3 ms·

What idiot believes that authoritarian governments were incapable of censorship until some democratic one decided to update their laws for misinformation /hate/

What idiot believes that authoritarian governments were incapable of censorship until some democratic one decided to update their laws for misinformation /hate/defamation to also apply to social media / internet ? Bad faith article, I would use more competent authors to push my agenda.

xbar 5y ago
No idiot, nor the author I suspect, believes that. The author probably exaggerated the total risk to people living under authoritarian regimes. I think his inspiration from the article can be seen in this statement: "Erdogan’s Turkey – one of the world’s leading jailers of journalists – is citing NetzDG as inspiration for its new draconian law on “The Regulation of Publications made in the Internet Environment” I removed his conclusion. I will give you mine: NetzDG is a bad law and a poor model for lawmakers to follow. It has not solved any problem ( "ICYMI: New Report on Germany's NetzDG Online Hate Speech Law Shows No Threat of Over-Blocking". Counter Extremism Project. Retrieved 11 January 2022. Echikson, William; Knodt, Olivia (2018). Germany's NetzDG: A key test for combatting online hate (PDF). Centre for European Policy Studies) And it is chilling for free speech which I consider the greatest of public goods.
- DocTomoe 5y ago
  > "Erdogan’s Turkey – one of the world’s leading jailers of journalists – is citing NetzDG as inspiration for its new draconian law on “The Regulation of Publications made in the Internet Environment” I would like to remind everyone that during the Nuremberg trials, leading Nazis cited then-current US policy as an inspiration for both their eugenics and race separation laws. Bad actors will use your bad laws to justify their greatest atrocities. And your bad laws will look horrific once the storm has passed. Thus be careful what you consider 'good policy'. Considering the impact lawmakers have, I am all for considerable punishments (as in: several years of jail time) for everyone who voted yes on a law that was later struck down by the respective country's Supreme Court equivalent.
- simion314 5y ago
  But If I am paid to make a case this German law I would honestly do a better job then "some dictator somewhere said that he likes this law", dictators like a lot of things like music,sports,cars and they also lie a lot. I would probably find or if I am a fake journalist invent some story about a poor child, mother, freedom fighter hurt by this law. Edit, don't want to give a judgement for this specific law just saying the article did not convinced me, gives me a feel of bad reddit,HH comment.
Y-bar 5y ago
This author (Jacob Mchangama) is an absolutist with regards to free speech and subscribes fully to the idea that in the marketplace of ideas the truth and correct result will always come out on top. As an example, just recently he argued in another article titled "The Problem With Banning Russian Disinformation FREE SPEECH HELPS UKRAINE" that preventing state-sponsored propaganda from reaching its target audience is a bad idea. It's a bit unfortunate and almost as if he has never read about the constant barrage of pro-smoking propaganda, or anti-climate change propaganda, or anti-rohingya propaganda in Myanmar ended. Propaganda succeeds because of the resources being poured into it. He also seems to not accept the slow and continued polarization these efforts of propaganda have on society which in turn hurt democracy and therefore threaten free speech even more in the long run. Absolutist free-for-all no-holds-barred free speech could work fine where everyone can speak with their own voice without being drowned in a cacophony of a thousand bot accounts repeating arguments made in bad faith meant to poison the discourse.
- at_a_remove 5y ago
  Let's do the smoking thing, since you picked that one. 1) We eventually found out the truth. Nobody guarantees that the wins will be fast. 2) You have to be kidding yourself if you think that the suppressed speech wouldn't be that of the people saying "Smoking is dangerous." The tobacco companies can and did hire experts, manufacture the results they wanted, and so forth. They, the establishment, the moneyed, would be deemed "correct" and all else disinformation. Look at these guys in white lab coats! They sure do look smart, meanwhile that other side looks like a bunch of cranks.
  - Y-bar 5y ago
    > 1. We eventually found out the truth. Yes. Narrowly. After decades of suffering and deaths, which I personally suffer from today. And we were helped by putting legal limits on the lies presented by bad-faith participants.
    - teakettle42 5y ago
      The alternative is the truth never coming out because the platforms and “fact checkers” are all owned by powerful incumbents with a vested interest in keeping it that way, with individuals silenced under threat of arrest for breaking the narrative.

