Be Careful What You Wish For: Twitter Temporarily Bans 'Get Out The Vote' Ads To Comply With 'Fake News' Law

from the why-does-no-one-ever-think-these-things-through dept

If there's one consistent theme that we've talked about on Techdirt over the past few decades, it's that attempts to regulate the internet based on a specifically observed "harm" almost always leads to bad outcomes. That's because trying to regulate away a harm frequently fails to take into account context and the specifics of how such laws would be interpreted. For example, over the last few years, there's been plenty of concern about fake news and questionable "political advertising" that is really just, let's say, "propaganda" from parties wishing to mess up the democratic process, rather than actually encourage effective democracy. Because of this we've seen attempts to pass "fake news" laws and "online political ads" laws that clearly come from a place of good intentions (mostly), but the actual impact can be far reaching and lead to unintended consequences.

For example, just last week people suddenly realized that, with the EU Parliamentary elections coming up next month, and France's new anti-fake news political advertisements law, that Twitter would be blocking the French government's own "get out the vote" advertising campaign:

Since December, France requires online political campaigns to declare who paid for them, and how much was spent.

But now Twitter has rejected a government voter registration campaign.

The company could not find a solution to obey the letter of the new law, officials said – and opted to avoid the potential problem altogether.

Of course, rather than realize that maybe the law they wrote was too broad, French government officials immediately... blamed Twitter. Oh, and they did so on Twitter.

That's France's Minister of the Interior saying "Twitter's priority should be to fight content that glorifies terrorism. Not campaigns to register on the electoral lists of a democratic republic." But, of course, that ignores that it was France's own extreme position on the law that lead Twitter to conclude the best way to comply was to block all political advertising, rather than go through the arduous process of keeping track of which political ads are allowed, which are banned, and to provide an open database of information about all of those ads.

Other French officials also complained... also on Twitter. Minister of Culture Franck Reister -- most recently seen eagerly cheering on censorship filters -- also chose to attack Twitter for trying to comply with France's bad law:

That one roughly says:

We must put an end to the irresponsibility of the platforms: @ Twitter pretends not to understand a law allowing simply a better information of the citizens during an electoral period ... whereas @ facebook has decided to apply it, in anticipation, in all the countries !

Note the focus: blaming Twitter for deciding it was too burdensome to host political ads, rather than recognizing it was the French law that made it so. Also, pointing to Facebook as a "good example" of agreeing to go through the arduous process kind of misses the whole point: the bigger companies (Facebook is a hell of a lot bigger than Twitter) can more easily comply with these laws, while smaller platforms find it too expensive. But, no matter. France's Minister of Culture assumes that all companies should have to spend tons of money just so his government can advertise on them.

Then there's Cedric O, the country's digital minister, who apparently thinks that Twitter should be forced to host some kinds of political advertising, because "the vote is sacred."

Right. The vote is sacred. But it was your government that passed a law that made it quite expensive to host any such advertising. Stop blaming the platforms for reacting appropriately to your bad laws.

Either way, after getting so much pressure in France, the company did back down, saying it was "clarifying" its political advertising rules in France to allow "Get Out The Vote" ads. So perhaps this is a happy ending situation, but what's most annoying is how French officials seem to think their own bad lawmaking is never the problem -- and that internet platforms making rational decisions based on the costs of complying with overreaching laws somehow reflects poorly on the platforms, rather than on their legislative abilities.

Filed Under: france, get out the vote, political advertising, regulations
Companies: twitter


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 10 Apr 2019 @ 11:21am

    That "en anticipation" would probably be better translated as "in advance" or "ahead of time."

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 3:25pm

      Re:

      Is this the same "Mason Wheeler" who makes YouTube videos with his wife?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 3:41pm

      Re: en anticipation

      Agreed. Online translators often lack context conversion, much like the "stop all evil" filters that certain countries are proposing/foisting.

      Yes, that spacecraft is commanded by Captain Petard.

