Hi, Anna:
Thanks for this.
How does this affect the financial incentives for commercial
social media companies to sell xenophobic ads with no public traceability?
How does this legislation compare with the USA Patriot Act, which
has been used to imprison people who tried to teach nonviolence to
terrorist or people raising money for hospitals on Palestine?
Could this legislation be used to make it difficult for people to
question the wisdom of supporting the current government of Saudi
Arabia, e.g., with transfers of arms and nuclear technology?
I ask for several reasons: (a) Terrorism is miniscule as a cause
of death. More Americans drown in the average year in bathtubs, hot
tubs and spas than succumb to terrorism; similar silliness doubtless
also applies to Europe. (b) A 2008 RAND study showed that only 7% of
terrorist groups that ended between 1968 and 2006 were defeated
militarily. 83% ended with negotiations or law enforcement. (c) The
primary recruiter and supporter for Islamic terrorism since at least
1999 and continuing today appears to be Saudi Arabia, followed closely
by the US. For detailed references, see the Wikiversity article on
"Winning the War on Terror".[1]
Would this legislation force the Wikimedia Foundation to take
down what I've already written in that article?[1] I assume the answer
to that question is, "no". However, it seems like it could potentially
make it more difficult for people to understand "Why do they hate us"
(as US President Bush asked on 2001-09-20.
Thanks,
Spencer Graves, PhD
Founder
EffectiveDefense.org
4550 Warwick Blvd 508
Kansas City, MO 64111 USA
[1]
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Winning_the_War_on_Terror
On 2019-04-08 10:28, Anna Mazgal wrote:
Dear All,
Civil Liberties committee has just adopted MEP Dalton's compromises as
the report on the Regulation on preventing the dissemination of
terrorist content online. There are some amendments added that require
further analysis but the key changes are positive:
1. Improvements on definition of terrorist content with exclusions to
artistic, journalistic, educational and research purposes
2. Specific measures referring to platforms receiving a substantial
number of removal orders; the regulation applies to those that make
content available to the public (so a positive limitation)
3. Referrals removed from the proposal with a caveat that Europol
referrals should be taken as a priority by platforms when content is
flagged (in recital)
4. Specific measures steer away from content filtering and forbid
general monitoring.
Unfortunately, the 1h deadline for removing content has been
sustained. Interestingly, Rapporteur Dalton called out the European
Commission on not understanding the democratic parliamentary process,
applying pressure on quick adoption of the file and dismissing debate
on controversial issues as unnecessary and going against the goals of
the regulation. It is quite a serious accusation as the EC is not
supposed to pressure MEPs that way.
After the text is published we will have a more in-depth analysis of
other changes and how the whole proposal could affect Wikimedia. The
vote in the plenary is planned for next week. After that - the trilogues.
Happy to take on any questions you may have regarding the report.
best wishes,
Anna
--
Anna Mazgal
EU Policy Advisor
Wikimedia
anna(a)wikimedia.be <mailto:anna@wikimedia.be>
@a2na
mobile: +32 487 222 945
51 Rue du Trône
BE-1050 Brussels
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy