1. 15
  1.  

  2. 10

    Something tells me if it didn’t do anything they wouldn’t have made an entire law about it. Just like thinking out loud here.

    1. 1

      Right.

      In fact, the revised version of Article 13 also puts some abuse protections in place.

      Why are the masses of peons so infatuated with “protections”? Abuse protections? Like, some text snippet somewhere that’s supposed to protect you from being abused by the government - the same organization that wrote the snippet?

      It’s all magic text, just like the Constitution, which has magically limited the size of the US government for quite a while now, and granted them rights that we don’t have.

      1. 2

        Legal systems are really weird when you start to think about them. China technically has freedom of speech in their constitution. Australia (which the exception of VIC) does not have a bill of rights.

        A lot of laws come down to enforcement, and collective belief in the system itself. I wrote about this a while back:

        https://khanism.org/security/legality/

        ..and I feel I need to write an updated version that also incorporates a lot of Graber’s views on debt an legal systems; basically that the state can only enforce laws because it has a monopoly on violence (police and military).

        It’s interesting that for centuries, armies around the world were entirely funded by debt. Conquerors like Alexander the Great or Napoleon would take an area, leave a garrison and charge people taxes. In some cases these villagers had never used coins before, and now they had to pay taxes, which they got from the soldiers.

        It’s a bit tangential, but it relates to laws like these, probably more in the US than the EU, because they’re often crafted by large industry to leverage that violence held by the state, to create conditions favorable to them.

        1. 2

          Legal systems are really weird when you start to think about them. China technically has freedom of speech in their constitution

          So did the Soviet Union, right?

          basically that the state can only enforce laws because it has a monopoly on violence

          Of course. Laws are essentially just commands issued by rulers. To rule over people, you need to be in a position to force them to obey your commands.

          You sound like you’d agree that governments shouldn’t exist, but somehow I suspect you wouldn’t.

      2. 1

        That’s a heuristic to always remember. :) The last use of it popping into mind was metadata. There was tons of debate in the media about it. The administration that wanted it so much kept telling us there was no harm that could come to us. Although some security folks did, I didn’t see a single, media outlet ask the obvious question: why do you want it so much for a military-intelligence organization if it’s a harmless thing not worth thinking about?

      3. 7

        The revised article still requires service operators to take “effective measures to prevent the availability on its services of unauthorised works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders” which I think still qualifies as “filter uploaded content”, but IANAL.

        1. 4

          It seems this post refers to an older revision of Articile 13.

          https://twitter.com/Senficon/status/973949609461665794