6 ms·

> the company’s effort to comply with the EU’s disinformation code > local Twitter executives who had key positions to deal with government officials > the EU

> the company’s effort to comply with the EU’s disinformation code > local Twitter executives who had key positions to deal with government officials > the EU’s vice-president in charge of the disinformation code Imagine thinking these are good and the changes are bad. Never let anyone tell you we have free speech in europe.

piva00 4y ago
No, absolute free speech has never been a blanket right in all of the EU states, why do you assume that? There are multiple laws against hate speech, against spreading of Nazi ideas, etc. Do you have examples of when those laws have silenced a citizen from speaking their mind where it wouldn't cause damages to a minority or just other people in general? Because I'm fully onboard in not allowing Nazi-speech be spread around, it infects the mind of the fearful and tolerating it has been shown to not work.
- sfusato 4y ago
  Well, I have some news for you with regards to Nazi speech in Europe. It's at an all-time high recently. No idea why.
  - piva00 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - amadeuspagel 4y ago
      Can you name a country that has enough censorship in your view?
      - piva00 4y ago
        Germany.
    - censormeharder 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - piva00 4y ago
        I never said that, point exactly where I'm saying that I believe communism is the solution. Don't shove your words into my mouth, it's disrespectful and lame... TL;DR: an asshat using a throwaway is around to throw hot takes on Hacker News. Another shooting at 11, tune in.
    - tbrownaw 4y ago
      > Yeah and it's at an all-time high exactly due to the tolerance of speech and politics having to tip-toe around the calls from right-wingers/libertarians that limiting this speech is an invasion in their rights. More speech slipping through the government's fingers just means they need to tighten their grip more?
      - piva00 4y ago
        No, it needs to be brought into political discussion and a real analysis of how and why such speech has been spreading and tolerated. I believe that curtailing speech that is hateful is needed while I'm not equipped to define what's hateful speech but believe we have enough scholars who studied hate speech, paradox of tolerance, and the many other facets that pure absolute free speech can take that is detrimental to society to be able to debate in the appropriate forum what could deter those ideas from spreading through the mindless hateful folk. I love how more and more I completely agree that this parody of Hacker News [1] approaches how discussions are done here. From my take where I believe that right-wingers and libertarians are forcing the tolerance of intolerants based purely on ideology I get replies saying that I'm both arguing for a censorship State to a TL;DR from a numbwit under a throwaway account stating that I'm calling for communism. It's truly mesmerising how shallow people can be. [1] http://bradconte.com/files/misc/HackerNewsParodyThread/ http://bradconte.com/files/misc/HackerNewsParodyThread/
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago
  I know we don't have free speech. I just said that! It's nothing new. The past 3 years have been rife with disinformation. Mask don't work, then they do, then they don't. The vaccine is 99% effective, then you need a booster, then you need a 2nd booster. If you get the vaccine you won't get Wuhan Pneumonia, then you do get it. The virus was definitely not made in a lab in Wuhan, then maybe it was, then maybe "we'll never know". If you disagreed with the government line then you got censored by "private companies" collaborating with govt agents. If you gathered with others to disagree then the government would silence you with force. If you traveled more than 1km from your home the government would tax you 1500. If the government had had enough security apparatus they would have done what we see in China. Locking people in Ikea, in an iPhone factory, in their homes. Furthermore I noticed you jumped straight to that from "disinformation". I wonder if I should read anything into that. Better not.
giorgosts 4y ago
"Do not do to others what you don't want be done to you" is a good starting point on which free speech should be allowed and which should not. You should not have freedom to curtail the freedoms of others.
- malermeister 4y ago
  There's a famous Austrian philosopher named Karl Popper, who saw the rise of the Nazis, how they abused the freedoms extended to them and what horrors that brought. Shortly after the end of WW2, he came to this conclusion: > Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] > We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. Personally, I agree with this logic. Uncurtailed freedom only works as long as people don't use it to curtail the freedoms of others and that sort of abuse has to be stopped in the interest of freedom.
  - tpmoney 4y ago
    The part that goes in [...] reads: > In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. Hard to describe posting awful garbage on twitter as "[forbidding] their followers to listen to rational argument" or answering those arguments "by the use of their fists or pistols". One might make the argument that it isn't "[meeting] us on the level of rational argument", but one could easily make the argument that all of twitter by it's very nature of tossing bumpersticker sized sound bites over the walls at each other isn't anything remotely approacing "rational argument".

