I have seen many many people say "this is a great thing, it's overdue and now everyone gets paid!" But I have never seen them say how this is ACTUALLY going to work. How? I mean, in details, how will websites pay for shit and to who and when do they know they have to pay and what if they don't want copyrighted material to appear on their platforms, what can they do if they do not want to pay, given the insistence that filter tech isn't necessary?
Also, the EU has said no company can be forced to do "general monitoring" of user content, either at upload or later. So if companies can't be forced to do that, how are they supposed to know if copyright violations occur or re-occur on their platforms? Or how will they know whether things are even copyrighted in the first place?
I tried to find articles giving answers to any of these questions, but all they just bring up is memes are safe and "evil youtube", but nowhere is there any serious discussion of how this is supposed to work.
It won't work at all, that's my suspicion. Silly lawmakers don't understand how the internet works. However, it's nice that shitty sites like youtube will now get even more pressure to proceed against copyright violations. Because they are earning money with ripping off artists.
Eli Brown
Does anyone have the graph of which countries voted yes and no?
If you want an honest answer: The whole process by which the EU generates law is fucked, and nobody really knows.
The EU has dumb ideas (see the speed limiters) and doesn't explain how it's supposed to work, then they make a directive anyway and leave it to the national parliaments to make the exact laws.
Nobody can tell you how it's going to turn out. Maybe nothing happens, maybe there's brutal overblocking, maybe sites simply close their EU business operations and don't abide by the law(s).
Ian Allen
The vote in the EU government council will occur later. Currently there is only the MEP vote, which isn't country-based.
Article 13 ain't about that.It just gives them the power to censor when they need it. Video of a somalian killing a 9 year old german girl >And it's gone Article about replacement immigration >And it's gone
Mason Lopez
>However, it's nice that shitty sites like youtube will now get even more pressure to proceed against copyright violations.
This is the kind of statement I am talking about.. People say it, but I don't understand how this could be possibly true. Why should "sites like youtube" be affected, rather than "sites like Jow Forums"? Youtube already complies with the law for the most part, it is Jow Forums and small forums which will not be able to comply.
My guess is that Youtube will actually pay less to "artists" (their production companies) because they will have to pay for lawsuits and filter tech and keep their profits up, so the only way to do that is cut expenses by paying less in licenses.
Jow Forums is not affected by the law, because it runs no EU office. Only US law applies to Jow Forums. Other imageboards - different story if they are based in the EU.
>Maybe nothing happens, maybe there's brutal overblocking, maybe sites simply close their EU business operations and don't abide by the law(s).
Thanks. So why are there no articles saying just that? I have read a shitton of articles, and proponents of the law just say "now creative people will get paid billions and the internet will be more creative and a lot more free" and the critics say "this will doom the internet".
I also think we don't know what is going to happen. But if this is left to 28 national parliaments, isn't the true answer that it must necessarily be a fuck up? What if these parliaments use different implementations? Often in different languages? I don't think it is possible for anyone but Facebook and Google/Youtube to comply with a range of 28 different legal implementations in 23 different languages.
Aiden Nelson
Why should Jow Forums be affected by this? Last time I checked, "we" don't spread copyrighted material en grosse like YT does, and if some retards abuse the site to call for violence and/or terrorism they already get what they deserve. I think we will be fine, while the big players will have to apply those content filters to comply with the law.
Robert Flores
>Jow Forums is not affected by the law, because it runs no EU office. This is not how the law works. You don't need an office in the EU, the website just needs to be available in the EU. If Jow Forums geoblocks the EU, then it will not be affected.
Look at certain news sites which try to get out of EU jurisdiction. E.g. the Chicago Tribune has no EU office, but in order to not be affected by the EU's GDPR, they had to geoblock all EU residents. tribpub.com/gdpr/chicagotribune.com/
Jordan Morgan
>Thanks. So why are there no articles saying just that? Because all media outlets have agendas and sell clickbait. I believe The Guardian had a more neutral and honest summary.
>I also think we don't know what is going to happen. But if this is left to 28 national parliaments 27.
>I don't think it is possible for anyone but Facebook and Google/Youtube to comply with a range of 28 different legal implementations in 23 different languages. There are only a few countries that matter here, those which traditionally host sites, like Ireland and the Netherlands (Wikimedia for example). I expect that the governments will try to find a common standard and/or make general instructions. Ultimately, the sites will have to figure out how to comply and the countries decide how extreme these standards are. It's the same for the idiotic speed limiters.
