Hacker News Reader

Comment by amelius | Hacker News Reader

Wouldn't that be covered by fair use?

Nobody who loves Disney songs would listen to them while also hearing police officers shouting, etc.

> "Wouldn't that be covered by fair use?"

There's no human to appeal to in social media platforms. It's automated, algorithmic enforcement; and when it's wrong (or someone exploits it to be wrong, like this), you're powerless to do anything. It means nothing if you're technically in the legal right: the platforms are risk-averse and don't care about your false positive.

> It's automated, algorithmic enforcement; and when it's wrong (or someone exploits it to be wrong, like this), you're powerless to do anything.

Ahem...

In the UK/EU Let me introduce you to article 22 of the GDPR

The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.

i.e. If subjected to an algorithm making decisions, you have an automatic right of appeal to a _human_.

https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/

You need to adopt a sensible data protection law if you don't want to be exploited.

Oh no! It's against the law. That'll definitely stop companies from doing it with impunity.

Yes. It will.

Though presumably you would prefer the alternative; that such companies are unrestrained in what they may do and the population at large must simply bend over and grab their ankles with both hands?

Nope, I don't want that at all. What I want is a law with actual enforcement behind it and penalties that actually deter bad actors. You don't just write a law and then stop there declaring job done.

GDPR penalties DO deter bad actors. It's so effective that many American companies without a European presence at all take actions

If you look into it more carefully, you'll find this doesn't apply to social media moderation, but only more consequential AI-biased decisions.

(In the excerpt you quoted: "legal effects" / or "significantly affects").

> Wouldn't that be covered by fair use?

This has never once prevented a DMCA notice from being issued, and I'm sure you can guess how easy it is to get a person at YouTube to review your appeal

Theoretically, yes, absolutely. Practically, no, they would be taken down by automatic filters and you'd have to be willing to face Disney's lawyers to try to get them reinstated.

You’re right. Tech companies will surprise us all and suddenly start obeying the DMCA to the letter instead of just taking the shortcut of “rights holders upload content, it’s fingerprinted, user content that matches fingerprint is taken down”. Then, we’ll link arms and sing kumbaya.

Just to note, you can keep the data on French servers as they are a Offshore/DMCA Ignore country.

You can. YouTube doesn't. Instagram doesn't. Facebook doesn't.

When watching local network flows, almost all Facebook traffic originates from Ireland.

That's just their most local reverse proxy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com