory. We'll give you a few years for you to correct your thinking and then you can try again.
Don't forget, Brexiteers are a threat to our democracy!
Re: (Score:1)
You are aware that they joined the EU (EC at the time) after a vote too, yes? Does that mean that the Brexit referendum should never have taken place and it goes against the will of the people?
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that they joined the EU (EC at the time) after a vote too, yes? Does that mean that the Brexit referendum should never have taken place and it goes against the will of the people?
The Brexit guys are thicker that molasses in January. Reminds me of the Trump supporters.
Odd how both Trump and Brexit seem to be benefiting Russia so amazingly and coincidentally well.
Once Europe and The U.S. and all of the world order created after WWII is in chaos thankfully Russian and China will be able to pick-up the pieces. Don't worry they will throw NK a bone too for helping (maybe let them keep their borders, but that fucker is definitely losing his nukes - Russia and China won't be fucking aro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the best things about the EU is that it's big enough to stand up to this kind of thing. There's no way in hell we will accept trade deals that force us to have US levels of privacy and data protection.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the best things about the EU is that it's big enough to stand up to this kind of thing. There's no way in hell we will accept trade deals that force us to have US levels of privacy and data protection.
Indeed, EU is big enough it can turn down that kind of thing. A loan-wolf UK is not big enough and is going to have to take what it can get, which won't be favourable.
Re: (Score:2)
A loan-wolf UK
Obviously, I meant Lone-Wolf... but I think they will have to take on quite a few loans to pay for Brexit, so maybe my typo was appropriate.
Re: (Score:3)
The only solution when it comes to privacy is a technical solution. Laws are naught but wank.
Re: (Score:2)
This is demonstrably untrue.
For example, people have used the right to be forgotten to remove search results for their names. It works, it stops employers simply googling candidates and digging up old outdated information on them.
It's just like the rules on credit reference agencies. You could still find out about that old bankrupty from decades ago from a newspaper archive, but it's a hell of a lot more work and most people won't bother.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the best things about the EU is that it's big enough to stand up to this kind of thing. There's no way in hell we will accept trade deals that force us to have US levels of privacy and data protection.
Those who sacrifice essential liberties in exchange for a little temporary security....
As articles 11 and 13 are being enacted, I'm sure you'll tell us even more of how great your 'protections' are working out.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, we need the power we get from banding together to protect our liberty from crap US trade deals.
Re: (Score:2)
People all over the EU are free to use US social media or not. Free to use/pay for a EU product and service.
All the EU can do is tax and regulate.
Over the decades people in the EU selected to buy and support US brands and services over the failed attempts of EU nations brands.
Re: (Score:2)
So can theocracies, Communist nations and monarchies.
The USA does not have to "accept" their laws and regulations.
And you said, TTIP/CETA "died". (Score:3)
As a EU citizen, I remember the news:
A huge "The gauls have won! The critical arbitration 'court' item was removed! CETA/TTIP is dead!"
And a quietly whispered "It isn't. Everything else is still happening, and actually, they can even still get arbitration courts through the backdoor, and still force entire countries to change laws, overriding the soverignity of the people over their country, if some corporation thinks it can make more profit that way."
Hilarious that it now comes back to bite them in the ass. ... Excuse me while I laugh in crippling poverty!
Re: (Score:2)
Should a North Korea, Communist China has the same ability to shape US brands?
What a shame (Score:3)
The US is enforcing trade deals to stop other countries from censoring US content?
Darn! How will we ever survive?
and at hte same time (Score:2)
... the US is accusing others of doing similar things [reuters.com].
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit like a pimp giving the pope a lesson on morality.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit like a pimp giving the pope a lesson on morality.
To be fair, the average pimp has less blood on his hands and has resulted in fewer lives ruined than the average pope.
What an obnoxious and clickbaity headline (Score:2)
"The US using trade deals to spread the concept of free speech" would be just as appropriate a headline. What will happen when you demand instant annihilation of allegedely offending content? Their standards go to shit, anything that gets a single report or triggers any kind of automated system is immediately yanked and only a microscopic fraction will ever get reviewed or overturned. Which means that anything remotely critical, controversial or in a gray area between legal and illegal will be banned and fr
Re: (Score:2)
Standards to try to avoid offending the most easily offended person on the internet. Or just banning user-generated content, which we've already seen on many sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just banning user-generated content, which we've already seen on many sites.
