WILL BE BLOCKED BECAUSE of SOME OLD POLITICIANS “that know the youth and the internet the best then anyone else” IN THE SENATE THINKING THEY KNOW BETTER SHUTTING DOWN YOUTUBE AND OTHER SOCIAL PLATFORMS FOR ME AND PEOPLE LIVING IN THE EU FOREVER!
PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE I REPEAT THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN CHANGED COMPLETELY NO FUCKING JOKE GUYS! LAST TIME IT WAS ALL ABOUT PROTECTION NOW THEY ADDED SOME STUPID STUFF AND THEY WILL BE TAKING AWAY MY YOUTUBE; SOCIAL MEDIAS AND EVERYTHING!
PLEASE SIGN UP IN THIS PETITION IF WE DON´T HIT 5 MILLION GERMANY AND SO MANY EUROPE COUNTRIES WILL LOSE THEIR SOCIAL AND MORE!
SHARE THIS POST AND SIGN UP AND VOTE THE MORE THAN BETTER! Let’s SHOW THESE OLD PEOPLE THAT YOUTUBE, TUMBLR, INSTAGRAM AND ALL THESE GREAT OTHER SITES AREN´T FUCKING USELESS AND SHET BECAUSE THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT SOCIAL MEDIA IS! INSTEAD OF TAKING THESE PRECIOUS THINGS THEY SHOULD WORRY ABOUT OTHER.STUFF ( Migrants, new school system) BUT NAH THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY OUR SOCIAL MEDIAS
I REPEAT article 13 HAS COMPLETED CHANGED AND IN A FEW MONTHS IT WILL TAKE AWAY OUR SOCIAL media LIKE TUMBLR AND YOUTUBE HERE IN EUROPE PLEASE SIGN UP FOR US GUYS I BEG YOU!
PLEASE HELP US GUYS I BEG YOU and PLEASE! reblog IT ISN´T ANYMORE A JOKE THEY HAVE COMPLETELY TURNED THE ARTICLE AROUND FOR THE WORST THIS WEEK!
YO NON-EUROPEANS CAN ALSO SIGN GET IN LINE FOR YOUR EURPOEAN HOMIES GUYS CMON
PLEASE HELP THEM
Yo OP you’re a real piece of artwork, ya know that?
So, first of all, this is pure hyperbole, but i’ll get to that in the end. What I find especially bad is that you only link to the change.org petition that is really vaguely worded.
These above links have on the left side the original text and on the right the most updated version as of september 12.
All good? Nice, let’s take a look inside them!
TL;DR: The Directive’s new amendments on Articles 11 and 13 have actually enstrenghtened consumer rights and defused to a large degree the ticking time bomb that was the bots. Also, the EU has no Senate!
So, first off, Article 11 – the apocalyptic attitude of the OP is already disputed because we see right in Section 1a that, and to quote:
“
The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall not prevent legitimate private and non-commercial use of press publications by individual users.
“
Which means, if you’re not making money off it, then it’s all good – you can share it online, or keep it for yourself on your phone or computer.
This is further corroborated by Sections 2a, 4 and 4a, which in turn talk about sharing hyperlinks (aka links from websites), how long the rights are retained for commercial use (which number has been reduced from 20 years to just 5 years – a bit much, but not apocalyptic again), and about the Members of the EU having to accomodate for these compensations.
To quote again:
“
2a. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall not extend to mere hyperlinks which are accompanied by individual words.
“
4. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 5 years after the publication of the press publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following the date of publication. The right referred to in paragraph 1 shall not apply with retroactive effect.
“
4a. Member States shall ensure that authors receive an appropriate share of the additional revenues press publishers receive for the use of a press publication by information society service providers. “
This is a good time to remind that Articles 11 and 13 and the entire legislations ARE NOT LAWS. They are DIRECTIVES, which is basically EU law from what i know for making a list of rules that member countries can check, see if they comply, and then choose for themselves if they find their current laws adequate or need to update them to fit the definitions set by the directive. For more on that, check an actual law student’s post on the subject here – she honestly tells it much better than i could ever hope to do so:
Right, now onto Article 13. So, the big important boi here is Section 2b, which, to quote a brief excerpt:
“
Members States shall ensure that online content sharing service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place effective and expeditious complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case the cooperation referred to in paragraph 2a leads to unjustified removals of their content. Any complaint filed under such mechanisms shall be processed without undue delay and be subject to human review. Right holders shall reasonably justify their decisions to avoid arbitrary dismissal of complaints.