Michael Martinez
>Last time I checked, "we" don't spread copyrighted material en grosse like YT does
Are you kidding me? There are tens of thousands of copyright violations in Jow Forums every day. Images, gifs, webms, text. Not to mention all the links to articles and copy-paste texts from articles.
Mason Ross
>Look at certain news sites which try to get out of EU jurisdiction. E.g. the Chicago Tribune has no EU office, but in order to not be affected by the EU's GDPR, they had to geoblock all EU residents. tribpub.com/gdpr/chicagotribune.com/ Because they probably run an office anywhere in the EU due to international reporting. Do you see any GDPR warnings on Jow Forums? No.
Isaiah Carter
>27. 28 is my guess
Kevin Garcia
I expect that the UK will implement the measure, but probably not as an EU member.
John Myers
>There are only a few countries that matter here, those which traditionally host sites, like Ireland and the Netherlands (Wikimedia for example).
Why would it matter where the site is hosted? The EU copyright directive says the violation of copyright happens "where the relevant work is made available to the general public", so the violation happens in every single EU states, not just where the servers are. This is why US companies or Australian websites or even Chinese websites are also affected if they are accessible in a single EU state.
Christopher Anderson
"Who cares? More power for us!" Brussels is truly the devil's work
Nolan Thomas
>Because they probably run an office anywhere in the EU due to international reporting. No, they do not have an office in the EU. Look it up. It is not jus the chicago tribute, other sites too.
>Do you see any GDPR warnings on Jow Forums? No. Yes, actually, Jow Forums has a GDPR cookie warning. Delete your cookies and then access Jow Forums again. It is just that Jow Forums doesn't have user accounts, you don't log on, so most of the GDRP rules are not applicable to it as they do not save "personalized data".
James Rogers
You are mistaking "fair usage" for educational or artistic purpose with abusing copyright.
>I expect that the UK will implement the measure, but probably not as an EU member. I said 28, because I expect the UK to be obligated to transpose the EU copyright law into national UK law as the transition period in which EU laws are 100% applicalbe in the UK will run not until the end of 2020, but at least until the end of 2021 if not longer.
Also, technically, the law will also be implemented in Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Andorra, Iceland etc.
Levi Johnson
I'm surprised we voted that based for once. It means they won't be able to pass these laws here, so that's pretty nice. We can keep shitposting.
Evan Reyes
>This is why US companies or Australian websites or even Chinese websites are also affected if they are accessible in a single EU state. You're talking about the United States of America. If you want to sue anyone in the US, you have to do it at a US court. They give a shit if the EU shows them their directives. By your standards, the German government would have to ask the US government to extradite the Jow Forums mods because swastikas are banned in Germany and other countries. You can't sue an US site, only block it.
Julian Russell
You're mistaking "today's definition" with "tomorrow's definition"
Jordan Green
>You are mistaking "fair usage" for educational or artistic purpose with abusing copyright. That's an US term from the DCMA, and porn webms aren't protected by that.
Jayden Torres
> visiting Jow Forums for porn webms Yeah, if that's the only thing you are here for, good riddance.
Christopher Adams
>You are mistaking "fair usage" for educational or artistic purpose with abusing copyright.
I have made no such assertion. The EU copyright directive lets national parliaments deal with fair use exemptions, it doesn't say anything about it. It also isn't relevant, as there are clear copyright violations on Jow Forums in e.g. Germany. The pic related is copyrighted and I am not using as a parody, I just post it randomly. This is a clear copyright violation.
But then there is also Article 11, which doesn't allow copy-pasting of articles, like this:
Several MEPs have said they accidentally voted the wrong way on a key amendment of a new European copyright directive, meaning the most controversial aspects of the law might have been removed had they not erred.
The directive, which passed 348 to 274 on Tuesday, brings sweeping changes to copyright legislation across Europe, and will have an effect on the internet comparable in scope to 2018’s General Data Protection Regulation.
>Yes, actually, Jow Forums has a GDPR cookie warning. Delete your cookies and then access Jow Forums again. I never get one, tried what you told me, didn't get one. I even went to the home page and provoked the pop up.
Jaxson Brooks
>It means they won't be able to pass these laws here, What? Why would EU laws not be applicable to Sweden if your Swedish MEPs voted against it?
Dylan Nguyen
>Yeah, if that's the only thing you are here for, good riddance. That's of course what I'm doing right know. DO you think that you only know about the existence of porn on Jow Forums when you jerk off to /gif/?
