5 ms·

An far right government being authoritarian, quelle surprise.

by lagadu 6y ago

xyzzyz 6y ago
The worst kind of authoritarianism, where the tyrant protects the rights of the people, at the cost of rights of the (mostly foreign) corporations.
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 6y ago
  You clearly have no idea about PiS. They started off their cadence with pardoning criminals from their party and dismantling the constitutional tribunal.
ttt0 6y ago
If authoritarianism means that people can freely speak their mind on the internet, then let so be it.
- wrsh07 6y ago
  Only free speech that doesn't violate polish law. Is that what you want?
  - ttt0 6y ago
    That doesn't make any sense. What is that even supposed to mean? Yes, Polish people have only the free speech that doesn't violate the Polish law. Some people might think that the laws could be more strict or more relaxed, but this is just how the law works.
    - wrsh07 6y ago
      Calling it free speech when an authoritarian government heavily restricts what can legally be said feels a bit disingenuous Do you know anything about poland's heavy restrictions on speech?? https://notesfrompoland.com/2018/08/21/polands-insult-laws-and-the-threat-to-free-speech/ https://notesfrompoland.com/2018/08/21/polands-insult-laws-a...
      - ttt0 6y ago
        Are we playing semantics here? You called it "free speech". I wish we all had the 1st Amendment in Europe, but unfortunately we don't. Every European country claims it has free speech, but at the same time puts limits on it, let that be anti-communism laws, hate speech laws, laws against offending religious people, or whatever really. That's just how things are in Europe, sorry. Whatever the Polish government might have done to that point, they have my applause for trying for once to actually expand the freedom of speech on the internet. And even Merkel seems to agree with them and I don't really like or trust her either.
        wrsh07 6y ago
        Thanks, I was not on the same page as you, but I take your points. I'm very skeptical of this approach, but I don't think I have anything else to add to this thread
        ttt0 6y ago
        Look, all I'm gonna say is that the social media are not a free speech refuge. You still can't say anything that your government made illegal. Just as the article you posted says, Jaś Kapela was put on trial for something he said on the internet. So I really can't see how this could backfire at people in any way, as it can only expand the freedom. Unless you believe that you can trust private corporations with censoring what they deem as harmful of course, and in that case I would just like to remind you that Google supplies the Chinese government with surveillance technology and companies like Apple and many others benefit from the slave labor.
        wrsh07 6y ago
        I definitely think we need a better solution for moderating social media I don't think the answer is "everything that's legal" Laws aren't light enough weight to make some determinations. Eg I think it's reasonable to ban posts that incite violence after people literally storm a government building, and I don't expect most (non authoritarian) governments will react quickly enough to do anything meaningful. However, we need better, more transparent systems (especially in the US) of deciding what should or shouldn't be allowed (Note: I actually think that changing algorithms to make it so that people aren't encouraged to see conspiracy theories is much better than censoring them outright. And so I think there is interesting space for innovation there.) I fully agree, though, that it's incredibly concerning to have 3 (or fewer) unelected people deciding what shouldn't be read or seen
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  freedom of speech was hardly enjoyed in nazi Germany, soviet Russia, WW2's ultranationalist Japan. Sometimes I wonder if certain people are using "free speech" as a stepping stone to authoritarianism to then destroy freedom of speech.
  - ttt0 6y ago
    What is even your point? Just because you're saying something on Facebook doesn't mean that the law of the country you're in doesn't apply to you anymore. You still have to abide to your law. What this does is that it only removes the restrictions of the platform, so you can get only more free speech, not less. > Sometimes I wonder if certain people are using "free speech" as a stepping stone to authoritarianism to then destroy freedom of speech. Have you ever entertained the idea that a similar thing could apply to the side that you support?
    - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
      > Have you ever entertained the idea that a similar thing could apply to the side that you support? Of course, and I fully support it because it's foundational to a healthy society: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
      - ttt0 6y ago
        My point was exactly about that. People will believe anything. We've used the pretense of fighting against terrorism to invade other countries. Now you're being pandered to with raised fists, rainbow flags and feminism to go along with some of the immoral practices of neoliberalism and corporate capitalism. Paradox, AKA cognitive dissonance. Just don't call yourself tolerant, nothing wrong with that.