      Oh. And of course, just like the "Do Not Call" legislation, political parties are always exempt from the rules.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 12:06pm

    and that internet platforms making rational decisions based on the costs of complying with overreaching laws somehow reflects poorly on the platforms, rather than on their legislative abilities.

    Foreshadowing as to when article 11 & 13/17 get put in place.....

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Horace Hawkhead, 10 Apr 2019 @ 12:17pm

    The burden of thinking here is on Twitter, BEFORE blocking.

    The moment before block / ban / whatever is when Twitter needs human intervention. But instead it causes the problem.

    Twitter to conclude the best way to comply was to block all political advertising

    This is a gov't source. Twitter can't understand that? With all their smarts?

    Baloney. This is more deliberate obstruction, one of the oldest tactics.

    Throw a few Twitter execs into jail, they'll stop obstructing.

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

    • icon
      Igualmente69 (profile), 10 Apr 2019 @ 12:23pm

      Re: The burden of thinking here is on Twitter, BEFORE blocking.

      You are right, I forgot, laws don't apply to governments, only to the peons. Nice alliteration, Horace.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 2:33pm

        Re: Re: The burden of thinking here is on Twitter, BEFORE blocki

        “Throw a few twitter execs in jail”
        I don’t think France has that much money.
        Did I just say that out Loud? Lol

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 2:41pm

        Re: Re: The burden of thinking here is on Twitter, BEFORE blocki

        Why exactly did you censor the post? The guy is right, it's a douche move by Twitter. Telling people to vote isn't a political ad or partisan issue, and Twitter knows it. And it's easy for everyone to see they're just being douches. Dumb.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 2:59pm

          Re: Re: Re: The burden of thinking here is on Twitter, BEFORE bl

          Twitter did nothing wrong.
          You act in bad faith and malice for your own gain enough eventually it comes back and no one listens when the bully says ouch.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 3:05pm

          Re: Re: Re: The burden of thinking here is on Twitter, BEFORE bl

          It's not a douche move.

          If the government tells me I personally have to kick off everyone from my lawn that shouts in a certain way, when said speech is not illegal, I'm just going to tell everyone to get off my lawn because it's too much of a pain in the ass to try and sort through all the shouting and hope I get it right and not get slapped by the authorities for not following the law.

          Better to block everything and be 100% safe than try and comply with one of the dumbest laws ever and hope I don't get in trouble.

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

        • identicon
          Bruce C., 10 Apr 2019 @ 3:21pm

          Re: Re: Re: The burden of thinking here is on Twitter, BEFORE bl

          Douche French government, meet douche Twitter. Paybacks are a bitch, aren't they.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 11:07pm

          Re: Re: Re: The burden of thinking here is on Twitter, BEFORE bl

          Who cares why they censored it, I love it when they do that because it shows what hypocrites they all are and makes it impossible for anyone to take this place seriously.
          I say keep up the good work!

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 12:29pm

      Re: The burden of thinking here is on Twitter, BEFORE blocking.

      They're not obstructing anything. Again, for the mentally impaired, Twitter is not a government service and can host or not host whatever it chooses. Twitter generally tries to host everything that doesn't violate its own Terms of Service. In these edge cases where it's someone else's rules or laws they can interpret it as they see fit and react accordingly. Absolutely no laws were broken here, moral or otherwise.

      Your position is that everyone should do exactly what you think they should do, laws be damned. If the law happens to agree with you then all the better but where the law doesn't match people should do whatever you think is right regardless of the law or even the cost. Cost should never be a factor in your mind. No matter the cost, people should be forced even against their will to do whatever you fantasize is the right thing to do.

      Get help.

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

    • icon
      Gary (profile), 10 Apr 2019 @ 12:37pm

      Re: The burden of thinking here is on Twitter, BEFORE blocking.

      Actually the burden of that French law is upon whomever is purchasing the ad content to supply the required information as outlined in the article.

      Why should Twitter accept an ad if it isn't legal?

      Are you actually saying that they should break the law to make you happy?