Hudson Price
So? This site was incepted by moot to fap to anime girls and post fucking ORIGINAL CONTENT. So, maybe get creative instead of posting copyrighted shit? Duh.
John Mitchell
Have fun jerking off to webms and gifs while I watch HD streams on legal porn sites.
Joseph Sanchez
I am talking about Germany. You can sue every last website in Germany in a German court if that website is accessible in Germany. Look it up.
>If you want to sue anyone in the US, you have to do it at a US court. That is just completely and utterly wrong. You can sue a company located in the US without a German office in Germany. It happens all the time. You serve the court papers via the embassies (actually the court does that for you). The US company is then served by US officials on behalf of the German court. If the US company doesn't care, then there can be an absentee court ruling Germany and once again, the German bailiff can request US authorities to execute the judgement in the US.
HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, NO JOKE. I HAVE DONE THIS MYSELF WHEN I WORKED AT COURT FOR A JUDGE
Ethan Richardson
>I even went to the home page and provoked the pop up. The pop up you get on the home page is what is required by the GDRP. You don't need to say "GDPR" in the popup, but the popup itself is what is required by EU law. It's not required by e.g. US law or Japanese law etc.
Jayden Hall
>Get creative DUH well I decided to file the copyright to Pepe please stop using my property
Ryder Gonzalez
>So, maybe get creative instead of posting copyrighted shit? Duh.
You can get as creative as you like... with a VPN. After the first lawsuit or takedown notice Jow Forums gets under Article 11 or Article 13 in any EU state starting in 2021... Jow Forums will do what it can. Put in a few lines of code to geoblock all EU states by ip. This is what they can do technically, so this is what they will do. They cannot afford to deal with copyright infringement notices or takedown requests.
Dylan Harris
ANother thing -- the people who think that the EU could somehow force US courts to apply EU law (Burgers will have a laught at this) have to explain what Japanese-language sites for example will do. Apparently they need quickly lawyers fluent in an official EU language and update their sites
>Have fun jerking off to webms and gifs while I watch HD streams on legal porn sites. Yeah give money to the Jews.
>If the US company doesn't care, then there can be an absentee court ruling Germany and once again, the German bailiff can request US authorities to execute the judgement in the US. You're talking about civil law and private affairs, not about instructions how to run a website's software and code on a server in California.
Blake Howard
P.S. what you need for a lawsuit in Germany against a US company is "jurisdiction" for the particular case. E.g. a product lawsuit if you are hurt by a US product imported to Germany and sold here. Or a copyright violation happening in Germany. Or whatever the company otherwise did in Germany... whether they have any physical presence in Germany or not.
Carson Rogers
>The pop up you get on the home page is what is required by the GDRP. You don't need to say "GDPR" in the popup, but the popup itself is what is required by EU law The popup doesn't mention cookies at all, and was there ages ago.
James Anderson
>You're talking about civil law and private affairs, not about instructions how to run a website's software and code on a server in California. Yes. So? You can still sue a US website with servers in the US without any presence whatsoever in Germany... if that website is available to the public in Germany (i.e. not geoblocked).
Chase Foster
>E.g. a product lawsuit if you are hurt by a US product imported to Germany and sold here. Or a copyright violation happening in Germany. Or whatever the company otherwise did in Germany... whether they have any physical presence in Germany or not. Yes all civil law not obligations how to run a website. There's a US copyright law covering Jow Forums, and if abides by it there's little chance that any European successfully sues Jow Forums for - what exactly? Lena pictures?
Jonathan Sanchez
>and will have an effect on the internet comparable in scope to 2018’s General Data Protection Regulation. sooo nothing will happen and these assclowns voted for censorship laws they do not know how to enforce.not only are these idiots evil but they are incompetent too. good to know.
Kayden Hernandez
>this picture is copyrighted this is why copyright literally should be thrown out of the window it's literally retarded
don't worry once we round up all those eu commies we'll kill them by burning them in the bureaucratic paperwork they created fuck the eu
Xavier Sullivan
Well ever since you fucked up EU completely even Sweden is taking a somewhat laxer stance towards your holy rulebook.
Josiah Phillips
not really they're incompetent, but they must be evil the fact that another censorship law has passed means we have a little less freedom, legally speaking, and since it's the law, we all must agree, right? that's the same bullshit leftie tactic we've seen for the last 40 years and one day it's gonma stop working no one asked for those laws, but once the lefties get them in the law, they turn around and say well maybe you shouldn't have voted for it :^)
Mason Edwards
Nobody knows what's going to happen. It's possible that sites do shit out of fear, especially if they are EU based.
