South Korea: Not Just Smart Hyundai Venues. It Is Also AI Censoring and Pre-Censoring
June 8, 2026
![green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]](https://www.arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/green-dino_thumb_thumb3.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]")
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I drive a super sexy blue Hyundai Venue. When I drive by an old age horn, the babes wave at me from their walkers and wheelchairs. I know I am cool. My Venue is smart. It beeps when I am in a parking space. It beeps and jerks the wheel when I am navigating roads under construction. Once in a while, the car beeps, flashes a red light, and automatically applies the brakes when I am creeping along in a traffic jam. Yep, South Korea has that smart software nailed.
Pre-censorship and real-time censorship appear to deliver some surprises to a small online publishing firm in South Korea. But AI is good enough, right MidJourney?
The country is now pioneering in a field translated for me by a “free” online translation service: Pre-censoring. I read about this nifty smart software sitting in my Venue as the beeps warned me of some impending disaster. The article is titled in this crystal clear way: “Even If You Upload an Image, Is It Pre-Censored? The Background of the Confrontation of Pros and Cons.” According to the free translation service the write contains this statement, and I quote:
The policy of pre-censoring images posted to the domestic Internet community with artificial intelligence (AI) has also become visible. Public opinion is divided between the need for a social safety net and the violation of freedom of expression.
The amendment to the Telecommunications Business Act, called the Prevention of N-Bang Act, came into effect in 2021. The structure monitors and responds in advance to content uploaded to SNS, messengers, and communities using AI. Until now, it had been limited to video files, but confusion soon grew as it became known that image files were also included in management.
I like the “N-Bang” bound phrase. Usually rules and regulations are less… suggestive. Confused. I poked around and located this article: “South Korean Online Communities Will Need to Scan Every Images with AI Censorship Tools.” The main idea seems to me, if the translation is sort of correct, is:
Due to recent regulation changes… the South Korean government is requiring internet communities and forum owners to scan every user uploaded images and videos on their website, by AI. The hardware to run these AI models are also not provided by government, website owners have to buy datacenter grade Nvidia GPUs by themselves, putting financial pressure to small businesses and forums. Websites will need to implement these hardware and software features, starting immediately from July 1st, [2026]
Several observations seem warranted:
- Will the smart software perform in a manner similar to that in my Hyundai Venue: False beeps, erroneous beeps, and beeps from out of nowhere? (Hey, I’m parked with the motor running, and my Venue just beeped. Because the beeps are the same frequency, I am not sure what the problem is. I will lock my doors.
- AI systems appear to have a few issues; for example, the systems hallucinate. Has South Korea figured out how to make smart software not output erroneous information; for example, an image posted on social media of a father splashing in a pool with his two young children? I am confident that some hallucinations will occur; for example, child cruelty, attempted murder by drowning, an image destined for a CSAM site on a Dark Web service, etc. But I assume South Korea’s AI does not have this problem.
- The pre-processing and the real-time processing computational loads are zero problemo for those in the online delivery chain. We checked a single image online using five “smart” image identification services. It took about 15 minutes to get results in our “image horserace.” I assume that South Korea has engineered a workflow that does add time and cost to an online service that includes images.
Net net: I think the idea of pre- and real-time image filtering is interesting. Zipping through still images, video files, and any other included file type is no problem. Hey, now I am backing out of my parking space. My Hyundai Venue is beeping with false positives. The dog park is empty now, but the Venue is smart. It is protecting me from … something.
Stephen E Arnold, June 8, 2026
AI Problem in Canada? Do American AI Outfits Care?
May 26, 2026
AI is supposed to make jobs easier and supposedly more accurate. That is not what is happening in Ontario, Canada. Ontario healthcare professionals rely on AI to take notes, but it is all bungled up says The Register article, “Sick And Wrong: Ontario Auditors Find Doctors’ AI Note Takers Routinely Blow Basic Facts.”
AI missed key details, inserted incorrectly information, and hallucinated content that no one mentioned. Not health care providers. Not the patients. This was discovered by a provincial audit that examined twenty approved systems.
The audit was conducted by the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario, Canada and was published in a larger report about AI usage by public services within the province. The report focused mainly on AI Scribe, the program used by the Ontario Ministry of Heath’s medical practitioners.
