That's what you get when a bunch of young people don't vote, and few young people run as political candidates. An overall turnout of 43 percent about says it all. We don't get to whine if we don't...
That's what you get when a bunch of young people don't vote, and few young people run as political candidates.
Turnout was again highest among the oldest respondents. Some 51% of the
55+ group voted in the European elections, while only 28% did in the 18-24 age
group. This is relatively unchanged from 2009.
I don't really see a problem with article 11. Article 13 seems quite shortsighted though, the need to scan absolutely everything is such a waste of performance and energy.
I don't really see a problem with article 11. Article 13 seems quite shortsighted though, the need to scan absolutely everything is such a waste of performance and energy.
OP's article says that under the ammended Article 11, restrictions would not apply to hyperlinks, so I don't think most of your link's points apply to the current version. I do see that there's...
OP's article says that under the ammended Article 11, restrictions would not apply to hyperlinks, so I don't think most of your link's points apply to the current version. I do see that there's risk in it failing, but there's risk in a lot of laws/ideas failing. Apologies if I seem overly skeptical, but a lot of people seem to cry end of days over every little bit of internet legislation, and I'm careful to jump on the bandwagon at this point.
I think that it's important to consider how uninformed or reactionary these laws are though. They're often written, and voted on by people who do not understand the problem domain they're working...
a lot of people seem to cry end of days over every little bit of internet legislation
I think that it's important to consider how uninformed or reactionary these laws are though. They're often written, and voted on by people who do not understand the problem domain they're working in. This often leads to major loopholes or gaps that have wide-ranging unintended affects.
Take the American CFAA, originally introduced in 1986 to give lawmakers tools to prosecute hackers following some hysteria that came about from the 1983 movie War Games. Obviously the bill had motivations outside of this, but it was largely born from uneducated fear of the unknown.
The problem isn't that there was anti-hacking legislation, it wasn't written well to begin with, and has some very life-altering side-effects. The most prominent case in recent history is it's malicious use to persecute Arron Swartz punitively.
I think a lot of the "end of days" crying comes from the fact that this "over-legislate and correct as necessary" has lasting life-impacting implications all to protect the profits of companies that would prefer to lobby legislation instead of innovate their business to the changing world.
And while you're right to be cautious about jumping in on the bandwagon, these things usually take a long time to determine what's wrong with them which leads to the view that these are overreactions.
Look at the objections to the reactionary PATRIOT act, they seemed largely "unpatriotic" (lol) and conspiracy theory-ish at the time, but looking back it opened a HUGE invasion of privacy into the USA that normalized the behavior and has extended itself everywhere now. Those calling for caution then don't seem so out of line now, but it's far too late now.
The adopted text is now available here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2018-0337+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
It's important to note that it appears the link there is not to the text that was approved, but to the previous version that failed. The actual text does not appear to be available yet.
It's important to note that it appears the link there is not to the text that was approved, but to the previous version that failed. The actual text does not appear to be available yet.
That's what you get if a bunch of privileged old people who barely know how to operate a smartphone are allowed to make decisions for everyone else.
Whether or not you agree with the decision, that's just how representative democracy works.
Except... they're not representative if they don't try and represent their constituents, but instead just legislate based on their own world view.
That's what you get when a bunch of young people don't vote, and few young people run as political candidates.
An overall turnout of 43 percent about says it all.
We don't get to whine if we don't vote.
Edit: exit interviews (warning large pdf) from the last election show young people's turnout is just miserable.
I don't really see a problem with article 11. Article 13 seems quite shortsighted though, the need to scan absolutely everything is such a waste of performance and energy.
OP's article says that under the ammended Article 11, restrictions would not apply to hyperlinks, so I don't think most of your link's points apply to the current version. I do see that there's risk in it failing, but there's risk in a lot of laws/ideas failing. Apologies if I seem overly skeptical, but a lot of people seem to cry end of days over every little bit of internet legislation, and I'm careful to jump on the bandwagon at this point.
I think that it's important to consider how uninformed or reactionary these laws are though. They're often written, and voted on by people who do not understand the problem domain they're working in. This often leads to major loopholes or gaps that have wide-ranging unintended affects.
Take the American CFAA, originally introduced in 1986 to give lawmakers tools to prosecute hackers following some hysteria that came about from the 1983 movie War Games. Obviously the bill had motivations outside of this, but it was largely born from uneducated fear of the unknown.
The problem isn't that there was anti-hacking legislation, it wasn't written well to begin with, and has some very life-altering side-effects. The most prominent case in recent history is it's malicious use to persecute Arron Swartz punitively.
I think a lot of the "end of days" crying comes from the fact that this "over-legislate and correct as necessary" has lasting life-impacting implications all to protect the profits of companies that would prefer to lobby legislation instead of innovate their business to the changing world.
And while you're right to be cautious about jumping in on the bandwagon, these things usually take a long time to determine what's wrong with them which leads to the view that these are overreactions.
Look at the objections to the reactionary PATRIOT act, they seemed largely "unpatriotic" (lol) and conspiracy theory-ish at the time, but looking back it opened a HUGE invasion of privacy into the USA that normalized the behavior and has extended itself everywhere now. Those calling for caution then don't seem so out of line now, but it's far too late now.
Anyone know where I can find the full, updated, passed version of Articles 11 and 13?
I found a link that seems to be the correct, most recent version, including amendments: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FTEXT%2BREPORT%2BA8-2018-0245%2B0%2BDOC%2BXML%2BV0%2F%2FEN&language=EN
The adopted text is now available here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2018-0337+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
It's important to note that it appears the link there is not to the text that was approved, but to the previous version that failed. The actual text does not appear to be available yet.
Why in the hell is the EU parliament approving regulations that have not been published for public comment?
That is just downright fucking ridiculous.
I don't see this making any major headlines so far, considering all the protests and whatnot. I can barely find a post about it on reddit.
Go to r/europe perhaps?
That's the only one I found (after doing /r/all since I'm not subscribed). It has some lukewarm 4k upvotes or something.
Lot of its time of day. We're just coming up to the end of the working day here.
It is on 9k+ upvotes right now. And it will keep rising for sure. You just caught it early.