EU designates TIkTok, Wikipedia for stricter rules

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
User avatar
Ognistysztorm
Sucks Critic
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2022 1:39 am
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 191 times

EU designates TIkTok, Wikipedia for stricter rules

Post by Ognistysztorm » Tue Apr 25, 2023 10:53 pm

https://www.rfi.fr/en/business-and-tech ... cter-rules
The European Union on Tuesday designated 19 online platforms, including Instagram, TikTok and Twitter, as having user numbers so big they will come under stricter regulatory rules for content.

The list -- on which services from Amazon, Google, Meta, Instagram and Microsoft also feature -- all have more than 45 million monthly active users.

That puts them in a category under a new EU law, known as the Digital Services Act (DSA), imposing measures from August such as annual audits and a duty to effectively counter disinformation and hate content.

In four months' time, "these platforms and search engines will not be able to act as if they were 'too big to care'," Thierry Breton, the EU's internal market commissioner, said in a statement.

"This new supervision system will cast a wide and tight net and catch all points of failure in a platform's compliance," he added.

Platforms meeting the 45-million-plus threshold include Twitter, owned by US billionaire Elon Musk; Alphabet's Google Search, Google Maps, Google Shopping and Google Play units as well as its YouTube subsidiary; and Meta's Facebook and Instagram.

Others are Microsoft's LinkedIn, Apple's iOS App Store, online encyclopedia Wikipedia, messaging app Snapchat and creative image website Pinterest.
The DSA has a wide range of objectives, including forcing platforms to better protect children, strengthen transparency around digital services, prohibit the sale online of unsafe goods and allow users to have greater choice when online in the EU.

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: EU designates TIkTok, Wikipedia for stricter rules

Post by wexter » Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:16 am

European laws are being enforced here in the US so DSA will most likley apply to English Wikipedia.

WMF (Wikipedia) is afraid of the European DSA because they would not be able to rationalize responsibility taking (dissonance as follows);
“Wikipedia has shown that it is possible to create healthy online environments that are resilient against disinformation and manipulation. Through nuance and context, Wikipedia offers a model that works well to address the intricacies required in content moderation.

DSA’s current provisions and proposed amendments also include requirements that could put Wikipedia’s collaborative and not-for-profit model at risk.

Forcing Wikipedia to operate more like a commercial platform with a top-down power structure, l

https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/20 ... platforms/
The Wikipedia position statement is the exact opposite of the truth..
--The Wikipedia environment is not healthy (it is toxic) nor is it resilient against bad information (narrative framing).
--Wikipedia has no process, rules, procedures, or governance.
--The power structure is based only on social capital with no internal controls

WMF was set up to avoid responsibility taking - the DSA is totally appropriate for Wikipedia and long overdue.
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: EU designates TIkTok, Wikipedia for stricter rules

Post by ericbarbour » Wed Apr 26, 2023 6:00 am

wexter wrote:
Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:16 am
European laws are being enforced here in the US so DSA will most likley apply to English Wikipedia.
And I suspect the situation is not as cut and dried as you think. EU laws are not "enforced in the US", the corporations who run multinational websites find it easier to change all their content to meet EU law. They do it purely to save MONEY and not for any "good" reason. The GDPR was passed in 2016 and all the major web portals have at least paid "lip service" to following its requirements--with Wikimedia being a major exception.

After months of internal squabbling, they published this rather vague item. Intelligible? Nope, and they evidently don't care. A long list of for-profit corporations, associations and individuals have been fined for violating some part of the GDPR; Wikipedia maintains an incomplete list--but Wikimedia itself has yet to be prosecuted. The UK's 2018 Data Protection Act has received similar disregard.

You can TRY to find examples of a WMF project violating these laws, and turn them in for it. Whether the regulators will take action is impossible to say. I suspect they will just go "oh, well, we're in the USA and your laws don't apply to WMF projects" or something.

California already passed a similar law, the CCPA, also in 2018. Did the state do anything to the WMF, which is clearly in California? There's no evidence they took action.

Read the official WMF privacy policy. Go down to the "Contact Us" section. Got a complaint? Either give it to this guy, or contact the appropriate government agency. I have never seen any public evidence that anyone has actually done this.