“
THIS RIGHT HERE PROTECTS YOUR RIGHTS FROM CORPORATIONS FROM CLAIMING IT AS THEIR OWN.
It also serves another purpose as it demands that all content that has been claimed MUST be reviewed by a HUMAN PERSON, not a bot. This is monumental news, for the mere fact that what we feared with Article 13 was that the directives was gonna utilize bots like YouTube and Google do exclusively, and mandate they be used. This section basically says “yo, whatever you use, if something is claimed, you gotta have a human review”.
These views are further strengthened by the rest of Section 2, 2a and 3, which goes in length about how current streaming and video/content-hosting services’ code of conducts will be enforced. This is where the argument about how the EU will go full dictatorship and will censor the internet falls apart. To quote briefly again:
“ 2. Licensing agreements which are concluded by online content sharing service providers with right holders for the acts of communication referred to in paragraph 1, shall cover the liability for works uploaded by the users of such online content sharing services in line with the terms and conditions set out in the licensing agreement, provided that such users do not act for commercial purposes.
“ 2a. Member States shall provide that where right holders do not wish to conclude licensing agreements, online content sharing service providers and right holders shall cooperate in good faith in order to ensure that unauthorised protected works or other subject matter are not available on their services. Cooperation between online content service providers and right holders shall not lead to preventing the availability of non-infringing works or other protected subject matter, including those covered by an exception or limitation to copyright.
“ 3. […] When defining best practices, special account shall be taken of fundamental rights, the use of exceptions and limitations as well as ensuring that the burden on SMEs remains appropriate and that automated blocking of content is avoided.
“
So, in conclusion, Article 13 and Article 11 is not the devil it once was, and its recent amendment has made it a lot more user-friendly!
Now, I wanna address the original post directly, cuz the language used is very telling. First of all, it’s all caps, so, unless you’re @factsinallcaps, your credibility is automatically lowered imo. Secondly, the lack of direct links to either articles, or even news pieces from websites about net neutrality is very telling. The fact that only the link to the change.org petition is linked is highly suspicious.
Now, let’s go into details; First of all, the EU has no Senate. This isn’t the United States. And there was never any talk about shutting down social media – this is not a situation like in Turkey, where YouTube has been taken down and replaced with a local one.
The wording especially of the final phrase, “
INSTEAD OF TAKING THESE PRECIOUS THINGS THEY SHOULD WORRY ABOUT OTHER.STUFF ( Migrants, new school system) BUT NAH THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY OUR SOCIAL MEDIAS
“, also has me severely troubled. The EU cannot implement a pan-european EU-licensed new school system. That’s just not how it functions! This is up to each individual country comprising the EU to make up.
Also the migrants crisis and the way they’re thrown nonchalant here reads like a very reactionary right-wing talking point. And this is a big deal when it comes to the Article 13 debacle – the talking points have been hijacked by anti-eu personas (like Computing Forever) who espouse views that are anti-semitic, islamophobic, sexist, transmisogynist and racist. So, despite Article 13 being a really obvious sticking point and in need of proper debate, especially after the tragedy that was the rollback of net neutrality in the United States, we had the discourse surrounding the Article and what it does poisoned by Far-Right discourse, which in turn has produced the meme about the EU coming to censor all memes and, in this post’s case, take down all social media.
And it’s sad.
And I’m tired of it.
Now, what is happening with Article 13 right now? Because, remember, these amendments happened in early September, and it is November the 8th right now, 40 minutes past midnight in Greece. So, according to Julia Reid, the head of the EU pirate party and overal extreme badass is in negotiations with the rest of the EU council, discussing further amendments, and judging from her twitter, things are going pretty good!
(quoting the tweet in case you can’t open the link:
Good news, Council did not insist on its wording on the relationship with existing #copyright exceptions in Article 17a today. It looks like we may be able to solve this problem in the next round of negotiations. #FixCopyright )
(I’ve never looked into Article 17, so I can’t speak about that, but I trust her)
And that’s about it! Votes are set to come in like early 2019, which will finalize the Articles, and then the directive will be shipped to each member state, where each parliament will decide on how to implement those articles
Don’t fall for the reactionaries tumblr, and research before you reblog! The current version has 20k notes and it tells a grossly misleading version of the Directive, one influenced by anti-EU, far-right reactionary elements.
And sorry for the long post! Have a good evening ^_^
please do reblog this version of the post if you see it, cuz the post has 30k notes and it’s still misdirecting people as to how art13 has changed
jesus christ finally someone caught this dang misinformed person.