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

    • identicon
      lolwat, 10 Apr 2019 @ 12:38pm

      Re: The burden of thinking here is on Twitter, BEFORE blocking.

      Human intervention? You mean moderation? Of the roughly 6 thousand tweets per second, 350 thousand tweets per minute, 500 million tweets per day? In multiple languages and differing countries of origin?

      Yeah, that's gonna happen.

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

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 12:47pm

      Re: The burden of thinking here is you don’t.

      You mad you had to take another “3 day state funded vacation” bro?

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 3:24pm

        Re: Re: The burden of thinking here is you don’t.

        Comments like this are why laws banning "hateful content" had to be banned.

        Some negative online reviews of anything that sponsors this website would be a good start.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 8:25pm

          Re: Re: Re: The burden of thinking here is you don’t.

          Oh look your comment got banned for Hateful content John lol

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2019 @ 6:39am

          Re: Re: Re: The burden of thinking here is you don’t.

          Comments like this are why laws banning "hateful content" had to be banned.

          Uh, perhaps you should take an English class, because you just said we shouldn't have any laws banning hateful content.

          That's some extraordinary self-own you got going on there.

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

    • icon
      Matthew Cline (profile), 10 Apr 2019 @ 1:24pm

      Re: The burden of thinking here is on Twitter, BEFORE blocking.

      Throw a few Twitter execs into jail, they'll stop obstructing.

      I don't think you can throw someone into jail for following the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 3:03pm

      Re: The burden of thinking here is on Twitter, BEFORE blocking.

      What are you going to charge them with?
      Contempt of politician? 😝

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 11 Apr 2019 @ 3:08am

      Re: The burden of thinking here is on Twitter, BEFORE blocking.

      The problem is - lots of fools, including you have told them they're not allowed to exercise reasonably thinking before blocking. You know, since you'll claim they're pirates hiding behind section 230 if they do.

      The problem here is that you're getting EXACTLY what you asked for, but now that EXACTLY what everybody else told you would happen is happening, you'll blame everybody but yourself.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 1:08pm

    It would indeed seem like a "get out the vote" blitz on social media could easily be deployed as a stealthy partisan political manipulation tool if aimed exclusively at targeted segments of the userbase believed likely to vote for the "correct" party. (and If HUD can charge Facebook for racial discrimination for allowing targeted ads [which did not themselves racially discriminate in any way, and might only target a person's interests], then why not election authorities?)

    Google got caught doing something similar in the 2016 election, as leaked emails revealed that the primary purpose of Google's presumably-tax-deductible "get out the vote" offering was to get Clinton and other Democrats elected, and even Sundar Pichai was in on it.

    So these "get out the vote" campaigns might not quite be the kind of charitable public services their backers would like people to believe.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 1:13pm

      Re:

      Those are a lot of unsupported claims there buddy. Got citations for any of them?

      Or are you farting into the wind and enjoying the smell of your own toots?

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

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 Apr 2019 @ 1:20pm

      Re:

      Google got caught doing something similar in the 2016 election, as leaked emails revealed that the primary purpose of Google's presumably-tax-deductible "get out the vote" offering was to get Clinton and other Democrats elected, and even Sundar Pichai was in on it.

      [citation needed]

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 1:48pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Neither of those links back up your assertion.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 1:59pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yah. That Fox article in no way backs up your statement on Google. It says nearly the exact opposite.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 2:16pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Can you cite a reputable news organization? Fox and Breitbart don't fit that description.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 2:44pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          “No proof was needed”
          See John that’s everything about you and why no one wants “and will not ever no matter what you say you will do” have anything to do with you lol
          Like a French guy named Cédric o.....oh god...

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

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 3:21pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Someone who thinks they speak for the whole world, and that the world agrees with them (of course), is really disconnected, that's for sure. When they run their mouths like that they are picking a fight. Human biology recognizes people who speak that way as potentially violent. It's why they have to do it from behind a monitor. They wouldn't DARE speak to anyone like that to their face.

