5 ms·

> But it also covers harmful behaviour that has a less clear legal definition such as cyber-bullying, trolling and the spread of fake news and disinformation.

> But it also covers harmful behaviour that has a less clear legal definition such as cyber-bullying, trolling and the spread of fake news and disinformation. So, basically any site with user content can be fined/blocked at any time at the official's discretion.

chatmasta 7y ago
This is probably a tool the government wants to use when something like a mass shooting manifesto is published. Facebook can't stop people reading it? Well then let's block Facebook for a week. Interestingly, this is the same tactic dictatorships use to quell rebellions.
zyxzevn 7y ago
This child-porn and terrorism is the propaganda catch-phrase to make people agree with it. Like the UK porn-filter. While it never will happen, this rule would mean that the BBC should be banned too. It published fake news that started the Iraq war, and one of the famous hosts was a child molester. Instead they will ban sites that disclose the military propaganda that is published by the government media. Will they now try to block wikileaks and other similar journalism? My greatest fear is that these waves of censorship are there to remove resistance against a 3rd world war. The US, Israel and UK are currently very aggressive. Just as an example: Propaganda on Iraq and Venezuela https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I
- DyslexicAtheist 7y ago
  thanks for sharing this phenomenal video. not from the US so I wasn't familiar with him. really enjoyed the tear-down and explanation on this propaganda campaign and how it works in contrast to before the internet.
  - megous 7y ago
    Don't forget to check his track record on claims about past incidents from his past videos, that were actually later investigated by competent third parties. You may be less excited as a result, about his other claims.
    - DyslexicAtheist 7y ago
      thanks
- rgbrenner 7y ago
  Iraq is an interesting example because we only found out it was false after the fact. In the run up to the war, perhaps questioning the sources and information provided by the government would have been labeled fake news.
  - Someone1234 7y ago
    > Iraq is an interesting example because we only found out it was false after the fact. What? 100,000+ people marched in the street against it[0]. We knew the UK Government stole a student's essay for their "Dodgy Dossier" and tried to re-package it as intelligence before too[1]. We knew full well it was false before invasion. It didn't stop them. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier
    - mc32 7y ago
      As someone who was against the war, I would say I didn’t know they didn’t have WMDs. What I did think was that even if they did, there were other options on the table and that those had not been pursued to their full extent. Yes Saddam was playing 3-card Monty, but never the less we had time at our disposal we also didn’t pursue corroborating evidence and it all seemed like making up a reason for war rather than an actual casus belli. I mean, so what some known terrorists had passage? It’s not as if Saddam didn’t have his own insurrections to deal with. There was no nuance. It was all let’s go! Most dissenters were more like, slow down, we’re not there yet, we haven’t exhausted all options yet.
      - Someone1234 7y ago
        The UN Weapons inspectors debunked the WMDs before troops even entered the country. > In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program. So we knew.
        7y ago
- megous 7y ago
  > Just as an example: Propaganda on Iraq and Venezuela https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I Why should I take him seriously when he acts like an asshole to people on Twitter, calling them AlQuaeda supporters. https://twitter.com/mollycrabapple/status/1043009346362167297 https://twitter.com/mollycrabapple/status/104300934636216729... https://twitter.com/charliearchy/status/1112842690255708161 https://twitter.com/charliearchy/status/1112842690255708161 Did he aplogize yet for spreading outrageous lies about Khan-Sheikoun 2017 chemical attack, smearing doctors and first responders? The investigation of that attack is over. It would be appropriate, now that there has been a 2nd aniversary a few days ago.
commandlinefan 7y ago
The web has been more or less mainstream for going on 25 years now - before that, the dominant mainstream mass communication medium was television. Television was, and still is, subject to government censorship and regulation based on very tenuous legal arguments (viciously supported by pearl-clutching moral panicking puritans), and we've seen what it becomes: mindless, thoughtless, brainless, and above-all only "offensive" or thought-provoking in very specifically constrained ways. As soon as the web started to become well known, I was idly curious how long it would take to become television - to be honest, it's taken longer than I realistically expected, mostly because world governments can't quite seem to agree on exactly how they should oppress us, but believe me, it's coming. And when it does, there really won't be many of us that see it as a negative.

