10 ms·

What you suggest is impossible, because you are attacking a wrench on the head problem with a coding solution. You can always get a dish and connect to your ch

What you suggest is impossible, because you are attacking a wrench on the head problem with a coding solution. You can always get a dish and connect to your choice of orbital provider, if your ISP - which is regulated - is blocked. The problem is, guys with guns will come to your door, beat you with a wrench, and put you in jail. Now if we solve for the real issue - lack of freedom because of a ruling class, the technical issue goes away. There's nothing to solve if you can't be oppressed, and if the ruler has no way to oppress, they'd have no way to block your ISP in the first place. The reason for the oppression is, a large portion of every country actually wants to be oppressed. Even in a democracy, the oppression of you can simply come from a majority (EU citizens have no freedom of speech) or large minority (magats prosecuting women and doctors for murder because of a life-threatening abortion). There is no answer, because many people want to control and silence others who don't agree - or to compensate for lack of control of their crap lives by controlling other lives. Take a look at this site, and most social media sites. Tiny-dick big-belly mods shadowbanning, the other users downvoting, making comments gray so you can't read them. Most people are bootlickers. Most people want the type of power structure that ends up with the internet blocked. They don't want freedom - they want to be on the side doing the oppressing.

suction 3y ago
[dead]
vermilingua 3y ago
GP didn’t say “your access to the internet”, but “access to the internet”. The solution is partly technical, because it’s about increasing the number of heads that must be wrenched to disrupt a society’s access to the internet. The only way that can be done is by reducing the cost and technical ability needed to connect to the internet with fewer intermediaries that can be wrenched by governments.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
>The reason for the oppression is, a large portion of every country actually wants to be oppressed. Nobody wants to be oppressed. A large portion of the population often wants to be oppressors themselves. They are addicted to controlling others. This might be raising tax on X group, or criminalizing Y minority. Many people don't like voluntary association and choice. They want compelled behavior that conforms to their expectation. The only way to combat this is to establish a baseline respect for individual autonomy and choice as long as it doesn't harm other people. Most people are hesitant to allow this because they don't like the choices that others make. Either that or they define harm as doing anything which they don't like.
- usernew 3y ago
  are you familiar with the lower middle-class rednecks who form the republican party, and elect people who at every turn scam them, screw them, and try to take away their medical benefits and social security? yes, they do want to be oppressed - but by their own people. not by your people. my wife is a chinese xpat who got her master's here and stayed. when we go to visit her old parents who have a picture of mao on the wall, half the sites she visits are blocked. She can't get to the things she spends half her free time on. But it's "good that youtube is blocked, there's bad stuff on it." Most of that country is like that. The millions you see protesting on the street - there's over a billion who are against them and love their firewall which keeps out western propaganda. and when they get their door nailed shut from outside and die of starvation? we don't talk about that, that didn't happen, gramma just died of old age. i have friends who live in moscow. lots of people - way over half, support the war. when their son gets drafted, given a non-working rifle with no bullets, and shot, and they don't get paid as promised - they get mad at putin for a day. they next day though, they blame the Ukrainians and support the ugly little bald troll even more. trust me - you are very wrong. probably not in your local social circle - but that has a huge selection bias. go to the DMV, sit there for an hour, and just listen to people talking. being under the boot is safe, you don't have to make decisions, you don't have to thing as your opinions are provided - as is at whom you should be angry. it's paradise for many a housecat.
  - _glass 3y ago
    Unfortunately this is so true. I made this experience after travelling to oppressed countries. Just to add, a lot of time it is a net positive for the people, and more complex than propagated from the outside.
  - aww_dang 3y ago
    >...lower middle-class rednecks who form the republican party, and elect people who at every turn scam them, screw them, and try to take away their medical benefits and social security? yes, they do want to be oppressed >Mao >...it's paradise for many a housecat. Feels like a non-sequitur to compare opposition to state controlled medical coverage to the charmed life of house cats. People often opt to euthanize their aged pets. Animals which misbehave or become unmanageable are sent to shelters where they are euthanized. On the other hand, concerns about death panels and eugenics are laughed away. Otherwise I agree somewhat with your sentiment. The two goal posts of tribal affiliation are pitted against each other. Authorities take their free kick. The description of, "lower middle-class rednecks who form the republican party" reads exactly like the kind of partisan 'othering' you describe.
oreally 3y ago
Doesn't mean you should just give up. We'll need countermeasures and spread information for a set of SOPs. - A way to post a video of injustice without being traced back - A way to shoot a video without others knowing - A way to prove you aren't just a troll or foreign agent - miniaturizing hardware like your dish so that they can be hidden easily