To evaluate the AI, simulated doctor-patient recordings were used. Medical experts then reviewed the AI-generated notes for accuracy. The results were shocking:
“Nine out of 20 AI systems reportedly “fabricated information and made suggestions to patients’ treatment plans” that weren’t discussed in the recordings. According to the report, evaluators spotted potentially devastating incorrect information in the sample reports, such as no masses being found, or patients being anxious, even though these things were never discussed in the recordings.
Twelve of the 20 systems evaluated inserted incorrect drug information into patient notes, while 17 of the systems “missed key details about the patients’ mental health issues” that were discussed in the recordings. Six of the systems “missed the patients’ mental health issues fully or partially or were missing key details,” per the report.”
The AI tools that were evaluated are used by doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals. They are used to make diagnoses, summarizer patient care, and more. The AI could produce biased, inaccurate medical records that place patients and medical practitioners in danger.
Do American BAIT (big AI tech) companies care?
Whitney Grace, May 26, 2026
AI Replaces Humans… for Podcasts. Yep, More AI Wonkiness
May 7, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
What do you make of this sentence?
… Jeanine Wright, the CEO of an AI podcasting company called Inception Point AI told the Hollywood Reporter, “We believe that in the near future half the people on the planet will be AI, and we are the company that’s bringing those people to life.”
The passage comes from a Gizmodo write up titled “More Than a Third of All New Podcasts Are AI-Generated.” I think there are about eight billion people on earth. The near future is ambiguous. Let’s call it 2027. Now between the present day and 2027, four billion of the eight billion people will be smart software.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
For me the sentence is a variant of the Jabberwocky poem in Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There.” It sounds like what might be a language. But it is nonsense. Let’s assume that there will be 8.6 billion people on earth at the end of 2027. That means based on the information in the cited article 4.3 billion “people on the planet” will be AI.
Because the logic of the sentence stopped me in my tracks, I thought about what the author was trying to convey; for example:
- AI would kill half of earth’s population and that missing half would be populated by smart software. I assume these are manifestations, not actual and very weird
- When half of the world’s population, what impact do erroneous information and hallucinatory output have on the remaining but diminished millions?
- Who will step forward and run this human-disintermediated operation?
But what about the podcasts? The write up says:
At the time Bloomberg reported on the AI numbers from Podcast Index, an astonishing 39% of new podcasts created in the last day were found to be AI generated. As of this writing, it was 35.4%—corresponding to a total of 485 newly created AI-generated podcast feeds in the past day. The single top publisher of podcasts, according to Podcast Index, was Inception Point AI, responsible for 23.6% of total new podcast output.
When? “At the time.” Okay. What’s going on? It seems to me that the write up is concerned that humans just want audio content. Therefore, podcasts generated by humans are meeting the need.
Is the faux content valueless? The article does not say. Is the faux content going to cause people to be happy, sad, or indifferent?
Several observations:
- I try to avoid AI outputs. My tactics may prove futile. Half of the people on earth will be AI, so I will just go with the flow. I have, if the article is anywhere near what turns out to be reality, lost the battle.
- The craziness of the sentence about bringing “those people to life” illustrates what might be a slight flaw in the Jabberwock output. For me, crazy is crazy. It manifests itself. No smart software required.
- The point of outputs is to provide information. If the output contains logical errors, fake data, or informational weirdness, the cumulative impact is probably negative.
Net net: This write up seems to be a “the sky is falling” assertion presented as good news. Yep, crazy. Just like the need for data centers and the fact that different AI systems use one another to become more homogeneous.
Stephen E Arnold, May 7, 2026
Does Google Believe That Addiction Is Good?
April 2, 2026
![green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]_thumb](https://www.arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/green-dino_thumb_thumb3_thumb-1.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]_thumb")
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I believe everything I read on the Internet. You may be different in your views. I noted this story in the New York Post: “YouTube Staffers Deliberately Aimed for Viewer Addiction, Killed Safety Tools for Kids: Court Docs.” As you may now, my team and I absolutely love the Google. Over the years, I have had a few trivial interactions with Googlers. When Google had just morphed from Backrub into the enhanced version of Clever and basic Web indexing, Larry Page and I disagreed about the importance of truncation, both forward and back. (Note: This was an issue important in a major US government procurement in Year 2000 to 2001.) I then chased down a senior Googler to tell that estimable individual that I was using the neologism “Googzilla” in my second monograph about Google’s strategy and technology. That person was delighted. Since that interaction, I happily talk about Googzilla. I even used some art that resembled a semi-happy Japanese movie monster as cover art. Over the years, Googlers and I have have interacted with the estimable firm communicating the fact that I was not ready to marry Googzilla and my keeping my affection in check.