>this is why copyright literally should be thrown out of the window >it's literally >retarded Are you Chinese? It's like saying that your entire penal code should go to the trash bin because it has flaws.
Angel Cruz
>Well ever since you fucked up EU completely Must be so sad to see your Judeo-American project so poorly administrated. I miss Richard Spencer praising it.
Wyatt Young
the popup mentions the Rules in 3. which you have to agree with when you click "Agree". If you go into the Rules, you will see that they incorporate the FAQ, which in turn gives the required GDPR information with pic related.
No joke, pic related was added after GDPR took effect. I checked back then.
If you have the wrong thoughts, you get banned from using the internet by making it impossible for you to use without constantly getting harassed by government workers who specialize in vague legalese.
Just look at the hoops Pewdiepie has to jump through to reach his audience, and he has a ~100 million people following him.
>Yes all civil law not obligations how to run a website. There's a US copyright law covering Jow Forums
And Jow Forums is also subject to Japanese coypright law, and Korean copyright law and Nigerian copyright law and Brazilian copyright law etc. Everywhere where Jow Forums is open to the public, it has to deal with copyright laws.
Otherwise, every last website would just put their servers into some "copyright heaven" jurisdiction and could violate copyright worldwide because only that one jurisdiction would apply.
>And Jow Forums is also subject to Japanese coypright law, and Korean copyright law and Nigerian copyright law and Brazilian copyright law etc. Everywhere where Jow Forums is open to the public, it has to deal with copyright laws. You know exactly that Jow Forums is unable to do that and has no bloated legal staff.
>Otherwise, every last website would just put their servers into some "copyright heaven" jurisdiction and could violate copyright worldwide because only that one jurisdiction would apply. Sites like Pirate Bay and MEGA have been moved around to do exactly that. The reason why it didn't work was the long arm of the US media industry and the US government.
William Martinez
A. click on "Rules" in 3. B. click on "FAQ" which is referenced there C. scroll down to pic related
PROFIT
The GDPR only requires you to disclose to users which personal information is stored and whether it is disclosed to third parties. There are many additional requirements for companies that store sensitive personal info like medical data etc., but Jow Forums only stores IP addresses and doesn't disclose them, so that is the only thing they were required to disclose to users... which they did last year by putting the information into their FAQ.
Joseph Thomas
When does copyright help the common man? And when does it help Big Corporations with an army of kike lawyers? Unless you can change the system so that it is only able to help the Volk and not suck corporationist cock, then I'll agree with you but as of now, copyright is being abused to safe the asses of corporations and being abused to fuck over some normal dude shitposting on facebook I've yet to see an application of copyright that helped the common man, instead of big companies.
Grayson Morgan
>You know exactly that Jow Forums is unable to do that and has no bloated legal staff. And by the way, if that was true Germany would simply have to declare swastikas an IP of the German government for all eternity, and then ban them globally.
Michael Adams
>You know exactly that Jow Forums is unable to do that and has no bloated legal staff. Which is why they will geoblock all EU states after they receive the first EU copyright takedown notice for a copyright violation... unless they don't get many and just do whatever they do for DMCA stuff... which they already have a system. Jow Forums.org/legal
Sebastian Hernandez
I know, I know. I hate every EU bureaucancer with a passion. Africans do not belong in the EU and the desperate cocksucking by the communists just makes it even more clear.
Luis Brooks
>When does copyright help the common man? And when does it help Big Corporations with an army of kike lawyers? You're talking a lot like a leftist. Without copyright, making inventions or finding cures for diseases wouldn't be profitable, and European companies couldn't employ people because everyone, including the US, could simply steal their work.
Brody Anderson
Do you really believe they voted by accident? lawl
Nathaniel Howard
>but Jow Forums only stores IP addresses And cookies. The FAQ is too obscure to place that statement, I believe. I think it's merely an excuse.
>Which is why they will geoblock all EU states after they receive the first EU copyright takedown notice for a copyright violation No, in your bizarro world every government could censor the internet globally by abusing national copyright laws.
Ian Ward
>declare swastikas an IP of the German government for all eternity, and then ban them globally.
What are you talking about? The German government would have to make treaties where other countries extraordinarily accept that there is an eternal copyright for the German government on swastikas... which is not going to be the case.