csomar 3y ago
> The problem is, guys with guns will come to your door, beat you with a wrench, and put you in jail. This is hyperbole. A dictator might have the tools to shut off a couple of dissident. But if you have a large portion of the population running these dishes, it's game over. > Most people are bootlickers. Most people want the type of power structure that ends up with the internet blocked. They don't want freedom - they want to be on the side doing the oppressing. That's a bit contradictory to what you said a few sentences before. Most people like to be the oppressors but not oppressed.
- warent 3y ago
  if you have a large portion of the population running these dishes, it's game over. Sadly this is wishful and overly optimistic thinking. The Tiananmen Square protesters thought similarly. Dictators will massacre their own people
  - AbrahamParangi 3y ago
    I don’t know how you can look at the expansion of democracy worldwide over the 20th century and say it’s just wishful thinking!
    - vkou 3y ago
      By most metrics, democracy is currently in contraction.
      - cubancigar11 3y ago
        The space of democracy is already taken by the leader of the freeworld that dictates how democracy should look like. So if you can't play the game, it is logical to want to play your own game.
        cubancigar11 3y ago
        [flagged]
FpUser 3y ago
"Most people are bootlickers. Most people want the type of power structure that ends up with the internet blocked. They don't want freedom - they want to be on the side doing the oppressing." There, you nailed it. I wish I could give you +10 ;)
maybelsyrup 3y ago
> Most people are bootlickers Not you though, right?
theK 3y ago
As a EU citizen I’m a bit offended, how do EU citizens have no freedom of speech?
- vmfunction 3y ago
  [flagged]
- InCityDreams 3y ago
  You just got told so.
  - theK 3y ago
    Ha, ha, very funny.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- varjag 3y ago
  This is mostly American forum and a lot of members have deeply ingrained belief that proper freedom of speech outside America does not exist.
  - ta1243 3y ago
    Which is hilarious given the restrictions on freedom of speech in the US European countries have different levels of restrictions on the US, more lax in some areas, tighter in others. The main difference with the US is that the EU doesn't pretend they have unlimited free speech, the US does.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
sofixa 3y ago
> EU citizens have no freedom of speech First, technically there are no EU citizens, only citizens of EU member states. Speech is handled at member state level (e.g. hate speech, as in inciting violence against an ethnic or religious group, or displaying Nazi affiliation will be handled very differently in Portugal that never had direct Nazi rule, Germany that is doing it's best to make sure there are never Nazis again, and Poland that suffered centuries of massacres from violent oppressors, including the Nazis) so it's even less correct of a saying in this case. Second, just because it doesn't fit your ideal of free speech, it doesn't make it non-free. Free is directional (from or to), on a spectrum and a matter of perception. There are no public places on Earth with absolute free speech, and the vast majority of people prefer it that way.
Thorrez 3y ago
>magats prosecuting women and doctors for murder because of a life-threatening abortion Are you saying that's something that has happened? Do you have a link?
- data-abuse 3y ago
  Mother and daughter charged https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/us/abortion-prosecution-nebraska.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/us/abortion-prosecution-n... Many women with life threatening conditions get stuck waiting for the inevitable because they have already created evidence by going to a doctor. If anything happens to the baby without evidence of natural causes, they can be prosecuted. This has put women in a tough place. This is a story that might help you understand https://www.propublica.org/article/tennessee-abortion-ban-doctors-ectopic-pregnancy https://www.propublica.org/article/tennessee-abortion-ban-do...
  - Thorrez 3y ago
    Hmm, I now realize I may have misunderstood the phrase "a life-threatening abortion". I can think of 4 meanings: 1. an abortion to end a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother 2. an abortion to end a pregnancy where the fetus's life is already threatened 3. an abortion that threatens the life of the mother 4. an abortion that threatens the life of the fetus Your first link only matches meaning 4. But meaning 4 is tautological, so I'm not sure it makes sense. In the second link no one was prosecuted. In neither link was a doctor prosecuted.
phtrivier 3y ago
> EU citizens have no freedom of speech I was thinking exactly that the other day, while watching a TV show on national publicly funded television, where a variety of pundits where discussing the first year of the present term of the ruling president, and the on-set comedian summed up the situation : "the panel and the country is split in two : those that don't like the ruler, and those who hate him". The youngest panelist (a twitch political streamer) argued about constitution changes with an older panelist (journalist in a far right newspaper). The table was filled with various levels of right center, vaguely socio democrats, a few has been still stuck in the 70s, etc... Everyone talked very loudly and eloquently. We may lack direct power, direct control over our institution, we may live in tight societies with few chances of social mobility, we definitely have press ownership issues, etc... But for one think, i believe we have _some_ freedom of speech. No, I'll leave the floor to those who define "free speech" as "the freedom to insult" :P
