If you build a social media there is nothing the policy maker can do to stop you.
Tighter moderation and copyright requirements can stop everything. The USA had excempted platforms from holding them responsible to allow broad innovation by everybody. The EU does the opposite and ads more requirements. Nothing that kills an established company but it’s deadly for anything but the most serious startups.
The EU must know about the US excemption. They are not ignorant so they chose to not create competition and to leave that market to the US.
Tighter moderation and copyright requirements can stop everything.
True, but that would be valid for everyone. So as it could stop an emerging social media it could also stop an estabilished social media, and EU historically does not go after the small fishes.
I am sure that you understand that if EU put up tighter moderation and copyright requirements the first social media to be tanked would be Facebook and not the emerging social media.
The USA had excempted platforms from holding them responsible to allow broad innovation by everybody. The EU does the opposite and ads more requirements.
Not always.
But the way the USA went create a grey area were the social media can legally say “I am not responsible for what the users post” and on the other hand the “the platform is mine and I can decide what goes on it”, which in my opinion is a worse situation since now the moderation is in the hand of a company.
We had many examples of social media that on one hand say they are excempted and on the other say that they can decide what goes on the site. Sorry but it not works this way: you are responsible for everything on your site and then you can decide what goes on it or you are not responsible and then you cannot decide what goes on it (granted that is legal). You cannot have both ways.
Nothing that kills an established company but it’s deadly for anything but the most serious startups.
I disagree. If Facebook would be held responsible for its contents like a startup, I would bet that it would be deadly for Facebook and not the startup. Look at the GDPR, there were reasons why these companies have fought tooth and nail against it.
The EU must know about the US excemption. They are not ignorant so they chose to not create competition and to leave that market to the US.
Which, again, does nothing to stop someone to try to build a new social media.
It’s not prohibitive but an obstacle. Facebook can build neural networks to automate legal obligations and it can hire lawyers to minimize damage when they fail. Everybody can try though to build a new social media but nobody will.
It’s not prohibitive but an obstacle. Facebook can build neural networks to automate legal obligations and it can hire lawyers to minimize damage when they fail.
Yes, it is true, but I would love to see how it will work
Everybody can try though to build a new social media but nobody will.
You are right, but I suspect that you don’t understand the real reason, which is not the rules but the fact that a social media need users and it is difficult to make people leave the current ones. After all, before Facebook there was MySpace and after Facebook there will be something else.
it is difficult to make people leave the current ones.
That comes on top. Without legal risks we would have 10 alternatives and one would succeed.
There are Lemmy and Mastodon. There is/was Diaspora and Minds and probably a lot more, both as Facebook replacement and Twitter/Instagram replacement. There are alternatives for Youtube.
So, cleared that some alternative is present, I would argue that the switch is the biggest problem.
before Facebook there was MySpace and after Facebook there will be something else.
No, because these legal obligations are the moat that defends Facebook.
Assuming the moat will will never change, yes. Maybe.
Facebook is an advertising platform first. That’s almost impossible to recreate.
Yes, the switch is the most difficult part. Somebody has to invest billions with a minimal chance of success. The existing networks are deeply entrenched.
Tighter moderation and copyright requirements can stop everything. The USA had excempted platforms from holding them responsible to allow broad innovation by everybody. The EU does the opposite and ads more requirements. Nothing that kills an established company but it’s deadly for anything but the most serious startups.
The EU must know about the US excemption. They are not ignorant so they chose to not create competition and to leave that market to the US.
True, but that would be valid for everyone. So as it could stop an emerging social media it could also stop an estabilished social media, and EU historically does not go after the small fishes.
I am sure that you understand that if EU put up tighter moderation and copyright requirements the first social media to be tanked would be Facebook and not the emerging social media.
Not always.
But the way the USA went create a grey area were the social media can legally say “I am not responsible for what the users post” and on the other hand the “the platform is mine and I can decide what goes on it”, which in my opinion is a worse situation since now the moderation is in the hand of a company.
We had many examples of social media that on one hand say they are excempted and on the other say that they can decide what goes on the site. Sorry but it not works this way: you are responsible for everything on your site and then you can decide what goes on it or you are not responsible and then you cannot decide what goes on it (granted that is legal). You cannot have both ways.
I disagree. If Facebook would be held responsible for its contents like a startup, I would bet that it would be deadly for Facebook and not the startup. Look at the GDPR, there were reasons why these companies have fought tooth and nail against it.
Which, again, does nothing to stop someone to try to build a new social media.
It’s not prohibitive but an obstacle. Facebook can build neural networks to automate legal obligations and it can hire lawyers to minimize damage when they fail. Everybody can try though to build a new social media but nobody will.
Yes, it is true, but I would love to see how it will work
You are right, but I suspect that you don’t understand the real reason, which is not the rules but the fact that a social media need users and it is difficult to make people leave the current ones. After all, before Facebook there was MySpace and after Facebook there will be something else.
Copyright Lawsuit Accuses Meta of Pirating Adult Films for AI Training https://feddit.org/post/16327076
That comes on top. Without legal risks we would have 10 alternatives and one would succeed.
No, because these legal obligations are the moat that defends Facebook.
Facebook is an advertising platform first. That’s almost impossible to recreate.
There are Lemmy and Mastodon. There is/was Diaspora and Minds and probably a lot more, both as Facebook replacement and Twitter/Instagram replacement. There are alternatives for Youtube.
So, cleared that some alternative is present, I would argue that the switch is the biggest problem.
Assuming the moat will will never change, yes. Maybe.
Like it was MySpace before.
Yes, the switch is the most difficult part. Somebody has to invest billions with a minimal chance of success. The existing networks are deeply entrenched.