HOWEVER, if the German gov owns a copyright on e.g. pic related because a German gov photographer made this picture, it can use existing treaties on civil judgements to execute their existing copyright in e.g. the US.
>Without copyright, making inventions or finding cures for diseases wouldn't be profitable HAHAHAHAHA This is the same corporationist bullshit I've been hearing all my life, and I unironically have started to believe that it's an empty phrase. In the past there was no copyright, yet corporations innovated and made a profit. They will still do so, and if they cannot, in this capitalist world, another company will take their place which does innovate. You're forgetting that right now, every chink working at an euro or us company is literally a secret spy send there to steal innovation and bring it back to China copyright laws are literally worthless in this world, they do not stop corporations from stealing from eachother, they only stop the common man from taking from the corporations Copyright laws are only protecting the rich corporations and in an actual capitalistic system, copyright would not even exist. CORPORAFIONS ALREADY STEALS FROM EVERYONE, BUT THIS KIKE SUPPORTED COPYRIGHT ENSURES NO ONE CAN STEAL FROM CORPORATIONS
Sebastian Fisher
>What are you talking about? The German government would have to make treaties where other countries extraordinarily accept that there is an eternal copyright for the German government on swastikas... which is not going to be the case. >HOWEVER, if the German gov owns a copyright on e.g. pic related because a German gov photographer made this picture, it can use existing treaties on civil judgements to execute their existing copyright in e.g. the US.
I made this point to argue against the claim that the EU could legally threaten Jow Forums or enforce its copyright laws in the US.
The US copyright law is the DMCA, all legal cooperation occurs within its framework.
Bentley Hernandez
Well, the way it's going to work is you have to pay a VPN 5 bucks a month in order to be able to access the internet and that's it.
Easton Turner
>In the past there was no copyright, yet corporations innovated and made a profit. Excuse me - human innovation has skyrocketed since nation states and patents exist. Two hundred years ago, you could cure most illnesses and the average guy died early for some shabby reason.
Lucas Mitchell
That would only circumvent a potential geoblock, not change the way YouTube censors, it would also not help EU-based sites.
Wyatt Thomas
>Two hundred years ago, you could cure most illnesses *Couldn't obviously.
Adam Cruz
>And cookies. Do you know what cookies are? Because I assure you, Jow Forums does not store cookies. Cookies are stored in your browser, which is where information by Jow Forums is stored.
>The FAQ is too obscure to place that statement, I believe. That is debatable and has not been decided in any court in the EU yet. But it could be true, Jow Forums may be required to stick the FAQ into its disclaimer if sued.
>No, in your bizarro world every government could censor the internet globally by abusing national copyright laws. Why do you insist on "government" action? Copyright is not a government issue, but a private issue. What happens is that e.g. the German government creates copyright laws. If a website chooses to do business in Germany by making its website available to the German public and it violates German copyright rules... then private copyright holders can use German copyright rules to sue this company in a German court. If it ends up receiving a judgement against the copyright violating company, but that company has no assets in Germany and doesn't pay the judgment penalty, it can petition the German court to send the execution order to the foreign country's embassy ... should there be an execution treaty for civil judgments (which there is between e.g. Germany and the US) then the US embassy would take this execution order from the German court and relate it to the relevant US court where the US company you sued is located. The US court would then tell the US bailiff to execute the judgement for the relevant penalty against the US company... unless the US company pays the damages in the mean time.
In all this the government institutions are just helping private plaintiffs to execute judgements. This is based on international treaties which have existed since the 1950s. The US government may choose to say "fuck it, we do not like treaties any more" but they haven't done so in the past, so I doubt they will stop now.
Wyatt Wright
>The US copyright law is the DMCA, all legal cooperation occurs within its framework. But that is simpyl wrong. The DMCA applies in the US for copyright violations that happen in the US. It does not apply in Germany for copyright violations by US persons (incl. US corporations) committed in Germany. German law applies.
The execution of judgements of a German court against US persons is a completely different matter. They happen via international treaties on the execution of civil court judgments and are irrespective of copyright laws. They also apply to all kinds of other court judgements.
Charles Robinson
Fine. But that was not the question. The question was how this is going to work for websites, not for users.
