The claim: "Journalists and online publications will have more money to keep on financing quality research and news. Despite what you might read, the Copyright directive supports a free press and could enable journalists to get some money when their articles are shared online. Good journalism costs money and without a free press there is no democracy."

The reality: "New copyright directive makes a mockery of journalists' authors' rights" (International Federation of Journalists, https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/category/author...)

When someone writes an article about how the other side is doing something wrong, without presenting any content of why your side is right other than vague hand-wavy stuff, that’s a red flag to me. “Bringing it into the 21st century...”

If the thing you’re supporting is good enough to stand on its own, then present why that is, don’t spend the time talking about how the other sides techniques are wrong.

It's been removed. Cache here: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h7i1Ks...

“We have removed this article as it has been understood in a way that doesn’t reflect the Commission’s position.” If the commission can’t even author a memo explaining their position, why are they rewriting the way the internet works for a continent?

As an American, I’m not particularly aware of the details of the Copyright Directive, but this article didn’t go into much _detail_ on why it is good or why arguments that it is bad are wrong. Sure, it briefly mentioned that it helps journalists get paid and says that memes aren’t being criminalized, but it seemed to spend most of its time arguing that FAANG are going to benefit the most, and so the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Having seen American copyright law be made more and more restrictive by giant media companies, I tend to be pretty skeptical of any new laws.

From the linked FAQ:

Oh we don't talk about upload filters, only: "The Commission proposal requires platforms which store and provide access to large amounts of copyright-protected content uploaded by their users to put in place effective and proportionate measures."

Oh and no we don't propose snippets tax except when it's understandable sentence: "The rules on snippets will not change. They can be used and shared under the same copyright rules as today i.e. without requiring an authorisation if the snippet is not considered a self-standing original work (in practice at least an understandable sentence)."

The self-portrayal of the EC as a wholesome and pure knight with a blue-and-yellow shield was particularly cringe-inducing, preceded by its dog-whistle anti-American policy message.

"We have removed this article as it has been understood in a way that doesn’t reflect the Commission’s position."

Interesting development, especially because the article was most likely NOT misunderstood. Also, gaslighting is a pretty common technique to confuse ordinary citizens these days (gaslighting as in "you people completely misunderstood what we are trying to say!").