5 ms·

idk, i think it would be really cool if more companies started closing any remaining eu servers and just telling these regulators to go pound sand. DSA is anti-

idk, i think it would be really cool if more companies started closing any remaining eu servers and just telling these regulators to go pound sand. DSA is anti-free-speech so no American company should in good conscience comply. always funny how the same people who support working towards open communications in e.g. iran and china by ignoring their laws get mad when somebody suggests this.

lm28469 4y ago
> DSA is anti-free-speech so no American company should in good conscience comply. American's version of free speech*, as much as Americans want it to be true you can't apply US laws in foreign countries
- collegeburner 4y ago
  uhh well no i'd say the "American version" is much closer to actually free speech. it implies things like freedom to hate and freedom to lie that y'all don't have. and yes it can, because the internet reaches pretty much everywhere. as long as there is no server or physical office what can brussels do but scream into the wind about it? aren't we doing the same thing with iran, belarus, china, other places where we support "American's version" of free speech despite local laws?
  - jevgeni 4y ago
    Freedoms are limited by fundamental human rights. You have the right to choose your own profession freely. But nobody complains about not being able to choose "murderer" freely.
  - arlcode 4y ago
    Well if they want European money they better comply with the ruled as they are or lobby a government to get better ones. (If they are tiny they might fly under the radar but since FAANG and friends aren't charities that won't work) It's really "unfortunate" that they managed to piss if their own government so that Washington doesn't feel like helping them out much.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    > it implies things like freedom to hate and freedom to lie that y'all don't have Am I supposed to want that ? Also, no. You have libel/defamation/slander laws in a lot of US states, "b-bu-but muh 1st amendment" > as long as there is no server or physical office what can brussels do but scream into the wind about it? Hm, ban these websites out of europe lol ? > where we support "American's version" of free speech despite local laws? I know the US think they're the center of the universe and the world's police but what "we" defend there is called "human rights"
    - collegeburner 4y ago
      yes you are supposed to want that. because there are plenty of cases where truthful and legitimate points have been classified as lies or hate. ofc defamation law exists. the difference is that is decided in court not by some eurocrat apparatchik. and there has to be some harm demonstrated. and there are special protections for e.g. journalists (see times v. sullivan) that make it even harder in those cases. how is brussels going to "ban those websites out of europe lol"? license the great firewall from china? hmm yes definitely sounds like a free and open society to me. > what "we" defend there is called "human rights" ok cool y'all think that. we think that y'all's vision of "free" speech is authoritarian and necessarily prevents civil disagreement on some important issues, it's already obvious we don't agree on that. but that's not the problem, it's how to reconcile 2 different legal concepts on the same platform. tbh there's no reason why an American would care. if anything it's the euros expecting the rest of the world to police their speech to euro standards that think they're the center of the universe.
      - lm28469 4y ago
        > prevents civil disagreement on some important issues Is "civil disagreement" what's feeding the current US political system ? I see a whole lot of disagreement and hate, not a lot of civil or constructive talks
- causality0 4y ago
  Restriction vs non-restriction is a fairly clear axis. Not saying Europeans are wrong, but their laws are objectively more authoritarian when it comes to expression than American ones.
  - jevgeni 4y ago
    No they are not. They are designed to prevent authoritarianism. The Weimar republic with all of its absolute, unqualified freedoms didn't work out that great.
    - causality0 4y ago
      Freedom is not defined by its consequences or its positive/negative outcome. Total freedom will of course devolve into a total shitshow but that doesn't make it not freedom.
      - jevgeni 4y ago
        Seing how freedom is a human construct, it makes sense only in context of the human condition. So treating it as something separate from outcomes for people isn't helpful.
      - nirimda 4y ago
        Freedom for whom? Total freedom means freedom for the strongest. Laws exists to ensure there is more freedom for the weaker and less freedom for the stronger. They prevent a stronger person from doing something that allows a weaker person to decide whether or not to do something else.
        causality0 4y ago
        I clearly said "when it comes to expression". There are many other ways in which Europeans are freer than Americans.
  - MattPalmer1086 4y ago
    More restrictive, for certain categories of speech, like hate speech, certainly. More authoritarian? As a European (well, in the UK - can I still consider myself European?), I do not find my right to speak, or speak truth to power to be restricted unncessarily. I see what is happening in the US with the rise of genuinely authoritarian politics fueled by misinformation and hate speech and find it genuinely disturbing. I guess a lot depends on the cultural context you grow up in.
pjc50 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...
chess_buster 4y ago
like their's no nuance