Yes it has changed and the changes are a step in the right direction!
Glad to see people calling out fear-mongering bullshit.
Oh wow so OP was misinformed thank god people caught this.
It was ALSO the lawmakers fault but I never said that feminists NEVER caused issues for men. I said that every single men’s issue isn’t to blame on feminism but feminists caused some of them.
And if those women didn’t have much power, then why did the lawmakers listen to them in the first place and scrap the bill that would allow men to be victims of rape? Plus there are women in the Indian parliament who also agreed to this.
The most damning part of this is feminists didn’t care that they endangered Indian LGBT peoples rights in their attempt to protest allowing men to be victims of rape. That shows they don’t care about equality.
modern horror story: a single 200 chapter fic on ao3 summarized as a “collection of drabbles.” it is tagged for 200 different fandoms and every single character who so much as breathes in any of the chapters. it takes you an hour to scroll past. it is always at the top of your search results because it updates three times a week.
I have no idea I think I’ve got a stalker. Maybe the same person who is bothering @tooiconic gave up and moved on to me instead. They did mention her and AFPE.
The other day a white customer was mimicking the way a black co-worker talked over the phone to another co-worker, and when he asked her to stop she said “oh I bet your black too” and he’s like nah I’m white, you’re just being awful and I’m hanging up
It’s that easy
When people think empathy w/o personal association or investment is strange, it’s because they have none.
Seriously how has it become such a foreign concept nowadays to empathize with others even if you aren’t the one being affected by it?
Your honor! Please direct your attention towards the manga.
As you can see there are small pieces of paper sticking out of every volume.
But no such paper is sticking out of the Batman comic.
The reason? The Batman book doesn’t belong to the library. The photographer put it there to take a picture.
Once again making hasty assumptions, Wright?
First of all, I’d like to direct the court’s attention to this particular spot, in the top right-hand corner.
Notice how the words are blocking the top of the Batman book.
With this in mind, how can you claim that there is “no such paper sticking out of the Batman comic”?!
Say whaaaat?
Well uhm
Look at the size of the paper pieces, they’re all sticking pretty far out.
If there was paper in the batman comic, it would be big enough to stick up over the text.
And while gravity does exist, it probably won’t make the paper do a 90 degree turn and just lean horisontally left at the middle.
Still grasping for straws, Wright?
Hypothetically, if there were a paper there, this picture would not be able to prove its presence. I’ve taken the liberty of drawing a diagram to illustrate my point. We are faced with three possibilities. It is possible that (1) the paper was simply tucked in deeper than the others.
Paper is a soft material, Wright. It’s not unreasonable for it to do a (2) 90 degree turn.
Or perhaps, (3) a paper does not exist there at all.
Either way, you cannot prove your client innocent without sufficient evidence.
Which, of course, is impossible thanks to the obtrusive words.
I’m sorry Edgeworth.
I concede that I can’t disprove theory 1
But the image you submited for theory 2 is contradictory.
Look at the tilt of the other papers. They clearly prove how much the paper would tilt.
And theory 3 is my point! Why would the library’s book not have this piece of paper when the other library books do?
While you still have thory 1, there is another contradiction.
The books are not in alphabetical order, this proves that the batman comic was placed there specifically for the picture!
Ack.
(Perhaps I should’ve left the artistry to the forensic artist…)
Now hold it right there! It doesn’t matter which direction the paper is going because it’s impossible to prove it even exists!
Those theories are all the same! We do not have enough information to prove them. There could be an infinite amount of papers in there for all we know. I simply presented them only so that the court could better understand your baseless conjecture!
… I suppose the order of the books do seem out of the ordinary. However, therein lies not just one possibility. Clearly, those are Japanese graphic novels, also known as “manga”. And the Batman comic book is a graphic novel, too, no?
Seeing as it currently has only graphic novels in the shelf, it is possible that any other novels have simply not yet been restocked. Asserting whether or not this effect was deliberate is useless– there is no way of knowing if the photographer and the captioner are the same person, let alone their involvement in this picture.
Face it Wright, you can’t prove any of these groundless accusations!
Did everyone just ignore the library sticker?
D E AD
I will reblog this any time i see it on my dash
Absolutely fucking D E S T R O Y E D
This is the strongest Tumblr post I’ve ever witnessed.
The best post I have ever seen I want to see another to top this one
Anyways if you dismiss someone’s argument just because they’re a certain race or gender I’m just gonna assume that you don’t have an argument of your own
Site Title 