xbar 5y ago

No idiot, nor the author I suspect, believes that. The author probably exaggerated the total risk to people living under authoritarian regimes. I think his inspiration from the article can be seen in this statement: "Erdogan’s Turkey – one of the world’s leading jailers of journalists – is citing NetzDG as inspiration for its new draconian law on “The Regulation of Publications made in the Internet Environment” I removed his conclusion. I will give you mine: NetzDG is a bad law and a poor model for lawmakers to follow. It has not solved any problem ( "ICYMI: New Report on Germany's NetzDG Online Hate Speech Law Shows No Threat of Over-Blocking". Counter Extremism Project. Retrieved 11 January 2022. Echikson, William; Knodt, Olivia (2018). Germany's NetzDG: A key test for combatting online hate (PDF). Centre for European Policy Studies) And it is chilling for free speech which I consider the greatest of public goods.

DocTomoe 5y ago
> "Erdogan’s Turkey – one of the world’s leading jailers of journalists – is citing NetzDG as inspiration for its new draconian law on “The Regulation of Publications made in the Internet Environment” I would like to remind everyone that during the Nuremberg trials, leading Nazis cited then-current US policy as an inspiration for both their eugenics and race separation laws. Bad actors will use your bad laws to justify their greatest atrocities. And your bad laws will look horrific once the storm has passed. Thus be careful what you consider 'good policy'. Considering the impact lawmakers have, I am all for considerable punishments (as in: several years of jail time) for everyone who voted yes on a law that was later struck down by the respective country's Supreme Court equivalent.
simion314 5y ago
But If I am paid to make a case this German law I would honestly do a better job then "some dictator somewhere said that he likes this law", dictators like a lot of things like music,sports,cars and they also lie a lot. I would probably find or if I am a fake journalist invent some story about a poor child, mother, freedom fighter hurt by this law. Edit, don't want to give a judgement for this specific law just saying the article did not convinced me, gives me a feel of bad reddit,HH comment.

Y-bar 5y ago

This author (Jacob Mchangama) is an absolutist with regards to free speech and subscribes fully to the idea that in the marketplace of ideas the truth and correct result will always come out on top. As an example, just recently he argued in another article titled "The Problem With Banning Russian Disinformation FREE SPEECH HELPS UKRAINE" that preventing state-sponsored propaganda from reaching its target audience is a bad idea. It's a bit unfortunate and almost as if he has never read about the constant barrage of pro-smoking propaganda, or anti-climate change propaganda, or anti-rohingya propaganda in Myanmar ended. Propaganda succeeds because of the resources being poured into it. He also seems to not accept the slow and continued polarization these efforts of propaganda have on society which in turn hurt democracy and therefore threaten free speech even more in the long run. Absolutist free-for-all no-holds-barred free speech could work fine where everyone can speak with their own voice without being drowned in a cacophony of a thousand bot accounts repeating arguments made in bad faith meant to poison the discourse.

at_a_remove 5y ago
Let's do the smoking thing, since you picked that one. 1) We eventually found out the truth. Nobody guarantees that the wins will be fast. 2) You have to be kidding yourself if you think that the suppressed speech wouldn't be that of the people saying "Smoking is dangerous." The tobacco companies can and did hire experts, manufacture the results they wanted, and so forth. They, the establishment, the moneyed, would be deemed "correct" and all else disinformation. Look at these guys in white lab coats! They sure do look smart, meanwhile that other side looks like a bunch of cranks.
- Y-bar 5y ago
  > 1. We eventually found out the truth. Yes. Narrowly. After decades of suffering and deaths, which I personally suffer from today. And we were helped by putting legal limits on the lies presented by bad-faith participants.
  - teakettle42 5y ago
    The alternative is the truth never coming out because the platforms and “fact checkers” are all owned by powerful incumbents with a vested interest in keeping it that way, with individuals silenced under threat of arrest for breaking the narrative.