5 ms·

What you mean what I said does not work? Let adults choose what they want to see or read. While different countries may have different laws. Do you really thin

by anfilt 8y ago

What you mean what I said does not work? Let adults choose what they want to see or read. While different countries may have different laws. Do you really think the censorship that happens in China is good? If you operate in such countries you may not have a choice, but to comply or pull such local operations. The end result is content is available in one place and not another which is unfortunate.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Of course you mention the extreme example, China. However China does in one sense make it far simpler - do it their way or you're simply not permitted to operate. Which makes easy headlines. Do you really think the restriction on racist and hate speech that happens in Europe and elsewhere, and is often in legislation, is bad? Most folks in those countries don't. We're unlikely to harmonise with the US on that any time soon. Does not mean we have a Chinese internet or we lost free speech. I can speak freely against the government until the cows come home. I can chain myself to a bridge against inaction on climate, and expect a entirely non-violent police response. I just can't reduce every conversation to lowest common denominator ignorant slurs - I can criticise my neighbour or government for what they do and choices they make, but not for their colour, religion (or lack) or gender etc. Criticise the act, not the person. Personally, I think that's far more healthy. Facebook et al do next to nothing to comply, whilst continuing to operate services. It's no surprise that governments around the world are finally starting to react to that.
- anfilt 8y ago
  I don't like racist speech, and I would say that's true for most people. Now considering laws regarding hate speech or racist speech. My first biggest reservations about such laws is it gives a government a precedent to regulate speech. Moreover, precedents may expand in the future, so one must tread very carefully to avoid unintended consequences. Secondly, human language can be quite nuanced. Speech may contain satire, irony, jokes, indirection, differences of connotation, and idioms. It may be hard determine if such line has been crossed. Applying such a law across a population is bound create some injustices by such ambiguities of human language alone. Let alone something someone typed on the internet and may have not proof read. However, countries are free to do what they want. However, I don't like seeing countries request websites be blocked ect... Again it sets a precedent that government has power to do something, and generally governments expand powers they have. So limits on what governments can do are important. About US and European views on speech. This is an interesting table. I would say the US is not far off. The averages for Europe are not what I would call a small percentage. https://www.pewglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/11/Democracy-Report-80.png https://www.pewglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/11... A company who has a presence in country should operate by the countries laws. However, for a global platform like Facebook it either means they must segment their site based off country or apply the most aggressive policy across their entire platform. Both of these have their problems.
UncleMeat 8y ago
How do you feel about copyright infringement? Or revenge porn? Or false impersonation? Or publishing the location of people's homes? Or state secrets?

by anfilt 8y ago

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

Of course you mention the extreme example, China. However China does in one sense make it far simpler - do it their way or you're simply not permitted to operate. Which makes easy headlines. Do you really think the restriction on racist and hate speech that happens in Europe and elsewhere, and is often in legislation, is bad? Most folks in those countries don't. We're unlikely to harmonise with the US on that any time soon. Does not mean we have a Chinese internet or we lost free speech. I can speak freely against the government until the cows come home. I can chain myself to a bridge against inaction on climate, and expect a entirely non-violent police response. I just can't reduce every conversation to lowest common denominator ignorant slurs - I can criticise my neighbour or government for what they do and choices they make, but not for their colour, religion (or lack) or gender etc. Criticise the act, not the person. Personally, I think that's far more healthy. Facebook et al do next to nothing to comply, whilst continuing to operate services. It's no surprise that governments around the world are finally starting to react to that.

anfilt 8y ago
I don't like racist speech, and I would say that's true for most people. Now considering laws regarding hate speech or racist speech. My first biggest reservations about such laws is it gives a government a precedent to regulate speech. Moreover, precedents may expand in the future, so one must tread very carefully to avoid unintended consequences. Secondly, human language can be quite nuanced. Speech may contain satire, irony, jokes, indirection, differences of connotation, and idioms. It may be hard determine if such line has been crossed. Applying such a law across a population is bound create some injustices by such ambiguities of human language alone. Let alone something someone typed on the internet and may have not proof read. However, countries are free to do what they want. However, I don't like seeing countries request websites be blocked ect... Again it sets a precedent that government has power to do something, and generally governments expand powers they have. So limits on what governments can do are important. About US and European views on speech. This is an interesting table. I would say the US is not far off. The averages for Europe are not what I would call a small percentage. https://www.pewglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/11/Democracy-Report-80.png https://www.pewglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/11... A company who has a presence in country should operate by the countries laws. However, for a global platform like Facebook it either means they must segment their site based off country or apply the most aggressive policy across their entire platform. Both of these have their problems.

UncleMeat 8y ago

How do you feel about copyright infringement? Or revenge porn? Or false impersonation? Or publishing the location of people's homes? Or state secrets?