3 ms·

I’m European. I can be fined and/or incarcerated if what I say on the internet is arbitrarily deemed as “hate speech”. You don’t need to live in China to be cen

I’m European. I can be fined and/or incarcerated if what I say on the internet is arbitrarily deemed as “hate speech”. You don’t need to live in China to be censored.

solarkraft 9y ago
I'm European. I'm glad there's an attempt to protect vulnerable groups.
- throwafk81 9y ago
  I’m sure the Chinese are also glad there’s an attempt to maintain order and avoid social unrest. ;-)
- acct1771 9y ago
  "The Holocaust" isn't a vulnerable group.
jchw 9y ago
That's a pretty weak comparison to China's totalitarian system of censorship and monitoring.
- throwafk81 9y ago
  The Police of London actively scan and monitor social networks looking for “hate speech” so they can pursue legal action. What’s the difference between that and what China does?
  - faitswulff 9y ago
    Shouldn't hate speech should be punished?
    - chrischen 9y ago
      London deemed hate wpeech punishable, China determines certain speech (that it deems bad for society as well) punishable. No difference except for a difference in perspective.
    - i_am_nomad 9y ago
      The problem with that is, who defines what “hate” is?
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      No. Not because of the usual slippery slope reasons, but because denying someone their freedom for mere words is abhorrent.
    - acct1771 9y ago
      Offending someone shouldn't be illegal. Period. Directly inciting actual physical violence, you might have an argument for. But words and ideas must remain free to maintain any semblance of a free society. As other commenters have said: who decides?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - SolaceQuantum 9y ago
    The difference is that you can criticize the government and not be thrown in jail. You have a lot more autonomy in your opinions on how you are governed. You can have his conversation at all!
    - anontoday0406 9y ago
      > Contrary to previous understandings, posts with negative, even vitriolic, criticism of [China], its leaders, and its policies are not more likely to be censored. Instead, we show that the censorship program is aimed at curtailing collective action by silencing comments that represent, reinforce, or spur social mobilization, regardless of content. https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-allows-government-criticism-silences-collective-expression https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-...
      - SolaceQuantum 9y ago
        Okay, so we can even have the conversation about broad social implications, compare/contrast, what we can do about it, etc. is a drastic difference.
darepublic 9y ago
Do you believe the censorship in Europe is the same as in China? I guess more generally do you believe China taking over would not make things worse?
- acct1771 9y ago
  China is simply further down the same exact line, for lack of better phrasing.
whatshisface 9y ago
That's bad, but you have bad and worse. For example in the US the TSA does things the police (and nobody, really,) should never be able to, and they do it without warrants: but that alone does not mean that the US is an authoritarian police state (even though it is more of one than it could be). Likewise, there's a difference between corporate influence in government and outright, socially accepted direct bribery. This applies to every country, they could all be better or worse: but some of them are currently worse than others.
- meri_dian 9y ago
  Having to be scanned to get on a plane seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to have to do. I fly often and I'm glad the TSA exists and does what it does. I don't feel like my liberty is being taken away in the slightest.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    >I'm glad the TSA exists and does what it does. I don't feel like my liberty is being taken away in the slightest. If you truly believe that, would you be opposed to TSA style x-ray machines, genital pat downs, and strip searches any time you were to go to school, work, get on a bus, etc?
    - meri_dian 9y ago
      Well that would be an inconvenience because I and many others go to work and ride public transport every day. Which is why we don't see TSA checkpoints everywhere; it would be too inconvenient. People fly infrequently though, and also have a very strong desire to feel safe when flying, so they are for the most part fine with TSA checkpoints. TSA checkpoints are implemented to make people feel safe. See, it's a balance.
      - acct1771 9y ago
        TSA checkpoints have accelerated to being in subways, etc. Ratchets only tighten.
meri_dian 9y ago
It's funny, hate speech laws are unconstitutional and could not be passed in the US but such laws are commonplace in Europe. Yet people like to mock the US for saying it's the land of the free.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

