Europe Is About To Create A Link Tax: Time To Speak Out Against It

from the speak-up dept

We've written plenty of times about ridiculous European plans to create a so-called "snippet tax" which is more officially referred to as "ancillary rights" (and is really just about creating a tax on Google). The basic concept is that some old school newspapers are so lazy and have so failed to adapt to the internet -- and so want to blame Google for their own failures -- that they want to tax any aggregator (e.g., Google) that links to their works with a snippet, that doesn't pay for the privilege of sending those publishers traffic. As you may remember, Germany has been pushing for such a thing for many, many years, and Austria has been exploring it as well. But perhaps the most attention grabbing move was the one in Spain, which not only included a snippet tax, but made it mandatory. That is, even if you wanted Google News to link to you for free, you couldn't get that. In response, Google took the nuclear option and shut down Google News in Spain. A study showed that this law has actually done much to harm Spanish publishers, but the EU pushes on, ridiculously.

As discussed a year ago, some in the EU Commission are all for creating an EU-wide snippet tax, and as ridiculous and counterproductive as that is, the Commission is about to make a decision on it, and the public consultation on the issue is about to close (it ends tomorrow). Thankfully, many, many different groups have set up nice and easy systems to understand and respond to the consultation -- which you should do. Here are just a few options: There's also a good detailed discussion of why this snippet tax is the wrong solution from European copyright lawyer Remy Chavannes. Here's just a... um... snippet (that I didn't pay for):
In fact, there is precious little indication that the challenges currently being faced by press publishers are due to the lack of sufficiently broad intellectual property rights. And if insufficient IP rights are not a significant part of the problem, increasing IP rights is unlikely to be a significant part of the solution. At a recent conference in Amsterdam, speakers from publishers, academia, politics, civil society and the internet sector were in near-total agreement that a neighbouring right for publishers would solve nothing at best. It would seem more fruitful to investigate other ways in which the position and prospects of publishers of quality journalism can be increased, e.g. via subsidies, tax facilities, the partial repurposing of public broadcasting funds, or other measures that reflect the significant value to a democratic society of having a vigorous, free and independent press.

Implementation of a neighbouring right would bring significant uncertainty, costs and risks, not just to authors and publishers, but also to the eclectic group of platforms, intermediaries and other service providers that play a role in facilitating the publication, discovery and consumption of press content. Larger, existing broad-based platforms will be incentivised to reduce or remove service features that might trigger the new neighbouring right. New entrants are likely to be discouraged, particularly new entrants who want specifically to serve the market for finding and consuming press content. Depending on the scope of any neighbouring right, moreover, it could also negatively impact providers of social networks as well as providers of access, caching and hosting services. Increasing costs, complexity and uncertainty for such a broad category of service providers threatens the free flow of information and investment in – and availability of – innovative digital services, as well as the commercial prospects for publishers and authors.
Good stuff, and I urge you to read the whole thing -- and to respond to the consultation before the EU Commission destroys the link.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    jameshogg (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 2:16pm

    "Please pay us whenever you work to point traffic in our direction. Because why should we work for free?"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 2:18pm

    As discussed a year ago, some in the EU Commission are all for creating an EU-wide snippet tax,

    ...and by all appearances, the EU is on the verge of becoming significantly smaller as multiple nations are looking to leave it in the near future, and at least one has a pretty good chance of doing so successfully. So this may not be as big of a problem as it sounds at first.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 11:59pm

      Re:

      If you think the people who are currently pushing for the UK to leave the EU (often based on exaggerations and fabrications, and without a coherent post-exit plan) wouldn't be the sort of people who'd push for this kind of ruling, you're sadly mistaken. Then, you'd just have a bigger problem - instead of one commission that needs to be convinced of their folly, you have numerous bodies, all driven by the idea of control and sovereignty above common sense and logic. Most likely with a dropping economy which would lead them to attempt idiotic crap like this to "protect" their failing industries.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    stine, 14 Jun 2016 @ 2:20pm

    robots.txt

    Dear publishers, please use Bing to search for the term robots.txt. Once you've discovered how to keep Google out of your web sites, you won't need to tax Google on links because there won't be any.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 3:02pm

      Re: robots.txt

      Dear random internet commentor, doing that doesn't lead to us getting paid atop the free advertising and traffic we get from sites like Google, so we have absolutely no idea what that tech speak you just posted means. -Publishers

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 2:20pm

    Perhaps it might be time to stop trying to bend IP into a catch-all fix for all of the problems they claim are destroying them.

