The laws in the Netherlands need to be updated to ensure that data hosting centres and their owners can't get away with criminal negligence.
And to everyone complaining about this with a "but my free speech" excuse - there are extensive legal procedures which ensure that allegations of criminal negligence are conducted openly and fairly.
How the Netherlands managed to avoid creating criminal negligence laws for these scenarios is beyond me.
If the laws did exist, they would require data centres to be aware of the content which is hosted and promptly remove clients if the law is violated. No, this isn't "snooping" or an infringement on your "free speech" - in fact, these measures ensure that free speech flourishes while removing the illegal garbage.
Now, once again, is the rebuttal of "but the government uses laws to unfairly censor people" - so then are you all for not having any laws? We have laws, they work - even though governments have abused them. But the answer is not to stop having laws.
Why?
Serious question. When are laws too many? (According to some history, 10 laws were too many and most people were ignoring them.)
Are a trillion laws too many? A billion? A million? A thousand? What if we had a thousand laws, but each law had a million pages?
(I'm pretty sure we're at over a billion pages of laws if we take into account all the laws in the world - as multinational companies are supposed to do.)
When, exactly, should we say "this is excessive"?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html