An far right government being authoritarian, quelle surprise.

by lagadu 6y ago

An far right government being authoritarian, quelle surprise.

The worst kind of authoritarianism, where the tyrant protects the rights of the people, at the cost of rights of the (mostly foreign) corporations.

isbvhodnvemrwvn 6y ago
You clearly have no idea about PiS. They started off their cadence with pardoning criminals from their party and dismantling the constitutional tribunal.

ttt0 6y ago

If authoritarianism means that people can freely speak their mind on the internet, then let so be it.

wrsh07 6y ago
Only free speech that doesn't violate polish law. Is that what you want?
- ttt0 6y ago
  That doesn't make any sense. What is that even supposed to mean? Yes, Polish people have only the free speech that doesn't violate the Polish law. Some people might think that the laws could be more strict or more relaxed, but this is just how the law works.
  - wrsh07 6y ago
    Calling it free speech when an authoritarian government heavily restricts what can legally be said feels a bit disingenuous Do you know anything about poland's heavy restrictions on speech?? https://notesfrompoland.com/2018/08/21/polands-insult-laws-and-the-threat-to-free-speech/ https://notesfrompoland.com/2018/08/21/polands-insult-laws-a...
    - ttt0 6y ago
      Are we playing semantics here? You called it "free speech". I wish we all had the 1st Amendment in Europe, but unfortunately we don't. Every European country claims it has free speech, but at the same time puts limits on it, let that be anti-communism laws, hate speech laws, laws against offending religious people, or whatever really. That's just how things are in Europe, sorry. Whatever the Polish government might have done to that point, they have my applause for trying for once to actually expand the freedom of speech on the internet. And even Merkel seems to agree with them and I don't really like or trust her either.
      - wrsh07 6y ago
        Thanks, I was not on the same page as you, but I take your points. I'm very skeptical of this approach, but I don't think I have anything else to add to this thread
        ttt0 6y ago
        Look, all I'm gonna say is that the social media are not a free speech refuge. You still can't say anything that your government made illegal. Just as the article you posted says, Jaś Kapela was put on trial for something he said on the internet. So I really can't see how this could backfire at people in any way, as it can only expand the freedom. Unless you believe that you can trust private corporations with censoring what they deem as harmful of course, and in that case I would just like to remind you that Google supplies the Chinese government with surveillance technology and companies like Apple and many others benefit from the slave labor.
        wrsh07 6y ago
        I definitely think we need a better solution for moderating social media I don't think the answer is "everything that's legal" Laws aren't light enough weight to make some determinations. Eg I think it's reasonable to ban posts that incite violence after people literally storm a government building, and I don't expect most (non authoritarian) governments will react quickly enough to do anything meaningful. However, we need better, more transparent systems (especially in the US) of deciding what should or shouldn't be allowed (Note: I actually think that changing algorithms to make it so that people aren't encouraged to see conspiracy theories is much better than censoring them outright. And so I think there is interesting space for innovation there.) I fully agree, though, that it's incredibly concerning to have 3 (or fewer) unelected people deciding what shouldn't be read or seen
eeZah7Ux 6y ago
freedom of speech was hardly enjoyed in nazi Germany, soviet Russia, WW2's ultranationalist Japan. Sometimes I wonder if certain people are using "free speech" as a stepping stone to authoritarianism to then destroy freedom of speech.
- ttt0 6y ago
  What is even your point? Just because you're saying something on Facebook doesn't mean that the law of the country you're in doesn't apply to you anymore. You still have to abide to your law. What this does is that it only removes the restrictions of the platform, so you can get only more free speech, not less. > Sometimes I wonder if certain people are using "free speech" as a stepping stone to authoritarianism to then destroy freedom of speech. Have you ever entertained the idea that a similar thing could apply to the side that you support?
  - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
    > Have you ever entertained the idea that a similar thing could apply to the side that you support? Of course, and I fully support it because it's foundational to a healthy society: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
    - ttt0 6y ago
      My point was exactly about that. People will believe anything. We've used the pretense of fighting against terrorism to invade other countries. Now you're being pandered to with raised fists, rainbow flags and feminism to go along with some of the immoral practices of neoliberalism and corporate capitalism. Paradox, AKA cognitive dissonance. Just don't call yourself tolerant, nothing wrong with that.