EU citizens!

has lurched back into life due to a last minute Franco-German deal:

Any profit-making site over 3 years old will have to install YouTube-style automatic copyright filters on all uploads.

In practice, they would have to outsource it to Google etc. Big tech would choose what we see, even on tiny indie sites.

Please tell your MEPs today, in your own words, that this is not acceptable. They vote on this next Monday:


Are they high?
even if a company go aheah digital fingerprinting is not cheap and what if site doesn't making that much money?
Who gonna pay money for resources needed?
and they have outsource it as you already stated?


Google will offer small sites a great deal on upload filter packages, I'm sure :blobastonished:


Yeah, they can or they can force Website owner to use Youtube

@switchingsocial at this point I'm just waiting for May, it's going to be a hell of a time


Yes, it's probably a good idea to remind your MEP that elections are coming up very soon and you won't forget how they voted on Article 13.

@switchingsocial haha, have you seen my avatar? it's not the Irish flag

Thanks for sharing. I was sure they wouldn't stop their efforts on breaking the internet.

@switchingsocial More likely: owners will withdraw all founds from their companies after 3 years, liquidate and create a new company.


Well... as far as I can tell they don't mean three years from the law passing, they mean any site that is now already over three years old.

So, a lot of indie sites might have to install filters immediately, or dissolve themselves. Either way, not a great idea.

@switchingsocial Yes. After 3 years of a company existence. I didn't express myself clearly. Sorry.


I normally like your posts but now you are spreading misinformation by omission.

"Annual turnover below €10 million" are excluded.
You call a site with 10 million euro turnover a tiny indie site?
"Fewer than 5 million unique monthly visitors" are excluded.

Small sites are not affected at all.

With 10 million/year there is no need to outsource to Google.

Otherwise I have no opinion pro or against article 13.


No, you've misunderstood the proposal. Small sites are most definitely affected.

You have to be under three years AND under 10 million euros income AND fewer than 5 million unique visitors if you want to be exempted from the rules.

If ANY of those are untrue, then you have to have upload filters. So, if your site is over three years old, you have to have filters.

The link I gave gives examples of this.


To put it another way, under Article 13 upload filters would be mandatory for all these sites:

-profit-making site over 3 years old


-profit-making site over €10m turnover


-profit-making site with over 5 million visitors/month

The last two options include only large sites, but the first option includes even the smallest sites if they have any kind of income.

@switchingsocial I went back to the site and, yes what you say appears correct. So please ignore my post and carry on.

I went in to the actual pdf in her article and it's not super clear that it's about technical filters.

By the first look it seems like they want to stop sites breaking copyright law. TOS forbidding posting of stolen content and then taking down such content when reported, that seems to be enough?
I'm no expert. First time I look at that article.

@switchingsocial Yeah, it's actually the milder version, it's in page three of the pdf. When a copyright infringement is reported you must take the content down. Makes sense. If someone steels your new book, you report it and the site must take it down.

Only if you also have 5 million unique visitors is there a need to prevent further upload of the illegal content you already removed. (filters)

Small sites are not affected by filters. So you may be spreading misinformation.


I would appreciate you not using the word "misinformation".

It implies deliberately trying to mislead people, and I'm certainly not doing that.

I'm not a legal expert, but I do trust Julia Reda to interpret the document correctly as she is an MEP who specialises in copyright matters.

According to her, the lighter regime you mention only applies to smaller companies *that are less than three years old*.

@switchingsocial Yeah, sorry about that, it's a loaded term.

She has a political agenda though which I'm not too familiar with.

Contrasting approaches to politics by MEPs Show more


The current situation is piracy is illegal, but the platform holder isn't liable as long as they take action to remove illegal uploads.

Article 13 would make platform holders liable for uploads even if they remove them immediately. The only way to avoid liability would be to prevent pirated material ever being uploaded, and the only way to do that would be filters.

(By the way, this doesn't just cover video or music, it would cover text too. Every post would have to be scanned.)

@switchingsocial @alexbeck piracy isn’t illegal, it just makes you liable to a lawsuit on the grounds of copyright infringement. The services providing them are also liable and have been historically found guilty of infringement just as the individuals who share or download theme

Does your account’s regular spread of misinformation come out of malice or incompetence?

@miya @alexbeck

"regular spread of misinformation"...? 😟

Would you care to give some examples?

@switchingsocial You included me, but the quoted line is from miya. That person might be trolling. Of course piracy is illegal, and so on..

