The U ispoisedtodeliver a majorblowagainstbigtechwithnewmeasuresthatcouldplaceanenormousresponsibilityontechplatformswhenitcomestotakingdowncopyrightedmaterial.
Andthisisn't thefirsttimethatthe U hasbeenontheforefrontofregulatingbigtech, whetheritsdataprotection, antitrustviolations, taxviolationsonallthosethatyouhasledthechargeoncrackingdownontechcompanies, andthisisillegalunderyouantitrustrules.
Butcriticsarearguingthatthesenewregulationsarenotjust a blowtobigtech, butalsotoInternetfreedombypotentiallychillingtheaverageuser's abilitytocreateandpostcontent.
Pointout, thatmeansAiractuallyprotectedbecause a MIMis a parody, whichthedirectivestillpermits.
Butcriticsarguethatit's unlikelythattheseautomatedcontentfiltersaregoingtobeabletotellthedifferencebetween a copyrightinfringementcasein a parodycase, whichcouldmeanthat a lotofcontentusedlegallymaygetcaughtinthecrossfire.
Andthat's notjusttheoretical.
Ithappensallthetime.
2016.
Ironicallyenough, YouTube's contentfiltermistakenlytookdown a speechmadebytheEUtradecommissioner, andthatvideowasevenuploadedby a memberoftheEuropeanParliament.
Butfor a lawthat's meanttoshiftsomepowerawayfrombigtech, itmightactuallyenduphelpingthem.
That's becauserightnowbuildinganautomatedcontentfilterrequires a lotofcapitalcapitalthatonlybigtechcompaniesmighthaveaccessto.
Googlealonehasspentmorethan $100 millionforYouTubecurrentcontent i d filterfilterthatstillmisslabels, videos, allthetimeforthoseplatformsthatdon't have $100 milliontospend.