A meeting in which the methods for creating habitual viewing of videos is discussed. The member of leadership goes directly to the point. That outstanding business thinker wants reassurance that addiction will come about. Let the rest of the group argue about other topics. Thanks, Venice.ai. Once again I did not bump into your guard rails. Aren’t I the good little LLM user?
This story in the New York Post, therefore, strikes me as having a couple of kernels of truth in it. Let’s see what is offered by the cited story, shall we?
I noted this passage:
YouTube employees admitted that their goal was “viewer addiction” and killed proposed safety tools for kids because they wouldn’t provide a sufficient “ROI” — financial lingo for “return on investment,” according to bombshell court documents reviewed by The Post.
I don’t think the word “bombshell” is necessary. The court stenographers and the folks who slap on Bates’ numbers just process that which flows to them. But “bombshell” is colorful. The key point, from my point of view, is that Googlers took specific action to create “viewer addiction.” From my admittedly limited information about the Google, I think the reason the addiction path looked appealing boils down to the incentive plans and the value of generating revenue. Google is definitely more into money than worrying about delivering on point, relevant, and timely search results my own experience has suggested.
The write up includes this snappy statement:
…The “goal is not viewership, it’s viewer addiction.”
I am not surprised. YouTube is social with the follower thing and the comments. The recommendations, as flawed as they are for me, seem to attract the attention of those who manifest quite specific interests in topics against which advertisers messages can display. I get recommendations for French instrumental music, the history of mayonnaise, and a 10th grade mathematics examination. Definitely relevant to someone, just not this dinobaby. Let’s see. I was in the 10th grade in 1958 and 1959. That works out to about 70 years ago. News flash: When confronted with the weird math my great uncle who worked with Kolmogorov, I plug the problem into ChatGPT. Works for me!
Here’s another statement from the article:
During the state trial last month, YouTube executive Cristos Goodrow testified that the app was “not designed to maximize time” and the company doesn’t “want anybody to be addicted.” This summer’s federal case in Oakland, however, includes an internal YouTube presentation from April 2018 recounting study findings that “excessive video watching is related to addiction” and that it results in a “’quick fix’ of dopamine.’”
Could this be a prevarication or a fundamental lack of knowledge about the whiz kid Googlers were doing when not playing Foosball? It would not surprise me if a member of Google leadership did not know what was happening. Management processes seems to be idiosyncratic and inconsistent. Once the estimable firm could not pay me because no one in accounting knew how to output a check. How’s that for rock solid business process fundamentals? I was impressed. Not even the failing start ups for whom I did work were able to issue checks until the VCs pulled the plug.
The highlight of the article is an Google slide. It sure looks like the Google slides I saw from the period between 2004 and later. Here’s the one from the write up. Obviously it is the work product of a person named Howard (name means nothin to me) and Gunamtillake (nope, I am drawing a blank for this person too). The image is the property of the Google and probably now the courts and the New York Post.
The headline for this slide is “Excessive video watching is related to addiction.” Who knew? Obviously, the Google.
I urge you to read the full article. It contains some nifty phrases like “big tobacco moment” and Google’s surveillance business” and “kids as pawns.” But this is, in my opinion, the juiciest passage in the cited article:
Multiple federal judges have ripped Google for destroying chat logs that should have been preserved, including US District Judge James Donato, who furiously condemned the practice during a 2023 antitrust case as “a frontal assault on the fair administration of justice” that “undercuts due process.”
A curious person might ask, “Now what?” Answer: Nothing.
Google has a vision. Googzilla is very focused.
Net net: Without meaningful regulation and substantial penalties for the individuals who cause the laws, rules, and regulations to be ignored, BAIT (big AI tech) companies will just keep moving on down the road to the pot of gold at the end of their digital rainbows. Can the damaged be remediated? Answer: Not easily. Will BAIT outfits operate in a different way? Answer: As I write this, it is April Fool’s Day. Surely you are joking.