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: EU designates TIkTok, Wikipedia for stricter rules

Post by wexter » Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:58 pm

Yes - your statement is more accurate and correct
change all their content to meet EU law
Like the GDPR forcing adherence to a standard lest a technology provider lose access to the European market.

Using market power was a strategy for exerting regulatory control that Europe learned from the US.
Wikimedia itself has yet to be prosecuted. The UK's 2018 Data Protection Act has received a similar disregard.
Wikipedia states consistently that it is "not like them - so the rules don't apply"

Nobody so far is forcing Wikipedia to comply with law/standard.
The WMF white paper on DSA basically said we are "not like them" so the rules don't apply to us

Wikipedia is under "piranha attack" - they are getting nipped away here and there on the margins.


viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2726&p=24566&hilit=gdpr#p24566
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: EU designates TIkTok, Wikipedia for stricter rules

Post by ericbarbour » Wed Apr 26, 2023 6:37 pm

wexter wrote:
Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:58 pm
Wikipedia states consistently that it is "not like them - so the rules don't apply"
Nobody so far is forcing Wikipedia to comply with law/standard.
The WMF white paper on DSA basically said we are "not like them" so the rules don't apply to us
Well then, it gives you an opportunity for something to do. Find a RECENT incident of personal-data abuse and report it up the official chain. Don't just post it here. Forum posts don't get direct action.

An idea case would be WP admins doxing someone who tried to stay anonymous. They still do this on occasion. Something like Alan Oscroft harassing Oberranks by calling his employer--although Oberranks and his employer are in the US, Oscroft is subject to the UK DPA.

User avatar
Ognistysztorm
Sucks Critic
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2022 1:39 am
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 191 times

Re: EU designates TIkTok, Wikipedia for stricter rules

Post by Ognistysztorm » Wed Apr 26, 2023 9:54 pm

ericbarbour wrote:
Wed Apr 26, 2023 6:37 pm
wexter wrote:
Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:58 pm
Wikipedia states consistently that it is "not like them - so the rules don't apply"
Nobody so far is forcing Wikipedia to comply with law/standard.
The WMF white paper on DSA basically said we are "not like them" so the rules don't apply to us
Well then, it gives you an opportunity for something to do. Find a RECENT incident of personal-data abuse and report it up the official chain. Don't just post it here. Forum posts don't get direct action.

An idea case would be WP admins doxing someone who tried to stay anonymous. They still do this on occasion. Something like Alan Oscroft harassing Oberranks by calling his employer--although Oberranks and his employer are in the US, Oscroft is subject to the UK DPA.
TIL that "libel proof doctrine" is a concept that insulates a speaker or publisher from liability for statements made about someone who has no good reputation to protect. I believe that this hasn't crossed our mind before today.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/ar ... f-doctrine

So now we have beginnings of a strategy. To get your book published first you turn over any and all felony-level violations and those that involve DPA by Wikipedia's dysfunctional system to the authorities. Once they nailed Wikipedia down unseal the indictments you can then persuade the publishers to get your book out on the grounds of libel proof doctrine.

The Holocaust distortion scandal might bring it earlier than expected, just saying.

User avatar
Bbb23sucks
Sucker
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:08 am
Location: The Astral Plane
Has thanked: 1255 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: EU designates TIkTok, Wikipedia for stricter rules

Post by Bbb23sucks » Thu Apr 27, 2023 3:25 am

WMF are idiots!
WMF idiot wrote: It is one of the most beloved websites in the world, as well as one of the most trusted sources for up-to-date knowledge about COVID-19. All of this is only made possible by laws that protect its volunteer-led model. But now, that people-powered model is getting caught in the cross-fires of the DSA proposals.
Well it's a good thing they have tireless volunteers like Ottawahitech working to deliver up-to-date information. OH WAIT, they blocked him. I should really get around to invite to this forum sometimes. He was attacked by the mighty Beeb of Wikipediocracy fame.
WMF wrote: Here are four things policymakers should know before finalizing the DSA legislation:

The DSA needs to address the algorithmic systems and business models that drive the harms caused by illegal content.
DSA provisions remain overly-focused on removing content through prescriptive content removal processes. The reality is that removing all illegal content from the internet as soon as it appears is as daunting as any effort to prevent and eliminate all crime in the physical world. Given that the European Union is committed to protecting human rights online and offline, lawmakers should focus on the primary cause of widespread harm online: systems that amplify and spread illegal content.

