Did the European Parliament just outlaw the only Europe-made social network with ?

Show thread

Am I supposed to remove OEmbed and OpenGraph previews to comply with , because news sites can't just not put the OpenGraph tags on their pages, the main purpose of which is to generate previews?

Show thread

@Sir_Boops @Gargron It's not completely over yet! There is still hope! Julia Reder tweeted that us Germans could try and get our government to vote against. Maybe another massive protest on April 6th?
twitter.com/Senficon/status/11

@Ludonaut @Gargron lololol, there’ll be an article that stops tor next if there ain’t one on the way already :smile2:

@kimpegasus @Gargron

...except, I might suggest, speculation as you're demonstrating here. Think about it, but action probably isn't a thing just yet, yeah.

@Gargron Go to the Winchester, have a pint, and wait for this whole thing to blow over.

@Gargron @cwebber
Not sure - isn't Mastodon "non commercial" ?
ActivityPub Implementors could/should build a foundation together - also for my WebSub Hub the "non profit" aspect in 11 and 17 seems to be the only option. EU is fucked up now.

@sl007 @cwebber In at least some jurisdictions, such as Germany, any website open for public use is considered commercial.

@Gargron @cwebber My lawyer says NOT if is ran by foundation - I am in Hamburg ;) An e. V. might do it - he checks now …

@Gargron
btw : Doing a CMS based on ActivityPub and did a small hackathon w. @cwebber in FEB and I hope very much too we could do it again next year prior to FOSDEM. mastodon.social/web/statuses/1
Feel invited already.

@Gargron @sl007 @cwebber Regarding Mastodon in particular: I would wait for how the final implementation is going to look like. The wording in the Directive ("which it organises and promotes for profit-making purposes") is different and more explicit wording from what German courts consider "commercial" websites ("geschäftsmässige Telemedien").

Regarding the Directive the general: I would fight for a reasonable implementation into local law, and, most importantly, would vote on May 26th...

@Gargron @sl007 @cwebber Oh, and I forgot to add: Switzerland is a nice place to live, if you are looking for a new home for Mastodon. ;)

@Gargron @cwebber @sl007 also technically everybody should have an imprint..

its just insane :ablobspin:

@Gargron if you are small or don't have any income you don't have to filter.

@Gargron Wait.
It is just a guideline .. and every country now has 2 years to interpret this regulation and convert it into their own law however they please...
After that you 'just' have to adhere to your local law. And within the EU you can freely move and live under a different interpretation.. or rent a server in a different jurisdiction..

And there will be lawsuits in-between meaning it could take >2 years to get this into local law.. or to get it overturned.

@Gargron Can you tell me what part in particular has you concerned? I just re-read it, and it certainly seems bad, but I don’t see it as catastrophic. What am I missing?

@a There is no method by which Mastodon could filter uploads against copyright violations.

@Gargron By end users to a site, or via federation? The former seems solvable; the later gets rough.

@Gargron (“Solvable” in the “best effort” sense the law requires; it’s a dumb effort in any broader sense.)

@a I don't know if posts from the federation also need to be filtered when they come in, but either way you are supposed to have "automated" filters, and if you magically had those, there would be no difference between local/remote.

Block links to all traditional news sites. Don't show previews for them. Especially the germans and french. It seems quite possible that google will do the same.

Everybody else: don't give them money. Whom? Start here:

enpa.eu/sites/default/files/in

manifesto4copyright.eu/creativ

Find out who from your country voted pro 13. Convince everybody to never vote for them again. Go to EU elections.

@Gargron @a

@Gargron @a

«Article 13's provisions target commercial web hosts which "store and give the public access to a large amount of works or other subject-matter uploaded by its users which [they] organise and promote for profit-making purposes"».

I don't think this applies to the Fediverse, really. It's more like an abstract portrait of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

@antonlopez @Gargron @a That "profit-making purposes" is interesting, is that actually in the text of the article? I don't remember that from the original, but I'm sure there have been amendments since then.

@hyperlinkyourheart @Gargron @a

Yet another interesting bit: if you're under 10 M €/yr you don't have to implement any filter:

@antonlopez What you've linked is proposed amendment. There are no exceptions from #Article11 and the ones from #Article13 apply only for 3 years... More here (including the link to the full final text): juliareda.eu/2019/02/eu-copyri @hyperlinkyourheart @Gargron @a

@a @hyperlinkyourheart @Gargron

Well, MSoc is not 3 years old, same for every other instance, also Pleroma's, etc.

But there are more exceptions, starting from the "profit-making purposes" one, which competely removes the Fediverse's instances (that I know) from their "online content-sharing service provider" definition. You get from those exceptions the sense that this is targeted for a different size. The PDF is an interesting read.

@antonlopez @a @Gargron If it shakes out right, maybe it will be a good thing for the Fediverse

@antonlopez @hyperlinkyourheart @Gargron The fact that MSoc isn’t 3 today is not reassuring. It will be, soon. And “profit-making” is ambiguous, particularly in light of supported instances (via patreon and such).

@antonlopez @hyperlinkyourheart @Gargron You May be right about the *intent*, I can’t tell. But if so, it’s poorly executed. And in law, the specifics of the execution matter a lot.

@a @hyperlinkyourheart @Gargron

This is not exactly a law, it's a directive, which means state members will have to pass laws according to it.

We'll see.

@antonlopez @a @hyperlinkyourheart @Gargron

But wouldn't "less than three years" require to close an instance down before it becomes three years old?

🤔

@Leradvor @hyperlinkyourheart @Gargron @a

Quoting myself: >But there are more exceptions, starting from the "profit-making purposes" one, which competely removes the Fediverse's instances (that I know) from their "online content-sharing service provider" definition.

From that perspective, an instance should just prove that it doesn't promote and give access to a large amount of copyrigh-protected content for profit-making purposes.

Then again, these are just guidelines. So, who knows.

@Gargron split the main instance in sufficiently many independent smaller chunks that they fall under the exceptions?

@arjenpdevries @Gargron The size does not matter now. This is because of dirty deals between France and Germany, please read the final Act and the mentioned article mastodon.social/web/statuses/1

ALL platforms are affected now except they are "non commercial" - they neglected to discuss changes because of 2 votes (315/317) because some guys pressed another button as the wanted. medium.com/@emanuelkarlsten/sw

So it is strict about the definition of "non commercial" different from german TMG …

@Gargron Move to the US?

... no, wait, that would be a bad idea for other reasons. 🤷‍♀️

@Gargron read the laws and figure out what you're *actually* required to do, instead of listening to memes on the internet?

@Gargron
Reach out to people organizing against it and do work to promote their struggles.

Boost all the protest locations and use it to connect people who would otherwise deal with this alone.

Use that clout!

@Gargron i just heard on the radio an interview to an italian MEP and he said "for websites with no revenues from ads nothing change". Mastodon should be safe then🤔

@ranx @Gargron

This sounds as if everyone who finances the hosting expenses for his website by a little Google Adsense banner would get into trouble.

@Leradvor yes, I also think that nobody in the European Parliament really knows the norm they have just voted for

@Gargron
Just continue as normal. You as a developer will never be responsible. These new laws don't affect open source projects.

It will technically only affect instances, but only larger for-profit instances. I think that they will not go after small non-profit websites. These laws are unclear about non-profits.

@jeroenpraat but @Gargron runs mastodon.social. not to put words in his mouth, but I think he's more worried as an instance administrator than as an open source project developer

@io
He talks about the software first, about removing previews and such. But yes if
@Gargron should be worried it's about m.s. Another reason to stop registrations over there. Still 300.000 is not that much compared with large commercial sites.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!