    Their own inaction has lead them to where they are, and now they demand that the government cut the achilles tendons of others in the race to make it fair.

    They claim x harms them, then x goes away and they suffer actual harm... then try to recast it as a punishment.
    They see the harms hitting others in their industries but somehow are convinced their model is different enough to not suffer the same flaws & harmful outcome.

    There is not a viable magic wand that will magically empty Google's pockets into theirs. Google can and will take their ball and walk away, and the harm will be actual rather than imagined.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 2:20pm

    But... Couldn't Google go over the EU's head and use ISDS to sue the EU as the fact it would cost them too much money and would interfere with their business model?

    Or they could take the easier option. Block all access to Google thru-out the entire EU. See how they like having to use Bing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 2:49pm

    Actually I think it's a great idea.

    If Google had a persistent domain based RBL feature that customers could configure, I'd have already blacklisted most of these players from my search years ago.

    So charge Google. Please! I am sick of seeing your poser content SEO'd to the front page. Making them pay, will perhaps push them over the hump and they will finally acknowledge that you suck so bad your propagandists tripe should never have been crawled to begin with.

    The other likely outcome is that all your content will get screen scraped, filtered for adverts, and dumped to distributed content networks. Yay! Internet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 3:42pm

      Re: Actually I think it's a great idea.

      But if I am using an american IP. Now I can search without costing the aggregator?

      It is an indirect filtering of content. Not a bright or very workable idea.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 15 Jun 2016 @ 12:05am

      Re: Actually I think it's a great idea.

      "So charge Google. Please! I am sick of seeing your poser content SEO'd to the front page."

      How about you stop whining and stop using Google, rather than trying to force them to display only what *you* want? They'll change their algorithms pretty quick if people agree with you and you all start using a competitor you find more agreeable, and they won't care about what you think anyway if you're in a minority. Why people insist on frequenting services they actively hate is beyond me.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        The Wanderer (profile), 16 Jun 2016 @ 9:01am

        Re: Re: Actually I think it's a great idea.

        I don't think the "you" in the part you quoted was a reference to Google; I think he was talking to the people who are wanting to be paid for being indexed.

        That is, if they charge Google for being indexed, then maybe Google will decide that they're unworthy of being indexed, and the poster won't have to see their (IHO unworthy) content when he searches Google for something.

        That's why he mentions a "domain-based RBL feature" - he wants to be able to blacklist particular domains from the Google search results which he sees, not because he doesn't like Google, but because he doesn't like those sites (and will never follow links to them, so they're useless results to him).

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Will-INI (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 2:49pm

    Just don't get it. How would anyone ever find out about articles on these sites? It would have to kill their online business model. It's like the newspapers know their going down and they want to take Google with them. Or at least try to.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 3:06pm

      'Google has money, we want money, make Google give us money'

      They're trying to have it both ways, where Google must include snippets because to do otherwise would be 'anti-competitive' and 'abuse of their monopoly position in search', and must pay for the 'privilege' of showing the snippets.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 3:04pm

    Is there anything in an EU news paper that is not and will not be posted elsewhere outside the EU?

    If not then let them have their tax and also let them suffer the consequences of NO linkage.

    From what I have read on EU newspapers on line there would only be an improvement to the Web if they would disappear and be replaced with something better.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 3:45pm

      Re:

      You will see a lot of interest in VPNs and other ways to shift apparent IP to look like an american. Since paying for VPN is often more expensive than the ads could cover, USA should encourage it...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 3:05pm

    Aww, poor legacy newspapers are gonna fail unless they're allowed to take some money from Google. Let them fail if they can't or won't adapt. There are plenty of other news sources that have adapted and will fill the space just fine if these large legacy papers disappear.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      aidian, 14 Jun 2016 @ 9:35pm

      Re: Please don't use that term...

      poor legacy newspapers


      I hate the term 'legacy' when it's used as a sort of stealth pejorative. Calling anything that's been around for longer than Uber a 'legacy' whatever is the sort of thing MBAs do. Usually when they're getting ready to try and rob you.

      Some day some business scumbag is going to refer to me as a legacy cost. Hopefully I'll have enough cash handy to make bail, because I guarantee I'll break his or her nose.

      There are plenty of other news sources that have adapted and will fill the space just fine if these large legacy papers disappear.


      Fill the column inches/pixels, sure. Actually do the reporting, no. To do real reporting -- time consuming, expensive reporting -- is the problem. I can personally write as many words as my local paper does all by myself. But most of them will be me spouting off about the news reported by the people at the paper.

