Read on Twitter
This Terrorist Content Regulation trilogue compromise looks ominous. One hour removals and, the press release implies, ability for national authorities to require filtering. That's a terrible outcome. @DiaKayyali @edri @jilliancyork @ellanso @courtneyr https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_2372
So many human rights officials, civil society orgs, and even reputable orgs of retired judges warned that the filtering mandate (among other things) raises huge human rights concerns. This outcome is very disappointing.
@JoanBarata
@JoanBarata
The most insidious thing, to me, is that the press release talks about the GIFCT database as if it represented an adequate legal compliance mechanism. It absolutely does not. And no one in the negotiating process can honestly believe that it does.
Just for starters, it's not even a database of illegal images. Just a compendium of TOS violations. This Slate article discusses its problems well: https://slate.com/technology/2020/08/gifct-content-moderation-free-speech-online.html
Drafters of the Regulation acted like they weren't requiring use of GIFCT, but of some other imaginary filtering tool that wouldn't have all its significant problems. Now the press release gives the game away. No one ever really believed this was about anything but GIFCT anyway.
Here is @courtneyr's important thread on GIFCT: https://twitter.com/courtneyr/status/1311315491416420352