- fyrn_ 3y ago
  The problem with it is that you only have free speech until someone higher in the power structure decides whatever you're saying is insulting. Free speech in the US is actually limited in some ways, for example speech is only protected from abridgement by the government, something that's becoming more relevant by the day as social media platforms gain more and more sway over the public discourse.
  - krapp 3y ago
    I'm not aware of a single issue which has been effectively banned from public discourse due to being moderated on social media, nor any person who has been unable to continue public life or communication, for the same reason. Even "vaccine critical" discourse during COVID was rampant during the time when, supposedly, social media platforms erased it completely. The "sway" that social media platforms have over public discourse is often vastly overstated for political ends, certainly compared to that of governments (as the argument is often made that social media platforms are more powerful than governments, to make them seem more threatening.) And the real problem is, if you consider the ability of social media platforms to moderate content to be harmful, the only solution is to have government limit the free speech of those platforms and those who participate on them by coercing them into publishing speech they don't want to, which cedes power to a potentially even worse entity. People are so terrified of the perceived power social media has now (to the point of wanting to make "algorithms" illegal) that they're willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Facebook can ban me from their platform but at least they can't send goons to my house and ban me from life.
mrtksn 3y ago
> EU citizens have no freedom of speech Although this is not a EU thing, thus varies country by country, that’s something I’m not happy about the European approach to freedom of speech. It’s usually the Nazi stuff and defamation that is not allowed, so it doesn’t affect most people but still is in principle I would prefer the absolute free speech. The American approach is better on this.
- sgu999 3y ago
  > The American approach is better on this. It is not if you're the victim of the so called "freedom of speech" of others and can't do anything about it... The US also doesn't have absolute freedom of speech, just a different set of rules that makes them believe they do.
Mvandenbergh 3y ago
There are no "EU citizens" only citizens of EU member countries. None of those countries have freedom of speech as expansive as Americans but Americans in practice also don't have absolute freedom of speech. 1) Certain speech such as "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" has long been considered illegal. 2) The US has much more expansive laws about "conspiracy to..." which make it illegal to have certain conversations. Oh, those don't count? Not real speech. Sure, why not. 3) Most people will experience very real economic consequences for a very wide range of speech. We're not all yeoman farmers entirely independent of paid employment. That presumably doesn't count because only governments can restrict liberties? Well, have it your way but I would regard losing my job due to speech as a pretty severe restriction on my liberty.
- komadori 3y ago
  EU citizenship was established by the Treaty on European Union [1] in 1992. While EU citizenship is different and additional to national citizenship, it does exist in law. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2bf140bf-a3f8-4ab2-b506-fd71826e6da6.0023.02/DOC_1&format=PDF https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2bf140bf-...
  - ta1243 3y ago
    EU citizenship can be removed, by force, on mass, and has been done for millions of people.
    - komadori 3y ago
      I know, I'm one of them. Nonetheless, it still exists.
      - ta1243 3y ago
        > Revoking someone’s citizenship is hugely controversial. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines having a nationality as a right, forbidding countries to arbitrarily deprive someone of it. It seems to me that if I were an EU citizen, the EU would be the ones who had to remove my citizenship, and that would be a very controversial step. I don't recall long winded speeches in the UN denouncing the EU for forcefully removing the citizenship of millions of people, which leads me to think that it's not a "real" citizenship.
psychoslave 3y ago
>What you suggest is impossible, because you are attacking a wrench on the head problem with a coding solution. […] The problem is, guys with guns will come to your door, beat you with a wrench, and put you in jail. I would rather suggest that this is a education issue, mainly on how to widespread behavior that favor common goods and reciprocal mutual help as the basis of every single human out there. That is, methodologies like Marshall Rosenberg worked at disseminating. Any other option is a race to the bottom of the rawest brutality. >The reason for the oppression is, a large portion of every country actually wants to be oppressed. Should I be haunted with so awful thoughts, I wish some people could help me to find an effective mental healing process, really. Life is hard, and people having to struggle with of all sort of issues will certainly take what seems on the moment to be the easiest path to bring a bit more stability in the mess they are going through. But in no case that mean that anyone is deeply craving for oppression. >many people want to control and silence others who don't agree Well, that doesn’t reflect my own experience of interacting with many people. We agree that some people can be animated with that kind of despicable mindset. And we agree, certainly, that some of them can successfully gain significant political/social power. A very small minority of people like that is enough to engender nation wide desolation. >Most people are bootlickers. Most people want the type of power structure that ends up with the internet blocked. They don't want freedom - they want to be on the side doing the oppressing. Maybe try to go in different social circles out there. You might be positively surprise.
