3 ms·

I haven't read the details, but I'm surprised not only by the tiers, but that the measure would be something like "reach". How do you accurately and consistentl

I haven't read the details, but I'm surprised not only by the tiers, but that the measure would be something like "reach". How do you accurately and consistently measure "reach" with the internet? Language adapted sites as a ratio of the population that is possibly able or actively accesses the internet? Accounts? Active accounts? Also, my first thought is to simply then start breaking up into smaller social media companies that are somehow networked. It may actually be that this brings about just that, that we get a kind of adversarial competition or interoperability (I think it's being referred to). I just find it extremely disheartening that with all the good work and forward thinking it seems the EU is doing, their free speech policies are right out of a dystopian terror novel, the more so as ever more and tighter speech and though control measures are put in place. It WILL snuff out and strangle innovation and creativity when there is constant fear of drawing the ire of the Thought Police based on intentionally ambiguous thought and speech limitations that are arbitrarily enforced. It's unfortunate that Europeans do not have the courage and conviction to allow for free speech, but it also seems like it is being snuffed out in the USA too. Pursuant consequences will inevitably follow.

Tarsul 6y ago
the free speech in the usa is also something out of a dystopian terror novel. Writers (e.g. in the atlantic) like to say that our time is less like 1984 and more like brave new world in that all the noise that is allowed through free speech leads to bad results (trump, brexit, anti-social media etc.) that are not necessarily better than what the EU is trying to avert with its free speech agenda. I'd argue some regulation is necessary since the popularity contests that thrive within the current media environment do not lead to enlightened people (since it's not necessarily the smartest/most empathetic argument that wins/gets all the attention). However, it's a slippery road, that's for sure (and you CAN deconstruct my arguments in that way) - but let's be honest: allowing ALL free speech and letting the loudmouth that makes fun about the out-group win all the arguments is not a solution either.
- Aerroon 6y ago
  I don't see the connection at all. Neither the UK nor the US are dystopian or anywhere close to it. You can call Trump and Brexit bad results, but the people voted for that. It was their choice. Saying that we need limits on speech so that people wouldn't vote for them sounds dystopian instead. On top of that, I'd argue that while the US and the UK aren't doing great as a result of those choices people made, you can't really know that they were disastrous choices. For one, the US and UK haven't gotten themselves into another war, which sounds like a major upside to me.
  - jevgeni 6y ago
    In the US hate speech is protected as free speech, but you can’t swear on air... Also, protection of hate speech was the reason that enabled a substantial chunk of trump voters, so i wouldn’t be that quick to point a dystopian finger at the EU

Tarsul 6y ago

the free speech in the usa is also something out of a dystopian terror novel. Writers (e.g. in the atlantic) like to say that our time is less like 1984 and more like brave new world in that all the noise that is allowed through free speech leads to bad results (trump, brexit, anti-social media etc.) that are not necessarily better than what the EU is trying to avert with its free speech agenda. I'd argue some regulation is necessary since the popularity contests that thrive within the current media environment do not lead to enlightened people (since it's not necessarily the smartest/most empathetic argument that wins/gets all the attention). However, it's a slippery road, that's for sure (and you CAN deconstruct my arguments in that way) - but let's be honest: allowing ALL free speech and letting the loudmouth that makes fun about the out-group win all the arguments is not a solution either.

Aerroon 6y ago
I don't see the connection at all. Neither the UK nor the US are dystopian or anywhere close to it. You can call Trump and Brexit bad results, but the people voted for that. It was their choice. Saying that we need limits on speech so that people wouldn't vote for them sounds dystopian instead. On top of that, I'd argue that while the US and the UK aren't doing great as a result of those choices people made, you can't really know that they were disastrous choices. For one, the US and UK haven't gotten themselves into another war, which sounds like a major upside to me.
- jevgeni 6y ago
  In the US hate speech is protected as free speech, but you can’t swear on air... Also, protection of hate speech was the reason that enabled a substantial chunk of trump voters, so i wouldn’t be that quick to point a dystopian finger at the EU