Nazism. Txt msg spEk. People who attach photos to their CVs. Transparent cars. There are some things in life that it is easy to criticize. But by far the easiest is the EU in Brussels.
Silly old, interfering old Brussels. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm as Europhilic as the next person, but I do sometimes wonder if the European legislators get together every week and say: "Right, we've interfered with fruit shapes, pet naming, the consistency of soap and the size of road signs ... what else can we overcomplicate? How about the smell of toy cars? Brilliant!"
So it was that last week the EU suggested it may require national media regulators to police Internet content for taste and decency. Just when you thought it was safe to install Movable Type.
The proposal stems from an ongoing debate over changes to the current Television Without Frontiers (TVSF) directive, which sets the agenda for Europe-wide media regulation. Along with the usual guff about TV standards, the revised directive is expected to introduce regulation for all TV programs that are broadcast across the Internet.
There are of course some pretty huge questions raised by this suggestion. First, at exactly what point does, say, a flash cartoon or a viral video become a TV program? If I include an animated gif in a blog, have I suddenly become a broadcaster? If so, the people who make those "hilarious" animated images of Popeye and Olive Oyl doing rude things to each other are going to be in real trouble. Or will the regulations only apply to commercial broadcasters who put existing programs on the net? What about the new breed of Internet-only "broadcasters" who are popping up to take advantage of the broadband revolution?
But whatever the answer to all of these huge questions turns out to be, there's an even huger question that no one in Brussels seems to be asking. Has anyone realized that the internet reaches beyond Europe? If European Internet content suddenly begins to be censored by regulators the effect will be both instant and brutal. To put it bluntly, the entire European broadband content industry will die.
What's the point in content producers trying to operate in a heavily regulated environment when they can simply go to the US where, despite heavy TV regulation, the Internet is a virtual free-for-all for video content? It's not as if Brussels -- or anyone else -- will be able to police content from outside the EU, unless it plans to copy China and put up firewalls to block "dangerous" Web sites.
When I first started thinking about all this I became quite angry. Why on Earth would a body that is supposed to be working in Europe's best interests want to destroy the livelihoods of so many of its citizens? But fortunately, the sheer ridiculous unworkability of the plan means that it is about as likely to happen as Texas joining the EU. Instead, the compromise favored by Ofcom is to introduce a ratings system for Web content, similar to the one used for films and video games.
Yet, the more I think about it, the more I think that Brussels might be right. Maybe we should go down the censorship route, no matter what problems it might cause. Just think how lovely it would be for Europe to become an oasis of niceness and reliability in the murky swamp of Internet content. Imagine the peace of mind that comes from knowing that if you watch an online broadcast created in the EU, it is being policed for accuracy and taste.
Parents around the world would be able to rest easy knowing that, by restricting their children's Web surfing to Euro sites only, their little cherubs would never stumble across anything that might corrupt them. How delightful!
And isn't that what Europe's values should be -- decency, good manners, a respect for authority? Regulating European broadband content would remind the world -- by which I mean the US -- that when it comes to stifling, nannying regulation of creativity and the media, no one does it better than the EU. Sure, our online video industry would dry up and thousands of people would lose their jobs -- but isn't that a price worth paying for an unworkable and unnecessary piece of legislation? No. Of course it isn't.
A series of strong earthquakes in Hualien County not only caused severe damage in Taiwan, but also revealed that China’s power has permeated everywhere. A Taiwanese woman posted on the Internet that she found clips of the earthquake — which were recorded by the security camera in her home — on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu. It is spine-chilling that the problem might be because the security camera was manufactured in China. China has widely collected information, infringed upon public privacy and raised information security threats through various social media platforms, as well as telecommunication and security equipment. Several former TikTok employees revealed
For the incoming Administration of President-elect William Lai (賴清德), successfully deterring a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attack or invasion of democratic Taiwan over his four-year term would be a clear victory. But it could also be a curse, because during those four years the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will grow far stronger. As such, increased vigilance in Washington and Taipei will be needed to ensure that already multiplying CCP threat trends don’t overwhelm Taiwan, the United States, and their democratic allies. One CCP attempt to overwhelm was announced on April 19, 2024, namely that the PLA had erred in combining major missions
At the same time as more than 30 military aircraft were detected near Taiwan — one of the highest daily incursions this year — with some flying as close as 37 nautical miles (69kms) from the northern city of Keelung, China announced a limited and selected relaxation of restrictions on Taiwanese agricultural exports and tourism, upon receiving a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation led by KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁). This demonstrates the two-faced gimmick of China’s “united front” strategy. Despite the strongest earthquake to hit the nation in 25 years striking Hualien on April 3, which caused
The Constitutional Court on Tuesday last week held a debate over the constitutionality of the death penalty. The issue of the retention or abolition of the death penalty often involves the conceptual aspects of social values and even religious philosophies. As it is written in The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, the government’s policy is often a choice between the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods, and it is impossible to be perfect. Today’s controversy over the retention or abolition of the death penalty can be viewed in the same way. UNACCEPTABLE Viewing the