geysersam 3y ago
[flagged]
ricardo_nh 3y ago
I don't know if the majority of people want to be oppressed, that sounds like a simplified generalization. Specially taking into account the variances of oppression between different regimes across the world. The reasons for oppressive regimes to arise may be completely different, even if there are some shared psychological and sociological features. The very concept of freedom is not stable and is constantly being negotiated. However you point out an important issue that I agree with, and is many times forgotten: the questions about freedom that arise with technological developments are not technological per se, but political and ethical in their nature
execveat 3y ago
> The problem is, guys with guns will come to your door, beat you with a wrench, and put you in jail. Counterpoint: guns, doors, wrenches and jails are tools as well. So, I don't buy this notion that technology can't solve societal issues. It's like saying you can't fix a leaky faucet with a wrench because the real problem is that the pipes are old and rusty. Sure, the root cause may be a societal issue, but that doesn't mean we can't use technology to mitigate the problem. I mean, imagine telling a doctor not to prescribe medicine to a sick patient because the real issue is poor lifestyle choices.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  > Counterpoint: guns, doors, wrenches and jails are tools as well. So, I don't buy this notion that technology can't solve societal issues. I'd go as far as saying, technology is by far most likely to solve societal issues, but it usually happens indirectly, in ways not easily predicted. To use your example: > It's like saying you can't fix a leaky faucet with a wrench because the real problem is that the pipes are old and rusty. Yes, and technological solution for this ends up being... all the metal pipes getting replaced with plastics, because plastics are that amazing and petroleum industry made them cheap as dirt. There are many "technological solutions" at play here, most of them have nothing to do with plumbing, but together they both make the plastic pipes possible, and through economics, make them suddenly appear in everyone's houses. (The whole setup of course comes with new problems in other areas, but that's almost always the case with any solution to anything.) > I mean, imagine telling a doctor not to prescribe medicine to a sick patient because the real issue is poor lifestyle choices. This is what a good chunk of the world believes, and tries to tell the doctors and patients alike. I consider this to be "fuck you advice"; "poor lifestyle choices" are usually not actually choices, and lifestyle changes are much, much harder to implement (often impossible in practice) compared to a medical intervention.
sgu999 3y ago
> (EU citizens have no freedom of speech) As a EU citizen, I really have no clue where you pulled that from. We must have a very different definition of freedom of speech. I can criticize my government openly and as much as I want but I can't call for a genocide or do a nazi salute. Most of us are perfectly fine with that, but thanks for your concern about our freedom.
PontifexMinimus 3y ago
> You can always get a dish and connect to your choice of orbital provider, if your ISP - which is regulated - is blocked. The problem is, guys with guns will come to your door, beat you with a wrench, and put you in jail. They have to catch you first. What if every computing device sold in the West came as standard with built in, secure mesh networking and ability to uplink to satellites? Then governments like Pakistan would have to use those computers, and lose the ability to control what their people say. Alternatively, they could: (1) not use computers, dooming their country to perpetual poverty (2) come up with their own solution, and they're too small an economy to come up with one that isn't backward (3) buy a solution from another autocracy, such as China -- and doom their country to be forever controlled by China The problem with this idea is that the West doesn't want every compute to come with built in secure mesh networking, because they want to snoop on their people too. But if they did go for this idea, because they're a freer society than their competitors (China and Russia, mainly) it would give them a massive advantage. > the oppression of you can simply come from a majority (EU citizens have no freedom of speech) That's a gross over-simplification. EU citizens have a good deal more freedom of speech than in most societies that've ever existed; and in every society there are things you might say that will get you in serious trouble. > There is no answer, because many people want to control and silence others who don't agree A lot do; these people are stupid and if they were more sensible they would realise that among societies, there is a strong correlation between amount of freedom of speech and how nice the place is to live in. > Most people are bootlickers. Most people want the type of power structure that ends up with the internet blocked. They don't want freedom - they want to be on the side doing the oppressing. They imagine they will be the person wielding the fist and not the person being punched by it. In truth it will be the ruling class doing the restrictions on freedom. And because power corrupts, even if the ruling class start off as perfectly moral and just people (ha!) they won't stay that way for long.

