Am I supposed to remove OEmbed and OpenGraph previews to comply with #Article11, because news sites can't just not put the OpenGraph tags on their pages, the main purpose of which is to generate previews?
@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?
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. https://mastodon.social/web/statuses/101516555767587956
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 Julia has a overview on what the filter implies https://juliareda.eu/2019/01/article-13-almost-finished/
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?
@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:
Find out who from your country voted pro 13. Convince everybody to never vote for them again. Go to EU elections.
«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.
I just made a ctrl-c ctrl-v from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Digital_Single_Market#Article_13_/_Article_17
Directly from the directive's PDF: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0245-AM-271-271_EN.pdf
Btw, it's no longer article 11 & 13, but 15 & 17.
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.
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 https://mastodon.social/web/statuses/101816436345285380
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. https://medium.com/@emanuelkarlsten/sweden-democrats-swedish-social-democrats-defeat-motion-to-amend-articles-11-13-731d3c0fbf30
So it is strict about the definition of "non commercial" different from german TMG …
@Gargron read the laws and figure out what you're *actually* required to do, instead of listening to memes on the internet?
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🤔
@Leradvor yes, I also think that nobody in the European Parliament really knows the norm they have just voted for
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.
@Gargron @io @jeroenpraat
here a text that gives you an overview of the process to implement such laws:
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!