      And there is no such thing as a 'large' news organization anymore. The Orlando Sentinel covered this week's massacre with about 1/3rd as many staff as they had 10-15 years ago. Some of that missing two-thirds was surely fat. Lots of it was wasn't.

      The news operation I work for currently has one person covering five small town governments. My region is not notably corrupt, but I guarantee you the citizens of at several of those towns are currently being robbed and wronged by their public officials, and we don't have the resources to uncover it.

      None of that means a link tax is anything but a stupid idea. What a dumb move.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 15 Jun 2016 @ 12:16am

        Re: Re: Please don't use that term...

        "I hate the term 'legacy' when it's used as a sort of stealth pejorative."

        Which term would you prefer when referring to companies that fight progress in this way? The ones that refuse to adjust to reality just because something used to be different 20 years ago, and then attack those who do adapt?

        "Some day some business scumbag is going to refer to me as a legacy cost. Hopefully I'll have enough cash handy to make bail, because I guarantee I'll break his or her nose."

        If your immediate reaction to business terminology is physical violence, I don't think they'll miss you too much when they fire and sue you.

        "Fill the column inches/pixels, sure. Actually do the reporting, no. To do real reporting -- time consuming, expensive reporting -- is the problem."

        We wouldn't be having this conversation if most of the "legacy" companies still actually did that. The rot set in a long time ago, and attacking people who link or aggregate content is never going to fix that. The problem is the management who don't value such things and would prefer to republish AP feeds or celebrity gossip instead - and the audience who generates more revenue for those things than real reporting.

        "None of that means a link tax is anything but a stupid idea. What a dumb move."

        So, other that physically attacking people for using the wrong word and getting yourself jailed, what's your solution?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 16 Jun 2016 @ 4:18pm

          Re: Re: Re: Please don't use that term...

          "The rot set in a long time ago"

          Yes. The decline of newspaper began before the internet became a realistic place to get news, but the newspaper industry stubbornly refuses to see that fact. The internet is not killing newspapers, the newspapers were already dying. The internet was just an escape hatch for readers who wanted to actually get news.

          What's killing the newspaper business is the extreme amount of consolidation (which began in earnest before the internet was a factor) under large media companies. That consolidation resulted in a serious and dramatic decline in the quality of reporting.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 3:08pm

    I hope they pass it. 2 days after they do, Google will no longer service Europe and within a couple of days after that you will again hear of monopoly punishment because Google isn't paying for snippets they aren't using.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 3:38pm

      Re:

      Yeah, I imagine they're thinking that it's a win-win for them, and a lose-lose for Google. Either Google pays out for the free traffic and advertising their service provides, or they pull the service and the morons pushing the law get to use that as 'evidence' of how Google has a 'monopoly position in the search business' and needs to be regulated/fined to 'even the playing field for other search options'.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 3:30pm

    Napoleon and World War I

    Europe killed off a huge chunk of its best and brightest. The effects are being felt even now.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    ed, 14 Jun 2016 @ 3:32pm

    Who pays?

    If a student is asked to critique a novel as part of an exam, who pays the snippet tax? Is it the student or the educational institution that asked that student to take the exam?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 3:35pm

    Hmm, schadenfreude...

    While shooting down the idiocy that is a 'Snippet/Google Tax' would obviously be the best outcome, I'm not quite sure which alternative I would prefer if the tax is passed for maximum popcorn enjoyment.

    If they make the tax mandatory, such that it's not possible for sites to opt-out of charging then Google can pull the service entirely rather than pay, much like they did in Spain.

    If they don't make it mandatory then Google simply drops the snippets entirely for anyone that demands that they pay, and those that aren't so short-sighted get a boost to their visibility in the rankings.

    Either way the greedy fools are screaming, and much enjoyment shall be had.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 15 Jun 2016 @ 12:20am

      Re: Hmm, schadenfreude...

      Either way, they'll just whine that Google now owe them for their lost revenue. This is never about someone making a business decision that happens to be wrong, it's about extorting money from Google because they have more.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    UniKyrn, 14 Jun 2016 @ 4:25pm

    Or, alternately, let the entire EU figure out the same lesson Spain and Germany did.

    "You don't like us advertising your publication for free? Fine, we'll stop. Oh? Your readership/linkrate just dropped into the floor? Ok, YOU PAY US for every link we make back to you now, or watch your smarter competitors buy what's left of you for a penny on the dollar at your bankruptcy sale."

