Google rejects EU fact-checking commitments for Search and YouTube
www.theverge.com
Those voluntary commitments may soon be legally binding, however.
  • merthyr1831@lemmy.mlEnglish
    1·
    11 hours ago

    I don’t get this atop Zuck asking Trump to exclude US tech companies from EU sanctions. Sure, you can just attempt a capital strike over this purely ideological position, but the EU has a much stronger indigenous base for software compared to other markets, and competitors will see it as an easy opportunity to explode in market share.

    Even regarding some pretty existential anti trust suits from the EU, the Americans have consistently either coughed up fines or towed the line. But why suddenly try and exert influence over a trading bloc that has the economic power and (potentially) the political will to resist you?

  • beleza pura
    4·
    1 day ago

    it’s funny that, when questioned by brazil’s supreme court about the new rules, zuck backpedaled and claimed they wouldn’t apply to brazil

    anyway, i hope the eu won’t chicken out and are going to actually ban google for this, but i doubt it

    • merthyr1831@lemmy.mlEnglish
      2·
      11 hours ago

      Brazil has shown it has the proverbial balls to shut down US apps even if they’re “too big to fail”. The EU probably won’t ban Google outright but they’ll slap them with fines via their Ireland tax haven head office.

    • soumerd_retardataire@lemmygrad.mlOP
      11·
      18 hours ago

      Oh, you’re in favor of the biased fact-checking ? Like, you think that, e.g., in the case of the Ukraine-Russia war, we wouldn’t get banned for citing obvious facts that contradict the western propaganda ?
      How could you ever think that censorship will favor the “extremes”(, left or right) ? Lemmygrad is quite often opposed to the general consensus, don’t be so naive 🙄
      (During covid, some real informations, e.g about the origins of the virus or alternative treatments, were censored, and we’ve seen the same biases in politics, in case you forgot)
      It’s already forbidden to support “terrorists”, or to do “genocide” apologia, among other things that are used to censor our voice and avoid having a contradictory debate.

      • beleza pura
        1·
        11 hours ago

        meta’s new rules specifically allowed e.g. calling homosexuality a mental illness, which is a crime in brazil. this is the kind of thing the supreme court questioned meta about

        • soumerd_retardataire@lemmygrad.mlOP
          11·
          9 hours ago

          Until Bolsonaro or someone similar is elected and starts enforcing a fact checking you disagree with.
          Defending/Relativizing the Holodomor(, which didn’t happened only in Ukraine back then,) is forbidden in some countries, and it’s not hard to imagine hate speech laws forbidding the debunking of the “uyghur genocide”, as some were censored back then.
          The democrats made a mistake in using these laws against Donald Trump, but we(sterners) will probably end up controlling the information on the Internet as we did in the legacy/mainstream medias.

          • beleza pura
            1·
            4 hours ago

            as if the dominant class didn’t have the power to legally persecute the left without hatespeech laws

            look, i really don’t want to be having this conversation right now, but, with all due respect, your whole stance here smells like typical us-american freezepeach-ism. not that brazil’s supreme court is now suddenly the workers’ court (it isn’t), but it makes no sense to be agaisnt the criminalization of hatespeech when it’s specifically against racist and homophobic hatespeech which doesn’t affect us in the slightest. if bolsonaro wants to criminalize communism and he manages to get the votes to do so, he will, regardless of current hatespeech legistlation