lm28469 4y ago

> DSA is anti-free-speech so no American company should in good conscience comply. American's version of free speech*, as much as Americans want it to be true you can't apply US laws in foreign countries

collegeburner 4y ago
uhh well no i'd say the "American version" is much closer to actually free speech. it implies things like freedom to hate and freedom to lie that y'all don't have. and yes it can, because the internet reaches pretty much everywhere. as long as there is no server or physical office what can brussels do but scream into the wind about it? aren't we doing the same thing with iran, belarus, china, other places where we support "American's version" of free speech despite local laws?
- jevgeni 4y ago
  Freedoms are limited by fundamental human rights. You have the right to choose your own profession freely. But nobody complains about not being able to choose "murderer" freely.
- arlcode 4y ago
  Well if they want European money they better comply with the ruled as they are or lobby a government to get better ones. (If they are tiny they might fly under the radar but since FAANG and friends aren't charities that won't work) It's really "unfortunate" that they managed to piss if their own government so that Washington doesn't feel like helping them out much.
- lm28469 4y ago
  > it implies things like freedom to hate and freedom to lie that y'all don't have Am I supposed to want that ? Also, no. You have libel/defamation/slander laws in a lot of US states, "b-bu-but muh 1st amendment" > as long as there is no server or physical office what can brussels do but scream into the wind about it? Hm, ban these websites out of europe lol ? > where we support "American's version" of free speech despite local laws? I know the US think they're the center of the universe and the world's police but what "we" defend there is called "human rights"
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    yes you are supposed to want that. because there are plenty of cases where truthful and legitimate points have been classified as lies or hate. ofc defamation law exists. the difference is that is decided in court not by some eurocrat apparatchik. and there has to be some harm demonstrated. and there are special protections for e.g. journalists (see times v. sullivan) that make it even harder in those cases. how is brussels going to "ban those websites out of europe lol"? license the great firewall from china? hmm yes definitely sounds like a free and open society to me. > what "we" defend there is called "human rights" ok cool y'all think that. we think that y'all's vision of "free" speech is authoritarian and necessarily prevents civil disagreement on some important issues, it's already obvious we don't agree on that. but that's not the problem, it's how to reconcile 2 different legal concepts on the same platform. tbh there's no reason why an American would care. if anything it's the euros expecting the rest of the world to police their speech to euro standards that think they're the center of the universe.
    - lm28469 4y ago
      > prevents civil disagreement on some important issues Is "civil disagreement" what's feeding the current US political system ? I see a whole lot of disagreement and hate, not a lot of civil or constructive talks
causality0 4y ago
Restriction vs non-restriction is a fairly clear axis. Not saying Europeans are wrong, but their laws are objectively more authoritarian when it comes to expression than American ones.
- jevgeni 4y ago
  No they are not. They are designed to prevent authoritarianism. The Weimar republic with all of its absolute, unqualified freedoms didn't work out that great.
  - causality0 4y ago
    Freedom is not defined by its consequences or its positive/negative outcome. Total freedom will of course devolve into a total shitshow but that doesn't make it not freedom.
    - jevgeni 4y ago
      Seing how freedom is a human construct, it makes sense only in context of the human condition. So treating it as something separate from outcomes for people isn't helpful.
    - nirimda 4y ago
      Freedom for whom? Total freedom means freedom for the strongest. Laws exists to ensure there is more freedom for the weaker and less freedom for the stronger. They prevent a stronger person from doing something that allows a weaker person to decide whether or not to do something else.
      - causality0 4y ago
        I clearly said "when it comes to expression". There are many other ways in which Europeans are freer than Americans.
- MattPalmer1086 4y ago
  More restrictive, for certain categories of speech, like hate speech, certainly. More authoritarian? As a European (well, in the UK - can I still consider myself European?), I do not find my right to speak, or speak truth to power to be restricted unncessarily. I see what is happening in the US with the rise of genuinely authoritarian politics fueled by misinformation and hate speech and find it genuinely disturbing. I guess a lot depends on the cultural context you grow up in.

pjc50 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...

chess_buster 4y ago

like their's no nuance