suction 3y ago

[dead]

vermilingua 3y ago

GP didn’t say “your access to the internet”, but “access to the internet”. The solution is partly technical, because it’s about increasing the number of heads that must be wrenched to disrupt a society’s access to the internet. The only way that can be done is by reducing the cost and technical ability needed to connect to the internet with fewer intermediaries that can be wrenched by governments.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

>The reason for the oppression is, a large portion of every country actually wants to be oppressed. Nobody wants to be oppressed. A large portion of the population often wants to be oppressors themselves. They are addicted to controlling others. This might be raising tax on X group, or criminalizing Y minority. Many people don't like voluntary association and choice. They want compelled behavior that conforms to their expectation. The only way to combat this is to establish a baseline respect for individual autonomy and choice as long as it doesn't harm other people. Most people are hesitant to allow this because they don't like the choices that others make. Either that or they define harm as doing anything which they don't like.

usernew 3y ago
are you familiar with the lower middle-class rednecks who form the republican party, and elect people who at every turn scam them, screw them, and try to take away their medical benefits and social security? yes, they do want to be oppressed - but by their own people. not by your people. my wife is a chinese xpat who got her master's here and stayed. when we go to visit her old parents who have a picture of mao on the wall, half the sites she visits are blocked. She can't get to the things she spends half her free time on. But it's "good that youtube is blocked, there's bad stuff on it." Most of that country is like that. The millions you see protesting on the street - there's over a billion who are against them and love their firewall which keeps out western propaganda. and when they get their door nailed shut from outside and die of starvation? we don't talk about that, that didn't happen, gramma just died of old age. i have friends who live in moscow. lots of people - way over half, support the war. when their son gets drafted, given a non-working rifle with no bullets, and shot, and they don't get paid as promised - they get mad at putin for a day. they next day though, they blame the Ukrainians and support the ugly little bald troll even more. trust me - you are very wrong. probably not in your local social circle - but that has a huge selection bias. go to the DMV, sit there for an hour, and just listen to people talking. being under the boot is safe, you don't have to make decisions, you don't have to thing as your opinions are provided - as is at whom you should be angry. it's paradise for many a housecat.
- _glass 3y ago
  Unfortunately this is so true. I made this experience after travelling to oppressed countries. Just to add, a lot of time it is a net positive for the people, and more complex than propagated from the outside.
- aww_dang 3y ago
  >...lower middle-class rednecks who form the republican party, and elect people who at every turn scam them, screw them, and try to take away their medical benefits and social security? yes, they do want to be oppressed >Mao >...it's paradise for many a housecat. Feels like a non-sequitur to compare opposition to state controlled medical coverage to the charmed life of house cats. People often opt to euthanize their aged pets. Animals which misbehave or become unmanageable are sent to shelters where they are euthanized. On the other hand, concerns about death panels and eugenics are laughed away. Otherwise I agree somewhat with your sentiment. The two goal posts of tribal affiliation are pitted against each other. Authorities take their free kick. The description of, "lower middle-class rednecks who form the republican party" reads exactly like the kind of partisan 'othering' you describe.

oreally 3y ago

Doesn't mean you should just give up. We'll need countermeasures and spread information for a set of SOPs. - A way to post a video of injustice without being traced back - A way to shoot a video without others knowing - A way to prove you aren't just a troll or foreign agent - miniaturizing hardware like your dish so that they can be hidden easily

csomar 3y ago

> The problem is, guys with guns will come to your door, beat you with a wrench, and put you in jail. This is hyperbole. A dictator might have the tools to shut off a couple of dissident. But if you have a large portion of the population running these dishes, it's game over. > Most people are bootlickers. Most people want the type of power structure that ends up with the internet blocked. They don't want freedom - they want to be on the side doing the oppressing. That's a bit contradictory to what you said a few sentences before. Most people like to be the oppressors but not oppressed.

