Recent legislation introduced by the European Union has proved to be successful so far. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has been met – largely – with praise. Enabling internet users across Europe to obtain greater control over their digital lives is absolutely a step in the right direction.

Forthcoming legislation, however, is far from that.

Article 13 of the “Directive for Copyright in the Digital Single Market” could turn out to be one of the most damaging moments in the history of the web; restricting users and placing incredible power in the hands of companies that already hold great sway.

I may be hard to believe but this legislation – which is set to be voted into law this Thursday – could destroy the internet as we know it. At least, that’s what over 70 leading technology figures such as Tim Berners-Lee and Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales claimed in a joint letter.

Published in June, the letter said: “Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the Internet, from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users.”

From selfies on social media to online entertainment, parody accounts and memes, all of the things we hold dear could be impacted.

Changing the Internet

The European Union has proposed a new directive on copyright, and with the initial stages of the legislation having passed last month, the final act is approaching on this week.

On the face of things, this appears to be a move to address a glaring disparity between the revenues generated by content rights holders and the online platforms that host the content. The joint letter addresses this issue, as content creators worldwide must continually wrestle with receiving adequate recognition for their property.

It said: “As creators ourselves, we share the concern that there should be a fair distribution of revenues from the online use of copyright works, that benefits creators, publishers, and platforms alike.”

Nestled deep within the heart of this legislation is the maligned Article 13 – a section that focuses on the use of protected content.

The Article 13 provision essentially mandates that all content uploaded to the internet will be monitored – and potentially deleted – if a likeness to existing copyrighted content is detected. According to critics of the provision, this means that content you upload to share with an audience may be deleted without your consent – even if it is original.

This could affect a broad range of web users including; artists, cartoonists, gamers, illustrators, photographers, filmmakers, animators, DJs – take another deep breath – dancers, bloggers, journalists and technologists.

Online platforms will be required by law to introduce complex and costly filtering systems and could be held liable for copyright infringement if they do not comply.

Basically, online platforms will be required by law to ensure that copyright infringement – whether it is legitimate or not – is stamped out at the expense of users creativity and freedom of speech.

Filtering our Fun

As companies will be required to introduce filtering techniques, this opens the door for a great deal of interpretation – What is copyright and what isn’t?

According to Open Rights Group, the introduction of filters will likely result in a cacophony of misinformation and misrepresentation in the digital sphere. Algorithms struggle to tell the difference between infringement and the legal use of copyrighted material that could be vital to research, commentary, parodies and more.

Furthermore, it suggests that it is a “bad idea to make internet companies responsible for enforcing copyright law” as companies will likely take a safe, cautious approach to the legislation and overblock – else risk penalties due to a lack of compliance.

To ease their compliance, platforms will merely adjust their terms of service to be able to delete any content or account for any reason. This, Open Rights claims is dangerous as it will leave victims of wrongful deletion with no right to complain.

Technical feasibility is another issue major issue; can a filter possibly review every form of content covered in Article 13’s mandate? This would include text, audio, video, images and software – it verges on impossible.

At least for companies that can’t afford it…

More Than Just Memes

This will affect more than just your ability to use memes or upload a new display picture with a branded logo on your t-shirt. It will have a deeper, far more dangerous impact on the internet as we know it.

According to last month’s joint letter the provision will become nothing more than “a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users.”

Large multinational corporations such as Google and Facebook have the technical and financial capability to operate advanced, sprawling filter systems, however, smaller organisations do not. This has the potential to crush smaller organisations and elevate the richest and biggest platforms to a whole new level of control and dominance.

“The cost of putting in place the necessary automatic filtering technologies will be expensive and burdensome, and yet those technologies have still not developed to a point where their reliability can be guaranteed.”

Google and Facebook have already drawn criticism since the introduction of GDPR legislation and so for the EU to now grant them the ability to further dominate the digital sphere seems contradictory in nature.