How and why is the EU on the verge of destroying Internet freedom?

You may or may not have heard, but the European Union is trying for the second time this year to pass a regulation that fundamentally threatens freedom on the Internet. It is the new EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, which updates the current EU legislation in the field of copyright protection in the digital sphere (this was also the topic of the previous episode of our podcast "60 Minutes of Freedom!"). The key problems of the new directive are rooted in its Articles 11 and 13, which have become a household name in recent months. Essentially – what do these texts say and what will be the effects of their implementation?

How does Article 11 harm small businesses and consumers?

The idea behind Article 11 is supposedly to reduce the influence that corporations like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and similar tech giants have over content creators on the Internet, especially news and media content. To that end, this article would require platforms like Facebook to pay for the privilege of having news articles linked to their sites. Of course, this applies to all social and media platforms, not just Facebook. In effect, linking to news sites would become a paid pleasure if this article were passed.

The problem is that rather than limiting the influence that tech giants like Facebook have over online news content creators, such shortsighted regulations will only increase it. Corporations like Facebook and Twitter can probably afford to pay for all the necessary licenses so that links to various media and news sites can be shared freely within their platforms. After all, these are some of the largest corporations in the world, with tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue.

But the same is not true for smaller social digital platforms. Their traffic is far lower than that of websites like Facebook. And their revenues are far lower too. In order to compete successfully with the giants they need to have lower costs than them. Much lower, so much lower that the lack of a commensurate amount of traffic and revenue does not threaten their long-term sustainability.

However, the introduction of a regulation like Article 11 threatens their competitiveness precisely because it artificially increases their costs by forcing them to pay for their users to link to media sites. These new fixed costs, which apply to absolutely all platforms, will in practice play the role of a new artificial barrier in the market. A barrier that will threaten all current and potential competitors of sites like Facebook and Twitter.

It is much easier for these giants to afford the additional costs because 1) being giants in the industry with a long-standing reputation, they can much more easily secure additional financing if necessary, and 2) being giants, they have much more flexibility in terms of cutting costs from other areas of their activity. On the other hand, due to their small size, small competing companies do not have as much capacity to cut other costs, because in many cases this would mean cutting costs related to the core business and, accordingly, crippling their alternative product or outright bankruptcy.

How does Article 13 threaten the freedom of expression of all of us?

Let us now turn to Article 13, whose implications are perhaps even more frightening. This article provides for the creation of a special algorithm to act as a filter. Any website that allows public communication by publishing audio, video, photographs, or any material that may fall under the jurisdiction of copyright must submit posts that use such material to this algorithm. The algorithm then scans the posts, and if they have content that matches copyrighted material included in the algorithm’s database (i.e., are in violation of copyright according to it), they are censored.

The implications of this article for freedom of expression on the Internet are catastrophic. The EU is essentially trying to create an algorithm that will filter everything that is shared on the world wide web. This is a filter of the same type as the one implemented by the communist government in China. A country that is notorious for the extremely heavy censorship it imposes on the digital space. Is this the example the EU wants to follow? It is quite reasonable to fear that the attempt to introduce such a filter is the first step towards the imposition of serious political totalitarianism in Europe.

Think about it. Now the bureaucrats in Brussels want to impose a similar filter, supposedly with "good intentions" - copyright protection. But such a filter could one day be used not only to filter out content that violates copyright, but also content that is politically inconvenient. Just as is happening in a country like China. The Internet has already become the main means of communication between all people in the world. If we allow expression within it to be entirely under the control of state or supra-state authorities, then this means allowing these authorities to completely control what we can and cannot say.

Make no mistake, one day this filter will be used for precisely such purposes – the level of power that state institutions would achieve over our lives through such a tool is too vast and tempting to ignore. An excuse for such totalitarianism will, as usual, somehow be found under the pretext that good politicians and bureaucrats are protecting us from ourselves.

What is the opposition to these regulations?

Of course, this new EU directive (especially regarding Article 13) is mostly supported by various corporations in the music industry and some musicians. But what is more interesting is who the public opponents of this law are. Virtually all the most significant entrepreneurs who have played a key role in the development of the Internet are categorically against this directive and believe that it would have disastrous consequences. In an open letter criticizing the proposal, Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales says that "Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards transforming the Internet from an open platform for sharing and innovation to an automated tool for spying on and controlling its users."

The chairwoman of the Wikimedia Foundation also recently strongly criticized the proposal in a blog post titled "Your Internet is Under Threat. Here's Why You Should Care About European Copyright Reform." Tim Berners-Lee, known as the creator of the World Wide Web, the interconnected system of publicly accessible pages on the Internet, also signed an open letter against the EU proposal. Even YouTube's chief business officer believes that the EU directive threatens the creative economy because it would penalize or even prevent Internet platforms from allowing and supporting content created by their users. He believes that platforms like YouTube already have a well-developed manual mechanism for dealing with copyright infringements that works well enough and is far from being so invasive and restrictive.

Dozens of foundations defending Internet freedom and freedom of expression have joined the criticism and opposition to the proposal, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Civil Liberties Union for Europe, Creative Commons, The Libraries and Archives Copyright Alliance, and many others. Interestingly, among these organizations are many that deal specifically with the issue of balancing copyright protection on the one hand and the protection of free expression on the Internet on the other. That is, experts on the subject seem to disagree with the EU proposal. Representatives of institutions such as Bell Labs and Harvard also join their opinion.

As we can see, the opposition to the EU's proposed reform of copyright on the Internet is very diverse and extensive. And among its main representatives are individuals who either played or are currently playing a key role in the development of the Internet. That is, those who best understand the Internet, the specifics of the digital space and its specific needs, are of the opinion that the EU is on the way to "destroy" the Internet as we know it - open and free. Perhaps it is worth listening to their opinion?

There is no guarantee, however, that the EU will do so. The proposed reform was already voted on by the European Parliament in July and rejected, but by a very slim majority. Now it will be voted on again (after cosmetic changes that have not eliminated any of the key problems with the proposal). And this time the lobbying pressure in its support is even stronger.

What can you do to save the Internet?

We generally avoid calling our readers to any political action in our articles, but this case is special. If you want to protect Internet freedom and prevent social platforms from becoming even more monopolized by a handful of tech giants, you need to clearly and categorically state this to the EU and specifically the Bulgarian representatives in the European Parliament. Ultimately, they are the ones who will vote on whether this proposal will be accepted or not. The vote will take place on September 12, so we have almost no time.

Fortunately, a number of the above-mentioned organizations have created a petition (even before the first vote a few months ago), which you can join at this link. The petition has already collected over 950,000 signatures. Let's help it reach at least 1 million! In addition, it is highly recommended to contact the Bulgarian representatives in the European Parliament. For this purpose, there is a special website where, with literally two clicks, you can send a short email message to all Bulgarian politicians in the European Parliament, in which you can tell them to vote against the directive. If you wish, you can even call them.

Unfortunately, so far our politicians have either dutifully supported the proposed reform or simply not cared. Nothing unexpected of course, but still disappointing, given the catastrophic consequences that the adoption of this directive could have. So, do not hesitate – these politicians are elected by us after all and should protect our interests in the EU. Here is a wonderful opportunity for them to do just that.

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!