    An entire continent wants to become irrelevant?

    Let them ...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Robert E. Moran, 14 Jun 2016 @ 5:37pm

    Links

    You're kidding, right? The land of the stupid meets governments and publishers who haven't a clue regarding the web and how it works. It's tubes, right? Unreal. How to lose money needlessly due to blinding incompetence says it all. A pox on all their houses.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 5:59pm

    That's certainly 1 way to regulate the internet. Force a tax on all companies that refuse to only do what they are told to do. of course waive said tax if they are willing to do what they are told.

    I am quite certain that's why they are doing this to force google to comply with their orders not just to help out the stranded newspaper whales.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 8:24pm

    Brexit?

    Are they trying to actively encourage a Brexit?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Zem, 14 Jun 2016 @ 8:52pm

    If we tax Link who will save Zelda?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    aidian, 14 Jun 2016 @ 9:43pm

    Sure snippets benefit Google and cost newsrooms....

    ...that doesn't mean taxing headlines and links will help.

    Google and similar aggregators run a headline and a snippet with a link. Lots of readers don't need anything more than that to get what they need from the story, so they never visit the news operation that actually reported the story.

    If you're a local news operation this hurts because you've got a finite potential audience -- people from outside your region aren't going to be regular readers.

    But the thing is even if Google and every other search engine and aggregator disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't cause significant additional traffic.

    Most people getting those headlines via Google News or whatever aren't local readers anyway. And if Google doesn't excerpt and link to you, your competition and news operations in other regions are just going to rewrite the story themselves and not link to your report (or bury the link).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 15 Jun 2016 @ 6:12am

      Re: Sure snippets benefit Google and cost newsrooms....

      Google and similar aggregators run a headline and a snippet with a link. Lots of readers don't need anything more than that to get what they need from the story, so they never visit the news operation that actually reported the story.

      If the headline and a short snippet of text is enough to replace the entire article such that people don't feel the need to read the whole thing, then they either need to get better writers or better readers, because someone is doing it wrong.

      It's neither Google's fault nor their problem if the readers are so shallow that they don't care about finding out the details behind a story, and/or the article covering it is comprised mostly of empty padding with only a small amount of text actually relevant.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 16 Jun 2016 @ 4:23pm

      Re: Sure snippets benefit Google and cost newsrooms....

      "Lots of readers don't need anything more than that to get what they need from the story, so they never visit the news operation that actually reported the story."

      These are the exact same people who read a headline in the display newspaper and are satisfied enough that they don't buy the paper.

      In other words, these are people who aren't really into reading the news and therefore won't magically turn into customers regardless of whether or not there are snippets.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 10:27pm

    Tired of All These Luddites, EU, Et Al.

    As with all other forms of extortion, refuse to play the game. The easiest way to do with governments is to leave the threatening country - or bloc of countries.

    Sacrifice those hostages that can't be rescued without payment, i.e., walk away from the EU offices, taking as much valuta as can be rescued and terminate all employees unwilling to relocate beyond EU jurisdictions.

    Never spider the offending newspapers again - sentence them to Internet death. Bing, Yahoo!, Duck Duck Go...not all of these together can rescue a patient ignored by Google.

    Once clear of meaningful legal coercion by the EU, Google does whatever it wants and ignores complaints to the fullest possible, legal degree. If complaints must be addressed, and a cessation of spidering and listing suffices to resolve the issue, block 'em and let 'em shrivel in the darkness up to and including countries. If that doesn't suffice and more relocation serves - move again, killing employment, commerce, taxes, etc. in the offending demesne.

    Operationally, Google is an extra-national entity. Don't love everything they've ever done, but in this case, there's certain extremely valuable "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" precedents that need a-settin' for the EU and anybody else paying attention.

    Lets see what happens when a few more countries find themselves to have been deemed totally irrelevant, non-existent even, on the Internet thanks to the lobbying efforts of a small number of in-country groups following VERY marginal and totally outmoded business models.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    synonymous howard, 15 Jun 2016 @ 12:59am

    hit google where it hurts

    Seeing as google pay next to no tax throughout the world, evading where ever possible, this will really burden them. The ignorance of this fact aptly displays the ignorance of the old media. How can news organisations be so uninformed. Unless of course by pointing this out they are exposing them selves to investigation and criticism.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 15 Jun 2016 @ 1:09am

      Re: hit google where it hurts

      Are you ignorant enough to believe that the proposed taxes only affect Google, and/or that Google is not in a better position to handle such things than most other companies?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2016 @ 4:54am

    If Google does not provide what they want, why don't they just make their own google?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 15 Jun 2016 @ 6:07am

      Re:

      For that to work they'd need to spend the time and money into creating a viable competitor to Google, with no assurance that it would actually be successful. Much easier to force Google to pay them for the free advertising and traffic it sends them.

