In short 1984 is slowly but surely looming on the horizon: http://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefilm_g ... =1791.html
- 1984.jpg (18.66 KB) Viewed times 5516
Small sites like this forum will obviously not enter this game but if google censor them, they will no longer be found ....
Little anecdote:
Econologie lost 50% of its visitors from Google (therefore 48% of its total visitors) in November 2012 for a reason that I have still not explained nor therefore resolved ...
I'm not getting into paranoia, I'm just saying that I haven't found the answer after tens of hours of research ... and that this is an example that shows how google controls the vast majority of sites. .. (except facebook, twitter, instagram which have their "captive herd" ...)
To be continued?
EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS AGREE TO DELIVER WEB CENSORSHIP TO GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK
December 6, 2018
We have never seen a European regulation be accepted so quickly by European governments (in less than 3 months!), And this despite the concerns expressed by various States (1). Macron has clearly convinced them that, the approaching European elections, they could maintain their power by agitating the unalterable terrorist pretext. The result is widespread censorship and surveillance of the Internet.
The Council of the European Union has therefore just acted, immediately and without the least serious debate, a bill which will oblige all actors of the Web to submit to the automated surveillance and censorship tools provided by Facebook and Google (2), while allowing the police to demand the removal in one hour of the contents which they will consider "terrorist", without the authorization of a judge.
Two measures as delusional as they are new, which will lead to subjecting the entire European digital ecosystem to a handful of giants that the Union cynically claims to want to fight (read our analysis), while risking jeopardizing the confidentiality of our correspondence ( 3)… And all this when neither the European Commission nor the governments have ever succeeded in demonstrating how this law would be useful in the fight against terrorism (4).
The debate on this text will now continue before the European Parliament. The latter will vote next Wednesday, December 12, a first "report on the fight against terrorism" which, without having the effect of a law, promotes more or less the same absurd measures as those provided for in the "regulation of anti-terrorist censorship ”, which Parliament will examine in the following weeks.
This first vote on Wednesday will be an opportunity for each MEP to reveal their position on the totalitarian project of Emmanuel Macron, and they will have to account for it as the electoral campaign for the 2019 European elections begins.
References
1. ↑ Are notably opposed to the current version of the text Finland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland, Denmark
2. ↑ As early as June 2017, the European Commission publicly congratulated itself on “having worked for two years with key web platforms within the Forum European Internet ", which brings together Google, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft since 2015," to ensure the voluntary removal of terrorist content online ", in particular through" the initiative led by the industry to create a " database of hashes "which guarantees that terrorist content removed on one platform is not put back online on another platform".
For the Commission, already, "the objective is for platforms to do more, in particular by upgrading the automatic detection of terrorist content, by sharing the technologies and tools concerned with smaller companies and by fully using the" base digital fingerprint data ”” (all of these quotes are free translations from English).
3. ↑ We note here a slight evolution since our last analysis concerning the risks for the confidentiality of our communications. In the version of the regulation adopted today by the Council of the EU, recital 10 has been modified and seems to attempt to exclude from the scope of this text interpersonal communication services: "Interpersonal communication services that enable direct interpersonal and interactive exchange of information between a finite number of persons, whereby the persons initiating or participating in the communication determine its recipient (s), are not in scope ”.
This precision is however particularly hazardous and is not reassuring. First, the clarification is not taken up in Article 2 of the regulation which defines the different concepts of the text. Above all, this clarification is not consistent: the “interpersonal communications service” is already defined by the European code of electronic communications (article 2 and recital 17), as being able then to cover certain cloud services (where a limited number of users can exchange documents, typically). However, the version of the regulation recorded today explicitly states that it applies to cloud services, while claiming not to apply to interpersonal communications. The confusion is total.
4. ↑ In 2017, UNESCO published a report analyzing 550 published studies on the issue of radicalization online. The report concludes that "the current state of evidence on the link between the Internet, social media and violent radicalization is very limited and still not conclusive" and that there is "no sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a causal link between extremist propaganda or social media recruitment and the violent radicalization of young people. ” The report stresses that "attempts to prevent the radicalization of young people on the Internet aspects have not proven to be effective but, on the other hand, can clearly harm online freedoms, particularly freedom of expression" (our translation of English).
Source: https://www.laquadrature.net/2018/12/06 ... -facebook/