Grayson Jones
That has been due to the industrial revolution, not due to patents. Also patents are different from copyright. Patents pertain to actual innovations or inventions, copyright also include written speech. You cannot 'invent' or 'innovate' written speech, so copyright on those are baseless. Patents are actual inventions and do serve some purpose. Although pharmaceutical companies should not have them, since they will abuse it. They generally make a good medicine, then patent a slightly worse medicine for the first ten years, only to patent the good stuff for another ten years once that first patent has expired that's what corporations do all for profits so small businesses. should get patents, the People should get patents, corporations deserve to be undermined.
>Do you know what cookies are? Because I assure you, Jow Forums does not store cookies. Cookies are stored in your browser, which is where information by Jow Forums is stored. I thought GDPR is explicitly about cookies, too.
>That is debatable and has not been decided in any court in the EU yet. But it could be true, Jow Forums may be required to stick the FAQ into its disclaimer if sued. They're quaking in their boots.
>Why do you insist on "government" action? Copyright is not a government issue, but a private issue. The government can claim the copyright on anything if it wants, or impose a similar legal protection (as it happens with German state Coat of Arms). The US government, for example, explicitly has a law that its works are in the public domain. What stops the German government from establishing a public fund or corporation - like the Fraunhofer Society, which holds patents - and then copyrighting works like Mein Kampf, Nazi symbols, the Horst-Wessel-Lied etc? Nothing, as I see it, so any government could play the "ban what I don't like" game and force US sites to take things down.
>should there be an execution treaty for civil judgments (which there is between e.g. Germany and the US) then the US embassy would take this execution order from the German court and relate it to the relevant US court where the US company you sued is located I bet these very clauses say that a copyright violation needs to be a violation of the DCMA or of any other US law.
Gavin Green
The sites have to implement upload filters (bots), and it is frequently stated that these bots won't be able to figure out when the line is crossed.
Aiden Morris
you dont have votes you imbeciles
Aaron Harris
Protected by what? Exemptions? Not really. "Citations" are pretty hard to do. If you copy in lines from a Star Wars script, you need to prove that your intention was to post the lines for non-profit reasons which relate to education or critical analysis. If you include a copyrighted image, you have to have a good "parody" or criticism reason too. Courts sometimes need months or years to decide on these matters. How a website is going to do so in milliseconds on an automatic basis is beyond me. So I guess, they'll just pull out of EU states if they end up being threatened with lawsuits... or if they really need to keep operating in the EU for commercial reasons, they end up using filter tech to make sure lawsuits are kept to a minimum.
Henry Perez
That is true. We have no idea how to create this filter currently. And the directive has no proposal on how to do it.
in the next 100 years the gooks' era will definitely begin, and will last for not less than 100.000 years. they will improve technology and engineering, but physics will remain the same, as well as art, thought and culture in general, which might even be even forgotten, since they are useless for survival and reproduction. humanity will get back to being an high skilled animal, like before the western hunter gatherer appeared in history, 20.000 years ago. article 13 is just a little step in this direction, goy. you can call it accelerationism if you like.
Adam Jones
France didn't. But point taken.
Josiah Cooper
It seems that even the National Rally voted for this garbage. Btw, Mr Messerschmidt from Denmark, too?
Juan Howard
Messerschmidt yeah.. He's an asshole.
The Danish political system is retarded. But so is any poltical system. It's no better than sharia. At least in sharia its accepted to be deceitful, oathbreaking and lying.
Jaxson Jones
This is one of the stepps ogf turning the internet into cable TV 2.0. They want you to pay for a package of content that is controlled by the packagr provider. The fist step of that is to destroy the fee flow if information and ideas, then destroy user made content.
Article 13 is part of this process.
Nathaniel Wood
It's not about "people getting paid" or memes, in the end this is a tool to shut down dissenting websites etc that don't follow the approved narrative.
Isaac Mitchell
I'm not convinced that this is a bad thing. Social Media dies. Porn dies. Many games die. Toddlers will no longer be susceptible to non-stop iPad brainwashing by big corp.
Jaxson Ramirez
>Messerschmidt yeah.. He's an asshole. Perhaps he gets a gas pipeline.
>The Danish political system is retarded. But so is any poltical system. There is no perfect system because countries face new challenges - war, economic competition, social unrest etc - all the time. Ideally, it simply creates a lot of gridlock for domestic issues, because that makes it hard for politicians to mess with your life.
Jack Green
Excuse me, but YouTube is one of the sites that already runs such filters. If anything, it will lead to more concentration and control by Jews because smaller competitors can't handle the obligations.
William Rogers
He gets a clap and an ill placed sense of accomplishments. I have no idea how these retards gather this amount of responsibilities.