A safer internet is only possible if DSA provisions address the targeted advertising business model that drives the spread of illegal content. As the Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen emphasized in her recent testimony in Brussels, the algorithms driving profits for ad-placements are also at the root of the problem that the DSA is seeking to address. New regulation should focus on these mechanisms that maximize the reach and impact of illegal content.
Fair enough. Surprised they did not address that already.
WMF wrote: But lawmakers should not be overly focused on Facebook and similar platforms. As a non-profit website, Wikipedia is available for free to everyone, without ads, and without tracking reader behavior.
Well until you ask a basic question and some idiot like Bbb23 CUs you.
WMF wrote: Our volunteer-led, collaborative model of content production and governance helps ensure that content on Wikipedia is neutral and reliable. Thousands of editors deliberate, debate, and work together to decide what information gets included and how it is presented. This works very differently than the centralized systems that lean on algorithms to both share information in a way that maximizes engagement, and to moderate potentially illegal or harmful content.
Until the 'right opinion' is (((discovered))) and everyone with 'wrong opinion' is blocked.
WMF wrote: empowering users to share and debate facts is a powerful means to combat the use of the internet by hoaxers, foreign influence operators, and extremists. It is imperative that new legislation like the DSA fosters space for a variety of web platforms, commercial and noncommercial, to thrive.
HA!! Wikipedia's history is RIFE with hoaxes, foreign influence operators, and extremists. AND STILL IS. Right now there are probably at least one hundred hoaxes on enwiki alone. And state-backed idiots continue to edit war to their death. And they KNOW about them, but they protect by willing corrupt admins and arbs. Until they eventually get blocked and replaced by other state actors when ArbCom is run by a different set of corrupt idiots.
“Wikipedia has shown that it is possible to create healthy online environments that are resilient against disinformation and manipulation. Through nuance and context, Wikipedia offers a model that works well to address the intricacies required in content moderation. Yes, there might be disagreement amongst volunteers on how to present a topic, but that discussion yields better, more neutral, and reliable articles. This process is what has enabled it to be one of the most successful content moderation models in this day and age.”
You have been blocked indefinitely. --Bbb23 (talk)

Appeal declined and talk page access disabled. --331dot (talk)

UTRS appeal declined -- Yamla
idiot wrote: Terms of service should be transparent and equitable, but regulators should not be overly-prescriptive in determining how they are created and enforced.
AKA "if are terms are clear, we can't be as corrupt."

If they had to do this, they couldn't ban people like Abd for no reason and win a court case.
WMF wrote: The draft DSA’s Article 12 currently states that an online provider has to disclose its terms of service—its rules and tools for content moderation— and that they must be enforced “in a diligent, objective, and proportionate manner.” We agree that terms of service should be as transparent and equitable as possible. However, the words “objective” and “proportionate” leave room for an open, vague interpretation. We sympathize with the intent, which is to make companies’ content moderation processes less arbitrary and opaque. But forcing platforms to be “objective” about terms of service violations would have unintended consequences. Such language could potentially lead to enforcement that would make it impossible for community-governed platforms like Wikipedia to use volunteer-driven, collaborative processes to create new rules and enforce existing ones that take context and origin of all content appropriately into account.
Lies, lies, and more lies. They don't people transparently, they just gang-up on people they don't like and harass them. If they had to explain why in court, they might need to actually enforce rules consistently which would mean (((awful))) things like Kumioko being an admin or Boing! said Zebedee being banned.
WMF wrote: The policies for content and conduct on Wikipedia are developed and enforced by the people contributing to Wikipedia themselves. This model allows people who know about a topic to determine what content should exist on the site and how that content should be maintained, based on established neutrality and reliable sourcing rules. This model, while imperfect, keeps Wikipedia neutral and reliable. As more people engage in the editorial process of debating, fact-checking, and adding information, Wikipedia articles tend to become more neutral. What’s more, volunteers’ deliberation, decisions, and enforcement actions are publicly documented on the website.
Literally the opposite, professors or anyone else knowledgeable will usually just get blocked by some idiot like Bbb23 for violating RS, IDHT, or edit warring.
WMF garbage wrote: This approach to content creation and governance is a far-cry from the top-down power structure of the commercial platforms that DSA provisions target. The DSA should protect and promote spaces on the web that allow for open collaboration instead of forcing Wikipedia to conform to a top-down model.
{{ArbComBlock}}