@alexbeck @switchingsocial Piracy is not technically illegal. It just makes you liable to lawsuit. It doesn’t really matter in common parlance but an account speaking from the position of an informed expert should be accurate when handing out information.
@switchingsocial @alexbeck
Your whole project generally distorts the definition of “ethical” to be some vague, undefined combination of open-source (regardless of freedom) or privacy-marketed (regardless of actual privacy). Eg false private/ethical recommendations of Mozilla firefox, which is spyware just as Chrome is or ProtonMail, which tracks its users and stores data and IP.

It’s understandable you’re trying to keep the technical info low as the intended audience is non computer experts, but that’s stronger reason to maintain a more rigorous standard, since they’re putting their trust in you. There’s no reason you couldn’t recommend Midori or Otter, for example, which are easy to use feature complete browsers. Do you have any actual experts on your team?

Meta, policies Show more

Meta, policies Show more

Meta, policies Show more

Meta, policies Show more

Meta, policies Show more

@switchingsocial Otter is literally just a FOSS recreation of Opera before it changed its design ethos. Where do you get the idea it’s for “techie” users?

Do you know how to monitor outgoing connections? I doubt you’ve actually turned off all its telemetry, which would require disabling some of its built in plug ins. Make sure to go back in and turn off Mozilla’s tracker specifically for people who turn off telemetry.

Again, how is Firefox at all a private alternative?

Meta, policies Show more

Meta, policies Show more

Meta, policies Show more

Meta, policies Show more

@switchingsocial I know, that was a joke. they asked for a Stallman approved browser.

Meta, policies Show more

Meta, policies Show more

Show more
@switchingsocial not sure why you can’t just link directly to Windows/OSX downloads on your site but ok, website design & PR comes first before privacy. How about Midori or Iridium? They both have easy to use sites and are not spyware, unlike Firefox.

And once more, why Firefox over Chromium? How is Firefox private in any way?
@switchingsocial do you know the difference between source and binary? If you try to compile Firefox from source you’ll get similarly complex instructions. Binaries are pre-compiled and ready to use. If you clicked Download rather than Build on their site, it takes you to ready to use Windows .exe and OSX .dmg’s. This is the case with any open source software

Meta, policies Show more

@IsaacWestcott @switchingsocial
Standard Firefox is spyware, it has telemetry same as Chromium and also other shady & insecure embedded things worse than Chromium like pocket integration. hardened ff removes all that, similar to ungoogled/iridium, but a fully hardened config also places much further emphasis on security, patching over vulnerabilities that could expose you. As in, it goes beyond removing the browsers own spyware and actively prevents outside spying.

@switchingsocial That's not how I'm reading that document. If you comply with article 13 you're fine. All it takes is to remove illegal content when it's reported. Only when you are above 5 million visitors, not a tiny site, you need to prevent re-upload of the content.

If the book you are selling has ©, she wants to remove your right as an author to report the site and take down the book. Without a13, a company can steal your book and earn ad money on it, giving you nothing?


I guess we have to agree to disagree on interpretation. I am sticking with Reda's expert interpretation on this matter.

But this is not a debate about copyright itself. This is a debate about how to enforce copyright.

Mandatory filters on all sites for all copyright content go way too far.

Also, filters don't work. YouTube's content ID is a haven for copyright trolls claiming on works they don't own:

Imagine this kind of problem but applied to text posts!

Yes, mandatory filters goes to far, but they are only for big sites with 5 million monthly visitors. Interpretation perhaps or she's spinning it?

If you have copyright on your book. She argue that anyone should copy it freely her goal is to remove your possibility to sell the book you just wrote.

You say that big companies shouldn't even be forced to try prevent people copying and distributing your work because the filters are ineffective. Interesting opinion.


No, I think *filters* are the wrong approach because they cause more harm than they prevent.

Also, once they are in place they can be used for purposes that they were never intended for.

I didn't say anything about preventing piracy in general (and nor does Reda in this issue), that's a separate topic.

A13 is about stopping companies from spreading stolen content, isn't it? She promotes piracy in general and blocking art13 is just allowing big companies to sell ads towards stolen content. Filters only apply to big companies(debatable), that was the initial confusion if she (or you) was spreading misinformation.

The issue of abuse and censorship is indeed very important and a very complicated issue. I think we don't have time to enter this topic via toots.

Article 13 politics Show more

Article 13 politics Show more

Article 13 politics Show more

@switchingsocial I read this in your link:

Available to the public for less than 3 years
Annual turnover below €10 million
Fewer than 5 million unique monthly visitors.

To have to do upload filters your company has to be over every single criteria.


No, it just has to be over ONE of those criteria.

The examples given include tiny companies that are over three years old.

@switchingsocial Oh sorry. I read it again it and you are right.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon is a microblogging site that federates with most instances on the Fediverse.