PS. Act fast to access the information available from CourtListener.com. Some content, like my Telegram essays, have a habit of going to the digital graveyard without warning and quickly. Here’s the full link. Yep, my team and I absolutely think Googzilla is the cutest company on the planet.
Stephen E Arnold, April 2, 2026
Into Video? Say Howdy to Loneliness and Shallow Thinking
October 21, 2025
This will surely improve the state of the world and validate Newton Minnow’s observation about a vast wasteland.. Or at least distract from it. On his Substack, Deric Thompson declares “Everything Is Television.” Thompson supports his assertion with three examples: First, he notes, Facebook and Instagram users now spend over 90% and 80% of their time on the platforms, respectively, watching videos. Next, he laments, most podcasts now include video. What started as a way to listen to something interesting as we performed other tasks has become another reason to stare at a screen. Finally, the post reports to our horror, both Meta and OpenAI have just launched products that serve up endless streams of AI-generated videos. Just what we needed.
Thompson’s definition of television here includes every venue hosting continuous flows of episodic video. This is different from entertainment forms that predate television—plays, books, concerts, etc.—because those were finite experiences. Now we can zone out to video content for hours at a time. And, apparently, more and more of us do. In a section titled “Lonely, Mean, and Dumb,” Thompson describes why this is problematic. He writes:
“My beef is not with the entire medium of moving images. My concern is what happens when the grammar of television rather suddenly conquers the entire media landscape. In the last few weeks, I have been writing a lot about two big trends in American life that do not necessarily overlap. My work on the ‘Antisocial Century’ traces the rise of solitude in American life and its effects on economics, politics, and society. My work on ‘the end of thinking’ follows the decline of literacy and numeracy scores in the U.S. and the handoff from a culture of literacy to a culture of orality. Neither of these trends is exclusively caused by the logic of television colonizing all media. But both trends are significantly exacerbated by it.”
On the issue of solitude, the post cites Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone. That work correlates the growing time folks spent watching TV from 1965 – 1995 with a marked decrease in activities involving other people. Volunteering and dinner parties are a couple of examples. So what happens when the Internet, social media, and AI turbocharge that self-isolation trend? Thompson asserts:
“When everything turns into television, every form of communication starts to adopt television’s values: immediacy, emotion, spectacle, brevity. In the glow of a local news program, or an outraged news feed, the viewer bathes in a vat of their own cortisol. When everything is urgent, nothing is truly important. Politics becomes theater. Science becomes storytelling. News becomes performance. The result, [Neil] Postman warned, is a society that forgets how to think in paragraphs, and learns instead to think in scenes.”
Well said. For anyone with enough attention span to have read this far, see the write-up for more in-depth consideration of these issues. Is the human race forfeiting its capacity to think deeply and critically about complex topics? Is it too late to reverse the trend?
Cynthia Murrell, October 21, 2025
Spotify Does Messaging: Is That Good or Bad?
September 4, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby working the old-fashioned way.
My team and I have difficulty keeping up with the messaging apps that seem to be like mating gerbils. I noted that Spotify, the semi-controversial music app, is going to add messaging. “Spotify Adds In-App Messaging Feature to Let Users Share Music and Podcasts Directly” says:
According to the company, the update is designed “to give users what they want and make those moments of connection more seamless and streamlined in the Spotify app.” Users will be able to message people they have interacted with on Spotify before, such as through Jams, Blends and Collaborative Playlists, or those who share a Family or Duo plan.
The messaging app is no Telegram. The interesting question for me is, “Will Spotify emulate Telegram’s features as Meta’s WhatsApp has?”
Telegram, despite its somewhat negative press, has found a way to monetize user clicks, supplement subscription revenue with crypto service charges, and alleged special arrangement now being adjudicated by the French judiciary.
New messaging platforms get a look from bad actors. How will Spotify police the content? Avid music people often find ways to circumvent different rules and regulations to follow their passion.
Will Spotify cooperate with regulators or will it emulate some of the Dark Web messaging outfits or Telegram, a firm with a template for making money appear when necessary?
Stephen E Arnold, September 4, 2025
Can AI Do What Jesus Enrique Rosas Does?
July 8, 2025
Just a dinobaby without smart software. I am sufficiently dull without help from smart software.