I’m European. I can be fined and/or incarcerated if what I say on the internet is arbitrarily deemed as “hate speech”. You don’t need to live in China to be censored.

solarkraft 9y ago

I'm European. I'm glad there's an attempt to protect vulnerable groups.

throwafk81 9y ago
I’m sure the Chinese are also glad there’s an attempt to maintain order and avoid social unrest. ;-)
acct1771 9y ago
"The Holocaust" isn't a vulnerable group.

jchw 9y ago

That's a pretty weak comparison to China's totalitarian system of censorship and monitoring.

throwafk81 9y ago
The Police of London actively scan and monitor social networks looking for “hate speech” so they can pursue legal action. What’s the difference between that and what China does?
- faitswulff 9y ago
  Shouldn't hate speech should be punished?
  - chrischen 9y ago
    London deemed hate wpeech punishable, China determines certain speech (that it deems bad for society as well) punishable. No difference except for a difference in perspective.
  - i_am_nomad 9y ago
    The problem with that is, who defines what “hate” is?
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    No. Not because of the usual slippery slope reasons, but because denying someone their freedom for mere words is abhorrent.
  - acct1771 9y ago
    Offending someone shouldn't be illegal. Period. Directly inciting actual physical violence, you might have an argument for. But words and ideas must remain free to maintain any semblance of a free society. As other commenters have said: who decides?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- SolaceQuantum 9y ago
  The difference is that you can criticize the government and not be thrown in jail. You have a lot more autonomy in your opinions on how you are governed. You can have his conversation at all!
  - anontoday0406 9y ago
    > Contrary to previous understandings, posts with negative, even vitriolic, criticism of [China], its leaders, and its policies are not more likely to be censored. Instead, we show that the censorship program is aimed at curtailing collective action by silencing comments that represent, reinforce, or spur social mobilization, regardless of content. https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-allows-government-criticism-silences-collective-expression https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-...
    - SolaceQuantum 9y ago
      Okay, so we can even have the conversation about broad social implications, compare/contrast, what we can do about it, etc. is a drastic difference.

darepublic 9y ago

Do you believe the censorship in Europe is the same as in China? I guess more generally do you believe China taking over would not make things worse?

acct1771 9y ago
China is simply further down the same exact line, for lack of better phrasing.

whatshisface 9y ago

That's bad, but you have bad and worse. For example in the US the TSA does things the police (and nobody, really,) should never be able to, and they do it without warrants: but that alone does not mean that the US is an authoritarian police state (even though it is more of one than it could be). Likewise, there's a difference between corporate influence in government and outright, socially accepted direct bribery. This applies to every country, they could all be better or worse: but some of them are currently worse than others.

meri_dian 9y ago
Having to be scanned to get on a plane seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to have to do. I fly often and I'm glad the TSA exists and does what it does. I don't feel like my liberty is being taken away in the slightest.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  >I'm glad the TSA exists and does what it does. I don't feel like my liberty is being taken away in the slightest. If you truly believe that, would you be opposed to TSA style x-ray machines, genital pat downs, and strip searches any time you were to go to school, work, get on a bus, etc?
  - meri_dian 9y ago
    Well that would be an inconvenience because I and many others go to work and ride public transport every day. Which is why we don't see TSA checkpoints everywhere; it would be too inconvenient. People fly infrequently though, and also have a very strong desire to feel safe when flying, so they are for the most part fine with TSA checkpoints. TSA checkpoints are implemented to make people feel safe. See, it's a balance.
    - acct1771 9y ago
      TSA checkpoints have accelerated to being in subways, etc. Ratchets only tighten.

meri_dian 9y ago

It's funny, hate speech laws are unconstitutional and could not be passed in the US but such laws are commonplace in Europe. Yet people like to mock the US for saying it's the land of the free.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]