warent 3y ago
if you have a large portion of the population running these dishes, it's game over. Sadly this is wishful and overly optimistic thinking. The Tiananmen Square protesters thought similarly. Dictators will massacre their own people
- AbrahamParangi 3y ago
  I don’t know how you can look at the expansion of democracy worldwide over the 20th century and say it’s just wishful thinking!
  - vkou 3y ago
    By most metrics, democracy is currently in contraction.
    - cubancigar11 3y ago
      The space of democracy is already taken by the leader of the freeworld that dictates how democracy should look like. So if you can't play the game, it is logical to want to play your own game.
      - cubancigar11 3y ago
        [flagged]

FpUser 3y ago

"Most people are bootlickers. Most people want the type of power structure that ends up with the internet blocked. They don't want freedom - they want to be on the side doing the oppressing." There, you nailed it. I wish I could give you +10 ;)

maybelsyrup 3y ago

> Most people are bootlickers Not you though, right?

theK 3y ago

As a EU citizen I’m a bit offended, how do EU citizens have no freedom of speech?

vmfunction 3y ago
[flagged]
InCityDreams 3y ago
You just got told so.
- theK 3y ago
  Ha, ha, very funny.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
varjag 3y ago
This is mostly American forum and a lot of members have deeply ingrained belief that proper freedom of speech outside America does not exist.
- ta1243 3y ago
  Which is hilarious given the restrictions on freedom of speech in the US European countries have different levels of restrictions on the US, more lax in some areas, tighter in others. The main difference with the US is that the EU doesn't pretend they have unlimited free speech, the US does.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

sofixa 3y ago

> EU citizens have no freedom of speech First, technically there are no EU citizens, only citizens of EU member states. Speech is handled at member state level (e.g. hate speech, as in inciting violence against an ethnic or religious group, or displaying Nazi affiliation will be handled very differently in Portugal that never had direct Nazi rule, Germany that is doing it's best to make sure there are never Nazis again, and Poland that suffered centuries of massacres from violent oppressors, including the Nazis) so it's even less correct of a saying in this case. Second, just because it doesn't fit your ideal of free speech, it doesn't make it non-free. Free is directional (from or to), on a spectrum and a matter of perception. There are no public places on Earth with absolute free speech, and the vast majority of people prefer it that way.

Thorrez 3y ago

>magats prosecuting women and doctors for murder because of a life-threatening abortion Are you saying that's something that has happened? Do you have a link?

data-abuse 3y ago
Mother and daughter charged https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/us/abortion-prosecution-nebraska.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/us/abortion-prosecution-n... Many women with life threatening conditions get stuck waiting for the inevitable because they have already created evidence by going to a doctor. If anything happens to the baby without evidence of natural causes, they can be prosecuted. This has put women in a tough place. This is a story that might help you understand https://www.propublica.org/article/tennessee-abortion-ban-doctors-ectopic-pregnancy https://www.propublica.org/article/tennessee-abortion-ban-do...
- Thorrez 3y ago
  Hmm, I now realize I may have misunderstood the phrase "a life-threatening abortion". I can think of 4 meanings: 1. an abortion to end a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother 2. an abortion to end a pregnancy where the fetus's life is already threatened 3. an abortion that threatens the life of the mother 4. an abortion that threatens the life of the fetus Your first link only matches meaning 4. But meaning 4 is tautological, so I'm not sure it makes sense. In the second link no one was prosecuted. In neither link was a doctor prosecuted.

phtrivier 3y ago

> EU citizens have no freedom of speech I was thinking exactly that the other day, while watching a TV show on national publicly funded television, where a variety of pundits where discussing the first year of the present term of the ruling president, and the on-set comedian summed up the situation : "the panel and the country is split in two : those that don't like the ruler, and those who hate him". The youngest panelist (a twitch political streamer) argued about constitution changes with an older panelist (journalist in a far right newspaper). The table was filled with various levels of right center, vaguely socio democrats, a few has been still stuck in the 70s, etc... Everyone talked very loudly and eloquently. We may lack direct power, direct control over our institution, we may live in tight societies with few chances of social mobility, we definitely have press ownership issues, etc... But for one think, i believe we have _some_ freedom of speech. No, I'll leave the floor to those who define "free speech" as "the freedom to insult" :P

