Did the European Parliament just outlaw the only Europe-made social network with #Article13?
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?
@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:
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.