Sunday, 7 November 2021
The EU Inquisition
Paul MacDonnell has a rather depressing piece in The Critic about EU censorship plans. Depressing because the usual suspects are certain to press for something similar in the UK. They probably already are.
The EU’s proposed Digital Services Act (DSA) bills itself as an update to the Union’s decade-old rules governing online commerce. But its promise of “measures which have consumer protection at their core” is misleading. Behind the consumer-protection facade lies a threat to freedom of speech in Europe. First, the DSA will hand powers of online content-moderation and regulatory enforcement to the European Commission and new national regulators. There will be a platform censor or “digital services coordinator” in each of the EU’s twenty-seven member states. Second, it will grant NGOs and identitarian organisations priority consideration when they object to content which offends their “collective interests”. And third, defining digital platforms as posing a “systemic risk” to public order and democracy, the DSA will force them to report annually their own mitigation activities. To avoid massive fines, platforms will likely save government censors the trouble of ordering the removal of content, by doing so themselves.
Well worth reading in full unless you are really determined to be cheerful.
The criteria for licensing trusted flaggers include: that they should have “expertise…in detecting illegal content” and that they “represent collective interests”. They will likely be NGOs, humanities and social sciences institutes, think-tanks, charities, and groups representing singular identities. Who exactly will be their “collective interests”? Won’t they be motivated to please them by going after increasingly innocuous content in an ever-expanding search for speech that offends them? This regulation will encourage motivated, licensed activists to aggravate social media’s digital free-surface effect.
Labels:
censorship,
EU
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The idea of "representing collective interests" is an interesting one. I'm sure that many people would dearly love to have a go at it, but that few if any of them would be able to give a coherent explanation of what it was they were attempting.
If something like that were tried here, I hope that a few enterprising people would discover some new "collective interests". The interests of those who don't like censorship, for example, or are offended by Islam, or who think that the alphabet is racist and ought not to be used. If bureaucrats want to become amateur philosophers, we ought at least to make the bastards look ridiculous before they close us down.
I'm sure the UK version of this will be almost identical to the EU original, with a bit of gold plating to signal our virtue. The phrase "collective interests will no doubt be translated as Common Purpose.
Sam - as we know, those collective interests are certain to be the usual suspects. The main aim is probably to build a rachet for the future. Free speech won't stand a chance.
Andy - I'm also sure the UK version will be almost identical to the EU. Too good to miss.
Post a Comment