3 ms·

It doesn't, really. It's specifically because Telegram failed to deliver all the requested information on certain nazi propaganda spreader groups.

LewisVerstappen 3y ago
Who defined nazi propaganda spreader groups? Who draws the line? First Nazi propaganda spreaders, then gay rights activists? Sounds extremely dangerous to have this kind of centralized control.
- dancemethis 3y ago
  Sorry, but if one is directly stating nazi ideals, symbols, denying the ocurrence of hate crimes, spreading information on how to create weapons and more effectively invade schools to "go for the high score", one isn't a gay rights activist. It's a nazi. It's not a situation where people who just didn't get enough information (or downright wackos) can try and relativize the contents. It's quite, quite clear.
- cjalmeida 3y ago
  The Telegram group is literally called “Brazilian Anti-semite Movement”. I don’t think they were sharing pot pie recipes there…
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  'First they came for the nazis', really?
- sofixa 3y ago
  Ah, the great slippery slope argument. Assuming good faith, most developed countries have hate (and similar) speech laws, with Nazism being explicitly banned in most (all? maybe Spain/Portugal/Switzerland are exceptions) of Europe. Same goes for antisemitism, or in general racial/religious hatred/discrimination to various extents. It's not a slippery slope "oh what will they ban next", it's "this kind of thing has proven itself to be extremely dangerous and is detrimental to everyone, hence it's banned". And it has been for decades, and nobody has just added gay activists, including in very anti-LGBTQ countries like Poland. You might also want to look up the paradox of tolerance, it's a fun read.
  - rgoulter 3y ago
    > You might also want to look up the paradox of tolerance, it's a fun read.. I often see 'paradox of tolerance' cited as meaning something like: "if you're intolerant, I don't have to tolerate you". But, as Popper put it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance """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 most unwise.""" The threshold can be as high as 'would society collapse if these people are tolerated', and not as low as 'they're intolerant, so I don't have to tolerate them'.
    - epups 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

LewisVerstappen 3y ago

Who defined nazi propaganda spreader groups? Who draws the line? First Nazi propaganda spreaders, then gay rights activists? Sounds extremely dangerous to have this kind of centralized control.

dancemethis 3y ago
Sorry, but if one is directly stating nazi ideals, symbols, denying the ocurrence of hate crimes, spreading information on how to create weapons and more effectively invade schools to "go for the high score", one isn't a gay rights activist. It's a nazi. It's not a situation where people who just didn't get enough information (or downright wackos) can try and relativize the contents. It's quite, quite clear.
cjalmeida 3y ago
The Telegram group is literally called “Brazilian Anti-semite Movement”. I don’t think they were sharing pot pie recipes there…
anigbrowl 3y ago
'First they came for the nazis', really?
sofixa 3y ago
Ah, the great slippery slope argument. Assuming good faith, most developed countries have hate (and similar) speech laws, with Nazism being explicitly banned in most (all? maybe Spain/Portugal/Switzerland are exceptions) of Europe. Same goes for antisemitism, or in general racial/religious hatred/discrimination to various extents. It's not a slippery slope "oh what will they ban next", it's "this kind of thing has proven itself to be extremely dangerous and is detrimental to everyone, hence it's banned". And it has been for decades, and nobody has just added gay activists, including in very anti-LGBTQ countries like Poland. You might also want to look up the paradox of tolerance, it's a fun read.
- rgoulter 3y ago
  > You might also want to look up the paradox of tolerance, it's a fun read.. I often see 'paradox of tolerance' cited as meaning something like: "if you're intolerant, I don't have to tolerate you". But, as Popper put it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance """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 most unwise.""" The threshold can be as high as 'would society collapse if these people are tolerated', and not as low as 'they're intolerant, so I don't have to tolerate them'.
  - epups 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]