chatmasta 7y ago

This is probably a tool the government wants to use when something like a mass shooting manifesto is published. Facebook can't stop people reading it? Well then let's block Facebook for a week. Interestingly, this is the same tactic dictatorships use to quell rebellions.

zyxzevn 7y ago

This child-porn and terrorism is the propaganda catch-phrase to make people agree with it. Like the UK porn-filter. While it never will happen, this rule would mean that the BBC should be banned too. It published fake news that started the Iraq war, and one of the famous hosts was a child molester. Instead they will ban sites that disclose the military propaganda that is published by the government media. Will they now try to block wikileaks and other similar journalism? My greatest fear is that these waves of censorship are there to remove resistance against a 3rd world war. The US, Israel and UK are currently very aggressive. Just as an example: Propaganda on Iraq and Venezuela https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I

DyslexicAtheist 7y ago
thanks for sharing this phenomenal video. not from the US so I wasn't familiar with him. really enjoyed the tear-down and explanation on this propaganda campaign and how it works in contrast to before the internet.
- megous 7y ago
  Don't forget to check his track record on claims about past incidents from his past videos, that were actually later investigated by competent third parties. You may be less excited as a result, about his other claims.
  - DyslexicAtheist 7y ago
    thanks
rgbrenner 7y ago
Iraq is an interesting example because we only found out it was false after the fact. In the run up to the war, perhaps questioning the sources and information provided by the government would have been labeled fake news.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  > Iraq is an interesting example because we only found out it was false after the fact. What? 100,000+ people marched in the street against it[0]. We knew the UK Government stole a student's essay for their "Dodgy Dossier" and tried to re-package it as intelligence before too[1]. We knew full well it was false before invasion. It didn't stop them. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier
  - mc32 7y ago
    As someone who was against the war, I would say I didn’t know they didn’t have WMDs. What I did think was that even if they did, there were other options on the table and that those had not been pursued to their full extent. Yes Saddam was playing 3-card Monty, but never the less we had time at our disposal we also didn’t pursue corroborating evidence and it all seemed like making up a reason for war rather than an actual casus belli. I mean, so what some known terrorists had passage? It’s not as if Saddam didn’t have his own insurrections to deal with. There was no nuance. It was all let’s go! Most dissenters were more like, slow down, we’re not there yet, we haven’t exhausted all options yet.
    - Someone1234 7y ago
      The UN Weapons inspectors debunked the WMDs before troops even entered the country. > In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program. So we knew.
      - 7y ago
megous 7y ago
> Just as an example: Propaganda on Iraq and Venezuela https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I Why should I take him seriously when he acts like an asshole to people on Twitter, calling them AlQuaeda supporters. https://twitter.com/mollycrabapple/status/1043009346362167297 https://twitter.com/mollycrabapple/status/104300934636216729... https://twitter.com/charliearchy/status/1112842690255708161 https://twitter.com/charliearchy/status/1112842690255708161 Did he aplogize yet for spreading outrageous lies about Khan-Sheikoun 2017 chemical attack, smearing doctors and first responders? The investigation of that attack is over. It would be appropriate, now that there has been a 2nd aniversary a few days ago.

commandlinefan 7y ago

The web has been more or less mainstream for going on 25 years now - before that, the dominant mainstream mass communication medium was television. Television was, and still is, subject to government censorship and regulation based on very tenuous legal arguments (viciously supported by pearl-clutching moral panicking puritans), and we've seen what it becomes: mindless, thoughtless, brainless, and above-all only "offensive" or thought-provoking in very specifically constrained ways. As soon as the web started to become well known, I was idly curious how long it would take to become television - to be honest, it's taken longer than I realistically expected, mostly because world governments can't quite seem to agree on exactly how they should oppress us, but believe me, it's coming. And when it does, there really won't be many of us that see it as a negative.