Seriously, what the fuck do I do now
@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.
«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
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.