European Politics Thread

Today's the 100th year anniversary of Iceland's sovereignty. Queen Margarethe actually showed up despite the rumours that she'd be sending one of her sons. Perhaps Denmark felt the need to make up for the Kjærsgaard fiasco last august.

Most people aren't feeling that proud, though. Far more people (including me) showed up to a protest against the blatant sexism and corruption on display in the recently released audio tapes than to the celebration with the Queen and the President. I suppose that is a better way to honour your country, though — to keep trying to make it better rather than just remininsce about events long past.

Edited by DrDougsh on Dec 1st 2018 at 7:39:09 AM

She's been dealing with a lot of push at home for her to abdicate and for one of her sons to take up the throne. I imagine she wanted to assert herself somewhat.

Doing a Queen Elizabeth, one might say.

Thats because instead of a proper critical in depth reporting on Article 13 we got 'THE EU IS COMING FOR OUR MEME'S!' that flared up ever now and then in most sources, ranging from Hysteria to 'Oh god, will this mean I cannot use my favorite site anymore???!'

So, this video is sadly in German, but it is pretty good in showing why I feel that the current discussion about the article is so overly dramatic. And it also points out how Youtube basically misused its power to lobby against the article for its own gain.

To be clear, the guy who is interviewed there wants to change article 13 into something more user-friendly, but the video overall shows how Youtube managed to push the discussion into a direction which isn't constructive.

So it's not quite as bad as I thought it was going to be, but was the fair use part added recently?

Well, I understood the general gist of the video, given the rather....expressive....fellow in the video and half the words being intelligible.

But yeah, Youtube certainly played the whole thing to it's own advantage.

To be frank, I don't know.

See, I don't follow every turn in that story because we are far, far away from even something you could consider a proper first draft. Last I checked in there were three different suggestions which attacked the topic from different angles. Then there are various pressure groups which are pushing for one idea or another. I think that fair use is part of the discussion, but if it will actually be in the final draft, who knows.

Let's put it this way: The EU is open for constructive criticism and workable ideas. But I don't fancy myself enough of an expert in the area to truly understand what is doable technically and where the stumble stones are legally. So for now, I am leaning back and wait until at the very least there is something more specific to discuss.

So if fair use was put into the newest iteration than why is everyone freaking out about it being the death of sites like deviantart and youtube all over the world?

Because "people in charge not entirely stupid" doesn't make fun headlines, mostly.

Mostly because Youtube mobilized them in order to put pressure on the EU. A lot of people just don't really get how the EU works, and that is doubly true for Americans and especially Brits, who tend to perceive the EU as some meddlesome organisation ready to destroy everything fun in the world.

Apparently even Mat Pat made a video of this being a threat to the internet.

Because 'EU Bans Meme' has become a Meme in itself.

So basically You Tube's management is worried about actually having to do a decent job so it's spreading misinformation to YouTubers accusing the EU of the same stuff they're mostly guilty of, is that about right?

No, You Tube is worried about actually having to pay for licenses. You know, the way they have to do in Germany because of Gema. That was quite a fight, too. We stared for years on "this video is not available in your country" screens. Which angered a lot of people who have no idea what Gema is actually doing.

I mean, I know what GEMA is doing and to me it was always more Evil vs Lesser Evil, because GEMA needs some serious closer oversight and reform <.<

It does. But it also has an important purpose. Our artistic scene would be much smaller without it.

So how expensive would would paying for licenses be in the EU? Also how would Article 13 affect other websites like this one?

This one? Not at all, since as far as I can tell it doesn't feature copyrighted material. Plus, this is about regulating the big platforms, the internet giants so to speak. It doesn't apply to smaller ventures.

That's what happens when a country is subjected to 40+ years of media brainwashing.

It's actually fantastic news that the only generation sucked in (as a majority) by the brainwashing was the Baby Boomer generation and, even then, the main driver of the vote was white men over the age of 70. Unfortunately, they're the dominant voting block.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Dec 2nd 2018 at 11:23:10 AM

I know. I don't blame them. Hell, I didn't knew how the EU actually works before the Referendum happened aside of the very basics and knowing vaguely that the EU elections are maybe the most important of them all. But the english-speaking media in general just tends to misrepresent it, if it talks about it at all (when it comes to the American media).

I guess younger people who actually live in the EU get it, because they are more likely to actually use the benefits of the EU.

Edited by Swanpride on Dec 2nd 2018 at 3:25:07 AM

It’s not just that, younge people interact with other younge people, many of whom are now from the EU.

It’s one thing to fear imgirants ‘taking jobs’ when you’re a retired old man who who has kids and grandkids having trouble finding work, but it’s another to want rid of your polish classmates, your French partner, your Italian coworkers, your danish teach and your Spanish neighbours.

Freedom of movement has caused younge people to become friends with people from the continent, it is much harder to want out of the EU when it means deporting your friends.

It's kind of like how some of the most racist parts of the USA are also the parts which have the least diversity.

No kind of about it, it’s exactly that way. Remember that the easiest ways to determine if someone voted for Brexit is their level of education and their level of exposure to migrants. Uneducated people in isolated areas voted for Brexit.

Brexit supporters obviously don’t like those facts because they feel it means they’re being called stupid racists, which is surprising, as most of them don’t typically have the comprehensive ability to understand facts that accurately.

Quite, though it's worth pointing out that diversity only helps if it's equitable. If your experience with an out-group is from a position of dominance then that exposure will not help against dehumanizing propaganda. A perfect example of this would be slave owners in the American South, they had close interaction with many people of color and yet had no trouble being viciously racist.

(I realize that no one has said otherwise, I just felt the need to point that out)

I've noticed earlier posts on this thread are much more critical of Article 13, any reason for this change in opinion?