"Foundation Global Ban - do not reinstate. Questions can be directed to ca@wikimedia.org)"
Savior complex: the foundation wrote: Article 14 states that online platforms will be responsible for removing any illegal content that might be uploaded by users, once the platforms have been notified of that illegal content. It also states that platforms will be responsible for creating mechanisms that make it possible for users to alert platform providers of illegal content. These provisions tend to only speak to one type of platform: those with centralized content moderation systems, where users have limited ability to participate in decisions over content, and moderation instead tends to fall on a singular body run by the platform. It is unclear how platforms that fall outside this archetype will be affected by the final versions of these provisions.
"ECP talk page for grammar changes by (((trolls)))."
WMF wrote: People cannot be replaced with algorithms when it comes to moderating content.
ClueBot NG
WMF wrote: On Wikipedia, machine learning tools are used as an aid, not a replacement for human-led content moderation. These tools operate transparently on Wikipedia, and volunteers have the final say in what actions machine learning tools might suggest. As we have seen, putting more decision-making power into the hands of Wikipedia readers and editors makes the site more robust and reliable.
So they can't be used due to errors and bias, so we use them and biased humans? Makes sense according to WMF idiots.
"Globally banned" since September 5, 2023 for exposing harassment.

Email: wikipediasucks@disroot.org

Petition to ban Bbb23Wikipedia AlternativeDonate to help French strikers

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: EU designates TIkTok, Wikipedia for stricter rules

Post by ericbarbour » Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:58 pm

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/04/27/the ... ent-rules/
The other one that will be interesting to see is Wikipedia. As noted above, there are pretty big differences in many of these platforms, but Wikiepedia’s moderation model is not just different in style, it’s just entirely different as so much of it is done by volunteer editors. It seems like it’s going to be a compliance challenge for Wikipedia to have to set up an appeals board for some of its content choices, as the DSA will require.
Remember, that was written by a guy who openly edited his own Wikipedia biography, AND paid someone to edit it.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... /Baybeeami
It was deleted in 2018. Why? You'll have to ask this freak.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moresie

User avatar
Boink Boink
Sucks Fan
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:50 pm
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: EU designates TIkTok, Wikipedia for stricter rules

Post by Boink Boink » Thu Apr 27, 2023 9:45 pm

Wikipedia was explicitly exempted from GDPR.

Wikipedia is specifically targeted by the DSA.

More importantly, it seems to directly address the question, what systems and people in your organisation are responsible for preventing Bad Thing A, B, C, D?

A cursory read shows these are all things Wikipedia does poorly, precisely because Wikipedia has been getting away with moral murder for twenty years. A deeply irresponsible endeavour.

The very fact Wikipedia and the likes of Facebook and YouTube are being mentioned by a law in the same breath regarding matters like misinformation and child protection, is progress. Might even be a first.

It's not a US law, granted, but who gives two shits about US law anymore? That set of parchments is patently not preventing misinformation or protecting children, or improving the lives of ordinary Americans in any measurable way. It would be entirely fitting if Wikipedia hides behind such a deeply uncivilized system of laws to protect its right to life.

User avatar
Bbb23sucks
Sucker
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:08 am
Location: The Astral Plane
Has thanked: 1255 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: EU designates TIkTok, Wikipedia for stricter rules

Post by Bbb23sucks » Thu Apr 27, 2023 10:11 pm

Boink Boink wrote:
Thu Apr 27, 2023 9:45 pm
Wikipedia was explicitly exempted from GDPR.
How?
"Globally banned" since September 5, 2023 for exposing harassment.

Email: wikipediasucks@disroot.org

Petition to ban Bbb23Wikipedia AlternativeDonate to help French strikers

Post Reply