this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2025

220 points (98.7% liked)

World News

177 readers

1 users here now

Please help and contribute as we vote on rules:
https://quokk.au/post/21590

Other Great Communities:

Rules

Be excellent to each other

founded 9 months ago

MODERATORS

Deceptichum@quokk.au

Quokka@quokk.au

220

Google won't add fact checks despite new EU law (www.axios.com)

submitted 5 months ago by Lemmynated@lemmy.zip to c/world@quokk.au

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Google has told the EU it will not add fact checks to search results and YouTube videos or use them in ranking or removing content, despite the requirements of a new EU law, according to a copy of a letter obtained by Axios

all 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] MashedHobbits@lemy.lol 97 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I would love to see Google banned from the EU.

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 5 months ago

Same.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 43 points 5 months ago

Time to fine them 100 million a day until they comply

[–] LemoineFairclough@sh.itjust.works 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What "new EU law" is being discussed? I read several articles like this but I failed to figure that out.

It helps me that this article expressed "The EU's Code of Practice on Disinformation, introduced in 2022, includes several voluntary commitments" is relevant, but I don't consider a law that is 2-3 years old to be "new". Moreover, I'm not even sure what a "voluntary commitment" is in the context of a law.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 6 points 5 months ago

That voluntary commitment is to be made mandatory when the new law takes effect. Don't quite remember when exactly but it's in the future.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

I do have to wonder, how could Google (or any search engine) be expected to perform fact checking on search results? It seems technically impossible.

[–] Maxxie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 41 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Google doesn't just provide links, it scrubs content out of sites (with scripts before, now with LLMs) and presents it as Google's own content.

If they do that, they should be responsible if the content break laws.

[+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Oh, yes I agree they should be responsible for anything they generate themselves, but if it's just a regurgitation of content that their web crawler pulled from a website which then appeared in search results then it's the original website that should be responsible.

It seems like a heavy-handed enforcement of this policy could just break web search functionality entirely.

Downvoters have no idea how web indexes work.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So if Google pulls out the wrong part of your website and gives dangerous information, you'd be responsible?

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Well, why is that 'dangerous information' available to be pulled out of my website in the first place?

[–] Ssolos@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"You don't want to drink bleach on a sunny day" could be understood as "It's okay to drink bleach on a cloudy day"

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 5 months ago

Um... "could be"...? Literally anything anybody writes could be misinterpreted, so I don't really see the point of this line of argument, nor any value in legislating around it.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

My guy, leaving out context can change whether information is dangerous or not.

Say I have a website that explains how to get clothes clean, and I recommend bleach. I also have a subsection "Danger: things you should never do with bleach!" listing dangerous things, e.g. "drinking bleach". Now Google pulls out only that list without the heading.

In your world, I'm responsible for Google showing information in the wrong context, which is nuts. I can't be expected to write everything so it's unambiguous, no matter how small a snippet you extract.

[–] kipo@lemm.ee 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It also seems ethically and culturally disastrous. I do not want Google to be the arbiter of truth on the internet. Does the EU law require that the fact-checks be accurate and unbiased?

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 5 points 5 months ago

Hmm, I guess from one point of view Google already is the de facto "arbiter of truth on the internet" as the most popular search engine, hence the need for regulation.

Does the EU law require that the fact-checks be accurate and unbiased?

Are they really fact checks otherwise?

But then you definitely have a who-watches-the-watchers problem.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Uh... How are they realistically supposed to do that?

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

Community notes, probably.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The fines will hurt.

[–] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

There will be no fines. There won't be any compliance to EU laws. Why do you think all the tech ceo went to kiss the ring of Trump this last month. No American based tech company will comply with EU laws because trumps government will protect them so they will spread his propaganda in exchange. America has sold its soul to the devil and with open eyes.

Trump will allow them to repatriate their cash tax free bumping American banks liquid cash on hand while also draining European banks of trillions of dollars.

Yall ain't winning this one.

[+] endeavor@sopuli.xyz 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

That's because the US tiktok market did 10 billion last year in revenue while the rest of the global revenue was roughly 8.5 billion. That's why they give a shit about our market more than their other markets. There's no power fantasy in the US it's power reality. They would drop the Europeans in a hot second if they were forced to choose. Not to mention our market is a free for all and the EU is heavily regulated and increasingly introducing new regulation that makes business hard for them.

Not really sure why we are talking about tiktok in an article about Google. Also you ignored the main point of my post which is how does the EU plan to collect fines. If Google, meta, et all withdraw cash from it's European tax haven bank accounts.

[–] 9bananas@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

how they plan on collecting fines is pretty simple: the same way they have done for the past 20-ish years.

google already pays fines in the hundreds of millions annually in the EU due to compliance issues.

they can't NOT pay, because then they would be opening themselves up to punity actions.

if they continue to pay, they continue to operate, if they stop paying, because they mistakenly believe trump can save them, they will be treated like any other criminal organization and have their operations shut down, their assets seized, and the ones responsible facing criminal charges.

the thing about the bank accounts gets...complicated, but can be boiled down to "whatever is there, will get seized by the bank". and "withdrawing the cash" isn't really a thing they can do just like that. monetary assets in the EU for mega-corps is mostly in the form of bank agreements (i.e. debt), which is basically just contracts. so the corpos would lose out on the banking institutions on top everything else.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 3 points 5 months ago

Let's just wait and see, then.