I learned about a YouTube video via a buried link in a story in my newsfeed. The video is titled “Analysis of Jeffrey Epstein’s Cell Block Video Released by the FBI.” I know little about Mr. Rosas. He is a body language “expert.” I know zero about this field. He gives away a book about body language, and I assume that he gets inquiries and sells services. He appears to have developed what he calls a Knesix Code. He does not disclose his academic background.
But …
His video analysis of the Epstein surveillance camera data makes clear that Sr. Rosas has an eye for detail. Let me cite two examples:
First, he notes that in some of the footage released by the FBI, a partial image of a video editing program’s interface appears. Not only does it appear, but the image appears in several separate sectors of the FBI-released video. Mr. Rosas raises the possibility that the FBI footage (described as unaltered) was modified.
Here is an example of that video editing “tell” or partial image:
Second, Sr. Rosas spots a time gap in the FBI video. Here’s where the “glitch” appears:
How much is missing from the unedited video file? More than a minute.
Observations:
- I feed the interface image into a couple of smart software systems. None was able to identify the specific program’s interface from the partial image
- Mr. Rosas’ analysis identified two interesting anomalies in the video
- The allegedly unedited video appears to have been edited.
Net net: AI is not able to do what Sr. Rosas did. I do not want to speculate how “no videos” became this one video. I do not want to speculate why an unedited video contains two editing indications. I don’t want to think much about Jeffrey Epstein, the kiddie trafficking, and the individuals associating with him. I will stick with my observation, “AI does not seem to have the ability to do what Sr. Rosas did.”
Stephen E Arnold, July 8, 2025
Lights, Ready the Smart Software, Now Hit Enter
June 11, 2025
Just a dinobaby and no AI: How horrible an approach?
I like snappy quotes. Here’s a good one from “You Are Not Prepared for This Terrifying New Wave of AI-Generated Videos.” The write up says:
I don’t mean to be alarmist, but I do think it’s time to start assuming everything you see online is fake.
I like the categorical affirmative. I like the “alarmist.” I particularly like “fake.”
The article explains:
Something happened this week that only made me more pessimistic about the future of truth on the internet. During this week’s Google I/O event, Google unveiled Veo 3, its latest AI video model. Like other competitive models out there, Veo 3 can generate highly realistic sequences, which Google showed off throughout the presentation. Sure, not great, but also, nothing really new there. But Veo 3 isn’t just capable of generating video that might trick your eye into thinking its real: Veo 3 can also generate audio to go alongside the video. That includes sound effects, but also dialogue—lip-synced dialogue.
If the Google-type synths are good enough and cheap, I wonder how many budding film directors will note the capabilities and think about their magnum opus on smart software dollies. Cough up a credit card and for $250 per month imagine what videos Google may allow you to make. My hunch is that Mother Google will block certain topics, themes, and “treatments.” (How easy would it be for a Google-type service to weaponize videos about the news, social movements, and recalcitrant advertisers?)
The write worries gently as well, stating:
We’re in scary territory now. Today, it’s demos of musicians and streamers. Tomorrow, it’s a politician saying something they didn’t; a suspect committing the crime they’re accused of; a “reporter” feeding you lies through the “news.” I hope this is as good as the technology gets. I hope AI companies run out of training data to improve their models, and that governments take some action to regulate this technology. But seeing as the Republicans in the United States passed a bill that included a ban on state-enforced AI regulations for ten years, I’m pretty pessimistic on that latter point. In all likelihood, this tech is going to get better, with zero guardrails to ensure it advances safely. I’m left wondering how many of those politicians who voted yes on that bill watched an AI-generated video on their phone this week and thought nothing of it.
My view is that several questions may warrant some noodling by a humanoid or possibly an “ethical” smart software system; for example:
- Can AI detectors spot and flag AI-generated video? Ignoring or missing may have interesting social knock on effects.
- Will a Google-type outfit ignore videos that praise an advertiser whose products are problematic? (Health and medical videos? Who defines “problematic”?)
- Will firms with video generating technology self regulate or just do what yields revenue? (Producers of adult content may have some clever ideas, and many of these professionals are willing to innovate.)
Net net: When will synth videos win an Oscar?