      They want to get money, they don't want to spend it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    William H. Taft, 16 Jun 2016 @ 4:27am

    How can any self-respecting European

    actually sit and condescendingly poke fun at US governance? If you had any self-awareness about your own ludicrous predicament you'd die in your own god-damned shame.

    What will it take for citizens to put an end to this madness from politicians? I really hope my British family and friends vote to leave the EU. Send a shot over the bow. Let them know that laws, policies, and regulations are not a one-size-fits-all for every country.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 16 Jun 2016 @ 4:50am

      Re: How can any self-respecting European

      "How can any self-respecting European actually sit and condescendingly poke fun at US governance?"

      Easily. My pointing out ridiculous stuff that's happening in the US doesn't mean I'm not aware of shenanigans at home. I can poke fun at both equally. Plus, whatever random crap goes on in the US tends to affect the rest of the world so it's still a form of self-preservation.

      "I really hope my British family and friends vote to leave the EU."

      ...and then what? I hear a lot of xenophobia, rambling about control and claims of how we're better of with complete autonomy, usually coupled with fabrication and exaggeration. I hear vague unsupported statements of "savings", which are usually suspect (for example, most of the people claiming the NHS will be better off are people who not long ago were calling for it to be dismantled and sold off).

      What I don't hear is a real plan for the future, how the UK will cope with the inevitable collapse of the economy (we've already lost billions just because the vote is coming up). How it will cope with the needs of the 2+ million British citizens currently in Europe, how it will cope with the massive amount of red tape and lost income that renegotiating contracts, requiring visas for every traveller, etc. How it will deal with the large amount of money still to be paid to the EU members if we continue to trade with them but lacking any control over how its used, as Norway currently has to. We will be better off making our own decisions? Fine. What decisions are we going to make?

      Perhaps you can provide a leave argument that's not based on lies and racism, preferably one with a real outline of how we deal with the predictable negative consequences? I'm yet to hear one.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Wendy Cockcroft, 16 Jun 2016 @ 5:46am

        Re: Re: How can any self-respecting European

        ^This. I've never been comfortable with ever-closer union, I'd rather we were just a trading bloc, but leaving is plain stupid. I doubt we'd end up having WW3 but we would have to create a trade agreement to trade with our former trading partners and since they'd be annoyed with us for pulling out I can't imagine that the terms would be particularly favourable to us. Not having a trade agreement would mean having to pay tariffs on our exports, which we've not had to do for decades.

        So yeah, it'd cost us money.

        Meanwhile, the Commonwealth isn't quite enough to trade with and our trade with the US is run through Europe. Oh, wait a cotton-pickin' minute, isn't President Obama after saying that he wouldn't be in favour of Brexit? Uh-oh. Yes indeed, we can look forward on tariffs on trade with the US. What fun!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 16 Jun 2016 @ 6:16am

          Re: Re: Re: How can any self-respecting European

          Exactly, whatever savings are expected, we expect to spend at least as much getting back with existing trading partners and introduce plenty of additional costs and difficulties for business going forward. Plus, the economy will be very much damaged in the short term (and already has been even if we vote remain).

          I'd be willing to entertain the idea of leaving if I could see mid to long term evidence of major improvement, and how autonomy would improve things if we leave. But, nothing. However bad you think the EU is being run right now, at least there's evidence of how it operates and what can be done to improve it.

          Come on exit supporters, name a ruling that the UK would have done better if we had autonomy, and provide evidence of how that would have improved things. I'm seeing nothing except vague whining from people who believe what the Daily Express writes about immigration (often proven lies) and myths from The Sun about bananas. Where are the facts?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Niels, 16 Jun 2016 @ 7:29am

    Sad

    This is the reason Europe does not have a company like Google Facebook or Apple. Crazy regulation!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2016 @ 8:41am

    The ultimate goal is to control the internet. Terrorism, child pornography, copyright, file-sharing, taxes, bullying...They choose.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2016 @ 7:46am

    Time to rebuild Roman Empire

    After brexit it's time to rebuild europe, so why not to rebuild roman empireindeed?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.