            Just another piece of evidence that shows why Masnick will never be taken seriously in high-level journalism circles.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 3:47pm

              Re: Speaking of obsession

              “Just another piece of evidence that shows why Masnick will never be taken seriously in high-level journalism circles.”

              You are literally the only one who cares about this bro.

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

            • icon
              Gary (profile), 10 Apr 2019 @ 7:25pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Human biology recognizes people who speak that way as potentially violent. It's why they have to do it from behind a monitor.

              Says the Asshole Coward that loves tossing insults! Point proven?

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 7:48pm

              Re: Impotent AND a coward

              Oh Jhon boy I would totally call you an old, fat, impotent,fuckwit to your face. And we both know for a damn certainty that you wouldn’t do shit bro.

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

            • identicon
              Rocky, 10 Apr 2019 @ 11:20pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Human biology recognizes people who speak that way as potentially violent. It's why they have to do it from behind a monitor. They wouldn't DARE speak to anyone like that to their face.

              So you are saying that if someone spoke like that to your face you might potentially become violent? Because there is no other way to parse your sentence for it to make sense.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2019 @ 6:44am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Someone who thinks they speak for the whole world, and that the world agrees with them (of course), is really disconnected, that's for sure.

              You mean like every single comment from you?

              When they run their mouths like that they are picking a fight.

              Or they are giving their opinion.

              Human biology recognizes people who speak that way as potentially violent.

              I'm REALLY interested to hear how involuntary, non-sentient human biology can detect and recognize voluntary, sentient produced speech and induce an involuntary, physical, biological response. Please, PLEASE tell me exactly how this works. I really want to know.

              They wouldn't DARE speak to anyone like that to their face.

              You really DON'T know anything about humans do you? They talk like this to each other's faces ALL THE DAMN TIME.

              Just another piece of evidence that shows why Masnick will never be taken seriously in high-level journalism circles.

              And this is just another piece of proof that you're a moron and an idiot who will not and should not ever be taken seriously.

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

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 3:22pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Worse yet, this poster is SO obsessed with me that it doesn't even realize when it's not me posting.

            Probably some 4Chan type with not much else going on.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 3:49pm

              Re: probably some impotent old fuckwit

              Hey bro, have you tried not sounding like every other deluded lunatic who posts here?

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2019 @ 12:09am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              When it's not who? It's hard to tell the difference. Maybe if you left some way of identifying yourself so people could tell when it's the real deal?

              Nah, you're far too chickenshit for that to happen.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 3:46pm

          Re: Fun fact: opinions are not facts

          That’s a hard no on the factual sources then.

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

        • icon
          Gary (profile), 10 Apr 2019 @ 7:27pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Sorry, I thought this story was such common knowledge

          And yet you can't post any supporting links. The Breitbart one is nonsense, and the Fox link actually contradicts your points.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 1:45pm

      Re:

      Google got caught doing something similar in the 2016 election, as leaked emails revealed that the primary purpose of Google's presumably-tax-deductible "get out the vote" offering was to get Clinton and other Democrats elected, and even Sundar Pichai was in on it.

      This is not true and never was.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 2:34pm

        Re: Re:

        Regarding those leaked Google emails ... a few quotes from Google executive Eliana Murillo, a key figure in Google's supposedly non-partisan "get out the vote" effort:

        "We also supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states (silent donation)."

        "On personal note, we really thought we had shown up to demonstrate our political power against a candidate who had vehemently offended our community by calling us rapists and drug dealers"

        "But then reality set in. Only 71% of Latinos voted for Hillary, and that wasn't enough"

        "This is devastating for our Democratic Latino community. After all these efforts and what we thought was positive momentum toward change, the results are not what we expected at all. ... What's most difficult for us is we can't even email the HOLA list to reach our community and discuss what this means for us because we know that apparently some may actually be Trump supporters."

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 3:01pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Do you have citations for those quotes? Or am I supposed to take your word for it?