Stephen E Arnold, June 11, 2025
Some Outfits Takes Pictures… Of Users
May 23, 2025
Conspiracy theorists aka wackadoos assert preach that the government is listening to everyone with microphones and it’s only gotten worse with mobile devices. This conspiracy theory has been running circuits since before the invention of the Internet. It used to be spies or aluminum can string telephones were the culprit. Truth is actually stranger than fiction and New Atlas updated an article about how well Facebook is actually listening to us, “Your Phone Isn’t Secretly Listening To You, But The Truth Is More Disturbing.”
Let’s assume that the story is accurate, but the information was on the Internet, so for AI and some humans, the write up is chock full of meaty facts. It was revealed in 2024 that Cox Media Group (CMG) developed Active Listening, a system to capture “real time intent data” with mobile devices’ microphones. It then did the necessary technology magic and fed personalized ads. Tech companies distanced themselves from CMG. CMG stopped using the system. It supposedly worked by listening to small vocal data uploaded after digital assistants were activated. It bleeds into the smartphone listening conspiracy but apparently that’s still not a tenable reality.
The mobile cyber security company Wandera tested the listening microphone theory. They placed two smart phones in a room, played pet food ads on an audio loop for thirty minutes a day over three days. Here are the nitty gritty details:
“User permissions for a large number of apps were all enabled, and the same experiment was performed, with the same phones, in a silent test room to act as a control. The experiment had two main goals. First, a number of apps were scanned following the experiment to ascertain whether pet food ads suddenly appeared in any streams. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the devices were closely examined to track data consumption, battery use, and background activity.”
The results showed that phones weren’t listening to conversations. The truth was on par and more feasible given the current technology:
“In early 2017 Jingjing Ren, a PhD student at Northeastern University, and Elleen Pan, an undergraduate student, designed a study to investigate the very issue of whether phones listen in on conversations without users knowing. Pretty quickly it became clear to the researchers that the phones’ microphones were not being covertly activated, but it also became clear there were a number of other disconcerting things going on. There were no audio leaks at all – not a single app activated the microphone,’ said Christo Wilson, a computer scientist working on the project. ‘Then we started seeing things we didn’t expect. Apps were automatically taking screenshots of themselves and sending them to third parties. In one case, the app took video of the screen activity and sent that information to a third party.’”
There are multiple other ways Facebook and companies are actually tracking and collecting data. Everything done on a smartphone from banking to playing games generates data that can be tracked and sent to third parties. The more useful your phone is to you, the more useful it is as a tracking, monitoring, and selling tool to AI algorithms to generate targeted ads and more personalized content. It’s a lot easier to believe in the microphone theory because it’s easier to understand the vast amounts of technology at work to steal…er…gather information. To sum up, innovators are inspirational!
Whitney Grace, May 23, 2025
Germany and Pirate Sites
May 15, 2025
The United States is batting around site-blocking legislation called Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA) by Representative Zoe Lofgren. The act takes US rights holders site blocking experience from overseas and transforms into a package for US use. What it means, according to TorrentFreak’s article: “Non-Transparency Resumed After Pirate Site Blacklist Publicly Exposed In Error,”
“Should it become law, FAPDA would allow rightsholders to obtain site blocking orders targeted at verified pirate sites, run by foreign or assumed foreign operators. The proposals as they stand today envision blocking orders that would apply to both ISPs and DNS resolvers, the latter an already controversial trend that has only recently shown momentum in Europe.”
In order to be effective, site-blocking tools must always adapt. It appears that FAPDA proposals are the template for US site blocking. Similar legislation called SOPA happened in 2012 but there wasn’t any historical precedence before, but now there is. The US is using Europe’s site-blocking as an example.
Germany has an administrative site that blocks pirate Web sites without direct legal oversight:
“A partnership between rightsholders and local ISPs saw the launch of the “Clearing Body for Copyright on the Internet” (CUII) which is now responsible for handing down blocking instructions against sites that structurally infringe copyright.”
The CUII Web site publishes blocking recommendations and it is supposed to be private. It wasn’t! The Netzpolitik reported that Germany’s secret pirate blocking Web site has been publicly viewable for ten months.
People are also crying free speech violations, especially because there aren’t any transparency. Europe won’t be forthcoming with transparency is ISPs and rights holders aren’t required to have them.
Whitney Grace, May 15, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