fyrn_ 3y ago
The problem with it is that you only have free speech until someone higher in the power structure decides whatever you're saying is insulting. Free speech in the US is actually limited in some ways, for example speech is only protected from abridgement by the government, something that's becoming more relevant by the day as social media platforms gain more and more sway over the public discourse.
- krapp 3y ago
  I'm not aware of a single issue which has been effectively banned from public discourse due to being moderated on social media, nor any person who has been unable to continue public life or communication, for the same reason. Even "vaccine critical" discourse during COVID was rampant during the time when, supposedly, social media platforms erased it completely. The "sway" that social media platforms have over public discourse is often vastly overstated for political ends, certainly compared to that of governments (as the argument is often made that social media platforms are more powerful than governments, to make them seem more threatening.) And the real problem is, if you consider the ability of social media platforms to moderate content to be harmful, the only solution is to have government limit the free speech of those platforms and those who participate on them by coercing them into publishing speech they don't want to, which cedes power to a potentially even worse entity. People are so terrified of the perceived power social media has now (to the point of wanting to make "algorithms" illegal) that they're willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Facebook can ban me from their platform but at least they can't send goons to my house and ban me from life.

mrtksn 3y ago

> EU citizens have no freedom of speech Although this is not a EU thing, thus varies country by country, that’s something I’m not happy about the European approach to freedom of speech. It’s usually the Nazi stuff and defamation that is not allowed, so it doesn’t affect most people but still is in principle I would prefer the absolute free speech. The American approach is better on this.

sgu999 3y ago
> The American approach is better on this. It is not if you're the victim of the so called "freedom of speech" of others and can't do anything about it... The US also doesn't have absolute freedom of speech, just a different set of rules that makes them believe they do.

Mvandenbergh 3y ago

There are no "EU citizens" only citizens of EU member countries. None of those countries have freedom of speech as expansive as Americans but Americans in practice also don't have absolute freedom of speech. 1) Certain speech such as "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" has long been considered illegal. 2) The US has much more expansive laws about "conspiracy to..." which make it illegal to have certain conversations. Oh, those don't count? Not real speech. Sure, why not. 3) Most people will experience very real economic consequences for a very wide range of speech. We're not all yeoman farmers entirely independent of paid employment. That presumably doesn't count because only governments can restrict liberties? Well, have it your way but I would regard losing my job due to speech as a pretty severe restriction on my liberty.

komadori 3y ago
EU citizenship was established by the Treaty on European Union [1] in 1992. While EU citizenship is different and additional to national citizenship, it does exist in law. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2bf140bf-a3f8-4ab2-b506-fd71826e6da6.0023.02/DOC_1&format=PDF https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2bf140bf-...
- ta1243 3y ago
  EU citizenship can be removed, by force, on mass, and has been done for millions of people.
  - komadori 3y ago
    I know, I'm one of them. Nonetheless, it still exists.
    - ta1243 3y ago
      > Revoking someone’s citizenship is hugely controversial. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines having a nationality as a right, forbidding countries to arbitrarily deprive someone of it. It seems to me that if I were an EU citizen, the EU would be the ones who had to remove my citizenship, and that would be a very controversial step. I don't recall long winded speeches in the UN denouncing the EU for forcefully removing the citizenship of millions of people, which leads me to think that it's not a "real" citizenship.

psychoslave 3y ago

>What you suggest is impossible, because you are attacking a wrench on the head problem with a coding solution. […] The problem is, guys with guns will come to your door, beat you with a wrench, and put you in jail. I would rather suggest that this is a education issue, mainly on how to widespread behavior that favor common goods and reciprocal mutual help as the basis of every single human out there. That is, methodologies like Marshall Rosenberg worked at disseminating. Any other option is a race to the bottom of the rawest brutality. >The reason for the oppression is, a large portion of every country actually wants to be oppressed. Should I be haunted with so awful thoughts, I wish some people could help me to find an effective mental healing process, really. Life is hard, and people having to struggle with of all sort of issues will certainly take what seems on the moment to be the easiest path to bring a bit more stability in the mess they are going through. But in no case that mean that anyone is deeply craving for oppression. >many people want to control and silence others who don't agree Well, that doesn’t reflect my own experience of interacting with many people. We agree that some people can be animated with that kind of despicable mindset. And we agree, certainly, that some of them can successfully gain significant political/social power. A very small minority of people like that is enough to engender nation wide desolation. >Most people are bootlickers. Most people want the type of power structure that ends up with the internet blocked. They don't want freedom - they want to be on the side doing the oppressing. Maybe try to go in different social circles out there. You might be positively surprise.