That is literally impossible for social media sites, since that's their function to the users. QED, if these anti-free-speech laws in the EU stand, no social media networks will be able to operate in the EU. Some suggest that's good for society, and that may even be true, but I don't think so. At best it's a bad precedent. If social media networks can be shut down for speech which is not even false, but simply inconvenient for someone in the EU, then what else can be shut down because the speech is inconven
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You're now calling endless copyright and other IP free speech? Next you'll say having 2% of your population in prison is freedom. especially when those who go to prison lose basic rights for live, unless they're friends with the President.
American President helping American businesses (Score:3, Insightful)
American President helping American businesses abroad. That's how things should be...
If we change them at home, the changes will apply world-wide. Until then, people seeking to use other countries' legal apparatus to farther their pet causes, shall suck a cactus. Which is, how things should be, too.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Same reason you have news stories now going that Rick Perry pushing to have Ukraine and other countries purchase USA produced natural gas is illegal. just ignore that he is following a program and laws that started under the previous administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Up until the President or someone close to him loses their account. Then everyone will be thrown overboard.
Diplomatic immunity for corporates (Score:3, Insightful)
... is what this boils down to. Companies operating in foreign countries should adhere to the laws of that country. I have to, so why not them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
New?
Re:Diplomatic immunity for corporates (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to, so why not them?
Because you are one person -- fully subject to the laws of whichever soil you happen to be standing upon at a given moment.
A corporation on the other hand is many people acting as a unit -- They do some things in one country and simultaneously in another.
Their worldwide actions should not be able to be held hostage of the whims of country X just because they do business on country X. Country X should only be capable of regulating their affairs that occur within side of the boundaries of Country X.
The internet is a worldwide communications medium. For example; If I publish a statement that is critical of the leaders of country X to Facebook, and I don't live or work in country X and didn't post it while I was visiting country X, then my post is still visible in ALL countries in which Facebook operates. Just because Country X has Anti-free-speech laws and the statement concerns them does not mean they ought to be capable of forcing a worldwide corporation to take down that post worldwide (So that even people outside country X can no longer see it).
Re:Diplomatic immunity for corporates (Score:4, Insightful)
I know, it's shocking. but the internet is actually its own thing that transcends national borders.
I could be running my website from anywhere on the planet (or even space) other than the EU, so why should I give even half a shit about EU law?
Re: (Score:2)
... is what this boils down to. Companies operating in foreign countries should adhere to the laws of that country. I have to, so why not them?
Yes. This. Whatever happened to spreading democracy around the world? Why do corporations get a veto on our legal systems & democratic accountability?
Re: (Score:1)
Congratulations (Score:2)
Trying stuff like this already killed TTIP. Seems like the is doesn't want trade agreements anymore.
What is? (Score:2)
If you leave your forest au natural, and someone walks through it and gets killed by a falling widowmaker branch, they cannot sue you. But if you clear such branches and do a crappy job and someone is killed, they can.
This is like that, for publishing liability. If a site moderates content, and libelous stuff creeps through, they can get sued. This allows them to moderate and not get sued for missing stuff, a prohibitively costly and gigantic effort to be thorough about on the Internet. EU and other plac
EU has royally fucked itself (Score:2)
At this point companies have the option of operating by only US laws and potentially being blocked in the EU, or bowing down and spreading their buttocks for the EU so that they can have a bigger market share.
US sees the EU implementing fascist regulations and says "nah, I won't be having that" and slips it into their trade deals that the EU can't block US sites even if they infringe EU regulations.
Companies now have the
Re: (Score:2)
Their nations attempts "computers" failed every decade.
People allowed the freedom to buy and use for free went for the innovative US brands.
BREAKING NEWS (Score:2)
Thank you, imperialists!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
China's terrible behavior is an injustice that is up to the people of China to correct. It can't be fostered onto American businesses who are not equipped for the philosophical, political, and social ramifications of starting a revolution.
Also we do anything for money. That's OUR culture. And don't you dare judge us for it.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not a big fan of how the EU is organized myself and how technically and scientifically illiterate most people involved with that government are, but blaming them casually for random things that are wrong in this world is pretty stupid.
It's kind of lik
"Decency Act" (Score:2)