          Still, NONE of those quotes supports your assertions and in fact is evidence to the contrary.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 5:32pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Do you have citations for those quotes? Or am I supposed to take your word for it?"

            Is it a mistake to assume that the vast, vast majority of Techdirt readers would already know how to cut & paste (or even retype) the text of a quote into an internet search engine in order to verify that such a quote actually exists as well as see where it came from?

            Breitbart was the first to put those leaked emails in writing, and Google has never denied their authenticity, including the time when Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified for several hours before the House Judiciary Committee last December, 3 months after those leaked emails were published. Department head Eliana Murillo, who wrote the leaked emails that were reprinted far and wide, would probably have a good case to file suit (or threaten to in order to have them redacted) or at the very least make a public denial if those emails were not authentic, but that apparently hasn't happened either.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 5:38pm

              Re: Once again for the slow ones in the back

              He said citations, not GOP propaganda mill. So kindly put up or shut up bro.

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

            • icon
              Gary (profile), 10 Apr 2019 @ 7:29pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Breitbart was the first to put those leaked emails in writing

              First - and to date only.

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

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 11 Apr 2019 @ 3:44am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Strangely, there's usually a reason why paranoid hacks with a history of lying to their audience are the only source of a particular story.

                Just a shame our fella here is too dumb to realise it's not "Google are blocking the other others" or some similar tripe.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2019 @ 6:57am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Is it a mistake to assume that the vast, vast majority of Techdirt readers would already know how to cut & paste (or even retype) the text of a quote into an internet search engine in order to verify that such a quote actually exists as well as see where it came from?

              No, but I did that and couldn't find the original emails. Only Breitbart and other similar sites purporting to have them but only listing select quotes. Nobody has published the full emails that I can find. Therefore, cite your sources or we have no reason to believe this is true.

              Breitbart was the first to put those leaked emails in writing,

              Well apparently not since I checked there and could only find quotes from the emails, not the full emails themselves.

              Google has never denied their authenticity, including the time when Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified for several hours before the House Judiciary Committee last December, 3 months after those leaked emails were published

              That still doesn't make you right. That just means he didn't know about them.

              Department head Eliana Murillo, who wrote the leaked emails that were reprinted far and wide, would probably have a good case to file suit (or threaten to in order to have them redacted) or at the very least make a public denial if those emails were not authentic, but that apparently hasn't happened either.

              Some people have a thicker skin than you and are perfectly fine with ignoring people when they lie about them.

              Regardless, NOTHING in any of those quotes from those supposed emails suggests that Google was trying to influence voters to vote for one or the other candidates. In fact, they provide evidence to the contrary. You still have not addressed this fact.

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

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 3:27pm

      Re:

      Facebook enables hate speech and civil rights violations. Sooner or later, there will be legal consequences for that.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 3:51pm

        Re: Re: Sooo much impotentence for one man

        Cool story bro. Just like all those police investigations and investigative journalism stories about dastardly mike that never happened.

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

      • icon
        Gary (profile), 10 Apr 2019 @ 7:31pm

        Re: Re:

        Facebook enables hate speech and civil rights violations.

        Enables. Yes. It's a communications service. They even let people chat in realtime. That enables all sorts of shit.

        Breitbart actually pushes a hate agenda. But you love them. What's your point?

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2019 @ 4:23am

        Re: Re:

        Anything that allows humans to talk to each other enables hate speech, and that includes phones, pubs, clubs and cafes.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2019 @ 6:58am

        Re: Re:

        The human race enables hate speech and civil rights violations. Should get rid of them too?

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

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 10 Apr 2019 @ 1:09pm

    Trying to have it both ways

    Make a vague law with significant punishments, and when a company decides not to risk it by blocking something the government wants it throws a tantrum about how unfair and unreasonable the company is for thinking of itself first, rather than the government.

    I'd call their actions childish but I don't want to insult actual children by lumping the french government in with them.

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

  • identicon
    FuckFrance, 10 Apr 2019 @ 1:11pm

    I'd have banned all French Politicians from Twitter

    Fuck 'em.

