Applying AI-voodoo to a non-existing problem with unknown side effects? Sign me up!
koper
joined 1 year ago
It's not. Image hosting sites have existed for decades. Websites are not liable unless they have actual knowledge of illegal content and ignore takedown requests. Stop fearmongering.
Because people are blowing this way out of proportion. Users uploading illegal content is always part of hosting a platform and lawmakers realized this decades ago. Platform hosters legally cannot be held liable for the content of their users unless they have actual knowledge of specific instances of illegal content. This is both in the US (section 230 of the Communications Decency Act) and the EU (chapter II of the Digital Services Act, previously the eCommerce directive)
Have you ever seen the statistics? The DPAs are massively underfunded and the Irish DPC in particular is notorious for ignoring complaints, to the point where the EU is considering launching infringement procedures against Ireland for not properly enforcing the GDPR. If you think they will take action on a complaint like this, you will get disappointed.
On the other hand, petitioning the courts to intervene is probably easier than you think. In some member states you don't even need a lawyer, so all it takes is a bit of time and some court fees. I'm not saying it's the preferred option, but realistically it is the shortest path to a result.
The DPC is almost certainly going to ignore complaints like this. You can choose between suing meta or suing the DPC.
So you want to have discussions, but without arguments?
DPAs don't have the resources to take action on every single complaints. You can sue the controller or processor directly under article 79 if you want to be sure that an issue gets dealt with quickly.
While it's stupid that ISPs are using their monopolies to screw consumers, the concept of data caps is not as stupid as you might think.
You're not just paying for the connection between you and the ISP, but also all the other data links that get your internet traffic to its destination. For example, those cables across the ocean are owned third parties and they charge money for every byte that goes through. It wouldn't be unreasonable for ISPs to pass that cost to users.
Furthermore, most links are overprovisioned in order to keep costs down. For example, if you assume that users only use 10% of their bandwidth on average, that means you can fit 10x as many people on a connection (or maybe 8x to account for peaks). This does mean that users should be discouraged from using their full bandwidth for long durations, otherwise the network operators can't overprovision as much and have to invest more in infrastructure.
Using a VPN does exactly nothing against cookies or device fingerprinting.
National courts to take EU law into account. If you don't agree with their interpretation of EU law, your option is to appeal or ask to refer questions to the EUCJ.
Just so you know, this also creates more load on other instances, especially the larger ones.
What about the centuries of imperialism here and there