Just published today, signed by the EU, US, UK etc.<p>The full declaration is at the bottom of that page, it's a PDF here: <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/86262" rel="nofollow">https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/86262</a><p>Press release for context here: <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_2695" rel="nofollow">https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_...</a>
Sounds like a whole lot of nothing. Which is honestly unsurprising because this was probably drafted in majority by those with no idea how the Internet fundamentally works - the onus will be on developers to fix this. Most of those capable of addressing concerns work for corporations, so roll the dice on whether or not changes can be made for the greater good.<p>As a Canadian, I'll believe the "more affordable" service part, well, never.
They don't get to impose their will on other sovereign nations. Everyone has to agree to this themselves.<p>Reading it, what exactly do they want to change? Is their future vision what the internet already is? No they do seem to have a couple things they want to do differently.<p>>Disinformation and foreign malign activity is used to sow division and conflict between individuals or groups in society, undermining respect for and protection of human rights and democratic institutions.<p>Lets say Russia has agents who are doing exactly this. I am 100% sure this is the case, see journalism coverage of ottawa protest. Then the appropriate counter intelligence agency would work against this. Yet they arent? Who got fired over that? Or are they doing their job and we don't see the russian op?<p>Also lets say they were doing this. They could purge all the russian bs and nobody would notice right? Not a single political pundit would have had any of their speech affected.<p>You're right, maybe there would be some free speech violations. Perhaps the political pundits accidentally believed in some disinformation, well to fight disinformation you would have to violate their rights.<p>Who gets to define what disinformation vs information that's perhaps damning? For example the hunter biden laptop. It's obviously russian disinformation. It's appropriate to ban the ny post.<p><a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FRXxdheXIAABiaw?format=png&name=900x900" rel="nofollow">https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FRXxdheXIAABiaw?format=png&name=...</a><p>Clearly a russian disinformation operation to discredit biden right?<p>Who is this lady anyway? She's the new head at the 'disinformation governance board' at DHS.<p>So what does it look like to me? This isn't about disinformation, it's about silencing your political opponents right before an election that you're near certainly going to lose badly.