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

    • icon
      Gary (profile), 10 Apr 2019 @ 1:29pm

      Re: I'd have banned all French Politicians from Twitter

      While amusing, banning entire countries that displease you isn't a great way to build up a userbase.
      Twitter does have to pay the rent and uphold the law in any country it operates in.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 1:33pm

        Re: Re: I'd have banned all French Politicians from Twitter

        Since when were politicians the whole population of a country?

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 2:24pm

        Re: Re: I'd have banned all French Politicians from Twitter

        “Displease you”
        They passed a law with the rest of parliament that put a dick in the internet’s mouth lied and said that was not it and later bulshiddoed everyone and when that did not work they flat out said through action so what.

        French politicians are looking out for French politicians. No regrets to be had about the tears they shed. They don’t care about anything else and that’s as far as it goes as far as anything else should be concerned.

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

        • icon
          Gary (profile), 10 Apr 2019 @ 7:33pm

          Re: Re: Re: I'd have banned all French Politicians from Twitter

          I'm sorry, but the only way to ban all French politicians is to ban France?

          Anyway - You have a superior business plan, obviously your service is doing better than twitter?

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2019 @ 11:03am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: I'd have banned all French Politicians from Twit

            No one wants to “ban” France but unless someone has a better idea other then hope a chamber full of assholes who don’t care in Paris or Europe in general have a change of heart about breaking the internet then not many options exist.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 1:59pm

    One way to get a bad law fixed ... enforce it.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 2:15pm

    So we had a very temporary problem that was resolved once people complained. Hopefully any bugs in Article 13 will inspire similar solutions, just like our courts tend to define how the laws passed by our Congress should be applied in the real world.

    It would seem that the law did its job here, though a slight bit late.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 2:50pm

      Re:

      “Temporary problem”
      Ok Custer lol

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2019 @ 12:16am

      Re:

      So we had a very temporary problem that was resolved once people complained.

      So because you managed to kill one mosquito, screw trying to prevent mosquitoes from entering your house; just let them infest the whole place since it's so easy to kill them.

      Seriously, if Article 13 and other existing systems like DMCA notices were actually enforced to the extent you knuckle draggers demand, HBO.com would have been nuked off the face of the planet via notice and staydown. By HBO's own request.

      Hopefully any bugs in Article 13 will inspire similar solutions

      Based on how easy it is to punish companies for DMCA notice violations? Probably about as effective as a slug trying to chew its way to the center of the Earth.

      just like our courts tend to define how the laws passed by our Congress should be applied in the real world

      Right, about that... how did that Section 230-killing lawsuit come along, Herrick?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 2:17pm

    France lol democracy lol

    “Democratic republic”

    That’s hilarious lol

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2019 @ 2:19pm

      Re: France lol democracy lol

      The US is a "democratic republic". All this means is that the people vote and then the leaders still do whatever the hell they want.

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

  • icon
    Zof (profile), 10 Apr 2019 @ 2:45pm

    Most of the people I know now have left twitter. All of them because they were fighting depression and it helped. Every single person I know that's still on twitter is a depressing raincloud of sadness. I don't know why anybody puts themselves through that nonsense. Having to live up to the standards of crazy people.

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

  • icon
    Zof (profile), 10 Apr 2019 @ 3:01pm

    "Here, follow this broken law we wrote when we were virtue signalling for political purposes"

    "HEY! STOP INTERPRETING OUR TERRIBLE LAW TERRIBLY!"

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

    • icon
      Gary (profile), 10 Apr 2019 @ 7:39pm

      Re:

      Aw Zof you were almost making sense for once, until you had to complain about virtue signaling. Dog whistle for white power much?

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2019 @ 12:13pm

        Re: Re:

        I'm pretty sure that's not what it means. Yes, it's a pejorative used against a certain type of posturing, and that has its own connotations, but lots of not "white power" attitudes embrace the term.

        Doubly so, since there would be no point to bringing it up in a discussion about a place as white as France.

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
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.