piva00 4y ago

No, absolute free speech has never been a blanket right in all of the EU states, why do you assume that? There are multiple laws against hate speech, against spreading of Nazi ideas, etc. Do you have examples of when those laws have silenced a citizen from speaking their mind where it wouldn't cause damages to a minority or just other people in general? Because I'm fully onboard in not allowing Nazi-speech be spread around, it infects the mind of the fearful and tolerating it has been shown to not work.

sfusato 4y ago
Well, I have some news for you with regards to Nazi speech in Europe. It's at an all-time high recently. No idea why.
- piva00 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - amadeuspagel 4y ago
    Can you name a country that has enough censorship in your view?
    - piva00 4y ago
      Germany.
  - censormeharder 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - piva00 4y ago
      I never said that, point exactly where I'm saying that I believe communism is the solution. Don't shove your words into my mouth, it's disrespectful and lame... TL;DR: an asshat using a throwaway is around to throw hot takes on Hacker News. Another shooting at 11, tune in.
  - tbrownaw 4y ago
    > Yeah and it's at an all-time high exactly due to the tolerance of speech and politics having to tip-toe around the calls from right-wingers/libertarians that limiting this speech is an invasion in their rights. More speech slipping through the government's fingers just means they need to tighten their grip more?
    - piva00 4y ago
      No, it needs to be brought into political discussion and a real analysis of how and why such speech has been spreading and tolerated. I believe that curtailing speech that is hateful is needed while I'm not equipped to define what's hateful speech but believe we have enough scholars who studied hate speech, paradox of tolerance, and the many other facets that pure absolute free speech can take that is detrimental to society to be able to debate in the appropriate forum what could deter those ideas from spreading through the mindless hateful folk. I love how more and more I completely agree that this parody of Hacker News [1] approaches how discussions are done here. From my take where I believe that right-wingers and libertarians are forcing the tolerance of intolerants based purely on ideology I get replies saying that I'm both arguing for a censorship State to a TL;DR from a numbwit under a throwaway account stating that I'm calling for communism. It's truly mesmerising how shallow people can be. [1] http://bradconte.com/files/misc/HackerNewsParodyThread/ http://bradconte.com/files/misc/HackerNewsParodyThread/
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago
I know we don't have free speech. I just said that! It's nothing new. The past 3 years have been rife with disinformation. Mask don't work, then they do, then they don't. The vaccine is 99% effective, then you need a booster, then you need a 2nd booster. If you get the vaccine you won't get Wuhan Pneumonia, then you do get it. The virus was definitely not made in a lab in Wuhan, then maybe it was, then maybe "we'll never know". If you disagreed with the government line then you got censored by "private companies" collaborating with govt agents. If you gathered with others to disagree then the government would silence you with force. If you traveled more than 1km from your home the government would tax you 1500. If the government had had enough security apparatus they would have done what we see in China. Locking people in Ikea, in an iPhone factory, in their homes. Furthermore I noticed you jumped straight to that from "disinformation". I wonder if I should read anything into that. Better not.

giorgosts 4y ago

"Do not do to others what you don't want be done to you" is a good starting point on which free speech should be allowed and which should not. You should not have freedom to curtail the freedoms of others.

malermeister 4y ago
There's a famous Austrian philosopher named Karl Popper, who saw the rise of the Nazis, how they abused the freedoms extended to them and what horrors that brought. Shortly after the end of WW2, he came to this conclusion: > Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] > We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. Personally, I agree with this logic. Uncurtailed freedom only works as long as people don't use it to curtail the freedoms of others and that sort of abuse has to be stopped in the interest of freedom.
- tpmoney 4y ago
  The part that goes in [...] reads: > In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. Hard to describe posting awful garbage on twitter as "[forbidding] their followers to listen to rational argument" or answering those arguments "by the use of their fists or pistols". One might make the argument that it isn't "[meeting] us on the level of rational argument", but one could easily make the argument that all of twitter by it's very nature of tossing bumpersticker sized sound bites over the walls at each other isn't anything remotely approacing "rational argument".