geysersam 3y ago

[flagged]

ricardo_nh 3y ago

I don't know if the majority of people want to be oppressed, that sounds like a simplified generalization. Specially taking into account the variances of oppression between different regimes across the world. The reasons for oppressive regimes to arise may be completely different, even if there are some shared psychological and sociological features. The very concept of freedom is not stable and is constantly being negotiated. However you point out an important issue that I agree with, and is many times forgotten: the questions about freedom that arise with technological developments are not technological per se, but political and ethical in their nature

execveat 3y ago

> The problem is, guys with guns will come to your door, beat you with a wrench, and put you in jail. Counterpoint: guns, doors, wrenches and jails are tools as well. So, I don't buy this notion that technology can't solve societal issues. It's like saying you can't fix a leaky faucet with a wrench because the real problem is that the pipes are old and rusty. Sure, the root cause may be a societal issue, but that doesn't mean we can't use technology to mitigate the problem. I mean, imagine telling a doctor not to prescribe medicine to a sick patient because the real issue is poor lifestyle choices.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
> Counterpoint: guns, doors, wrenches and jails are tools as well. So, I don't buy this notion that technology can't solve societal issues. I'd go as far as saying, technology is by far most likely to solve societal issues, but it usually happens indirectly, in ways not easily predicted. To use your example: > It's like saying you can't fix a leaky faucet with a wrench because the real problem is that the pipes are old and rusty. Yes, and technological solution for this ends up being... all the metal pipes getting replaced with plastics, because plastics are that amazing and petroleum industry made them cheap as dirt. There are many "technological solutions" at play here, most of them have nothing to do with plumbing, but together they both make the plastic pipes possible, and through economics, make them suddenly appear in everyone's houses. (The whole setup of course comes with new problems in other areas, but that's almost always the case with any solution to anything.) > I mean, imagine telling a doctor not to prescribe medicine to a sick patient because the real issue is poor lifestyle choices. This is what a good chunk of the world believes, and tries to tell the doctors and patients alike. I consider this to be "fuck you advice"; "poor lifestyle choices" are usually not actually choices, and lifestyle changes are much, much harder to implement (often impossible in practice) compared to a medical intervention.

sgu999 3y ago

> (EU citizens have no freedom of speech) As a EU citizen, I really have no clue where you pulled that from. We must have a very different definition of freedom of speech. I can criticize my government openly and as much as I want but I can't call for a genocide or do a nazi salute. Most of us are perfectly fine with that, but thanks for your concern about our freedom.

PontifexMinimus 3y ago

> You can always get a dish and connect to your choice of orbital provider, if your ISP - which is regulated - is blocked. The problem is, guys with guns will come to your door, beat you with a wrench, and put you in jail. They have to catch you first. What if every computing device sold in the West came as standard with built in, secure mesh networking and ability to uplink to satellites? Then governments like Pakistan would have to use those computers, and lose the ability to control what their people say. Alternatively, they could: (1) not use computers, dooming their country to perpetual poverty (2) come up with their own solution, and they're too small an economy to come up with one that isn't backward (3) buy a solution from another autocracy, such as China -- and doom their country to be forever controlled by China The problem with this idea is that the West doesn't want every compute to come with built in secure mesh networking, because they want to snoop on their people too. But if they did go for this idea, because they're a freer society than their competitors (China and Russia, mainly) it would give them a massive advantage. > the oppression of you can simply come from a majority (EU citizens have no freedom of speech) That's a gross over-simplification. EU citizens have a good deal more freedom of speech than in most societies that've ever existed; and in every society there are things you might say that will get you in serious trouble. > There is no answer, because many people want to control and silence others who don't agree A lot do; these people are stupid and if they were more sensible they would realise that among societies, there is a strong correlation between amount of freedom of speech and how nice the place is to live in. > Most people are bootlickers. Most people want the type of power structure that ends up with the internet blocked. They don't want freedom - they want to be on the side doing the oppressing. They imagine they will be the person wielding the fist and not the person being punched by it. In truth it will be the ruling class doing the restrictions on freedom. And because power corrupts, even if the ruling class start off as perfectly moral and just people (ha!) they won't stay that way for long.