2 ms·

I'm sure the Rohingya people would have an issue with these assertions. Currently misinformation is disseminated by elected officials who then regurgitate it ba

I'm sure the Rohingya people would have an issue with these assertions. Currently misinformation is disseminated by elected officials who then regurgitate it back and forth with social networks. There's now a concept of "picking what's true" which is ludicrous. People can't even agree on the facts due to the levels of misinformation. Looking at your own feed and projecting it as an absolute fact for the general public is a problematic assertion. The main problem with social networks is that people can lock themselves within a disinformation bubble that bounces the lie back and forth.

nradov 3y ago
Have you actually asked the Rohingya people what they think, or have you appointed yourself as their spokesperson? They are not suffering because of free speech. They are suffering because they live in a failed state which has multiple ongoing internal violent conflicts and which is ruled by a corrupt, incompetent junta. If they EU was serious about improving the situation there (and in other conflict zones) then they would take direct action instead of pretending to help by imposing pointless, symbolic restrictions on US-based social media companies. It's obvious that what the EU is doing here is just a political farce to convince the gullible that they're doing something rather than spending any money or taking any risks.
- invalidname 3y ago
  Did you ask? Trying to help is hard. See the case of Somalia. Yes, there are other worse problems. But misinformation ISN'T free speech. Just like an anti-democracy organization using democracy to cancel elections isn't democratic. You're equating speech anarchy with free speech. They are not the same.
  - nradov 3y ago
    The US Supreme Court and I disagree with you: speech anarchy is the same as free speech. Attempts to block misinformation inevitably turn out worse than the misinformation itself.
    - invalidname 3y ago
      I don't live in the USA so no. The US Supreme court took both sides e.g. "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is a limit on free speech by the supreme court. Copyright is upheld by the supreme court, etc.
      - nradov 3y ago
        The example that you're using is ridiculous and doesn't even support your point. https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/blog/legal-mythbusting-series-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/blog/legal-mythbusting-serie... I give thanks every day that I live in the USA where we have a written Bill of Rights and a Supreme Court with the courage to stand against government overreach.
        invalidname 3y ago
        Seriously? Your country is banning books... I suggest learning a bit about other countries. The reality is freedom of speech is always a tradeoff in every country. There's always a line. The USA draws it inconsistently and erratically all the time. I would never want to live in the USA. Don't get me wrong, I love your country. But a country that can just go on about the second amendment after the murder of school children isn't a place I would ever call home.
        junofan 3y ago
        I’m not aware of any banned books. Under the Tenth Amendment states have the power to select books for school libraries.
junofan 3y ago
The EU does not have a compelling interest in policing speech in Myanmar.

nradov 3y ago

Have you actually asked the Rohingya people what they think, or have you appointed yourself as their spokesperson? They are not suffering because of free speech. They are suffering because they live in a failed state which has multiple ongoing internal violent conflicts and which is ruled by a corrupt, incompetent junta. If they EU was serious about improving the situation there (and in other conflict zones) then they would take direct action instead of pretending to help by imposing pointless, symbolic restrictions on US-based social media companies. It's obvious that what the EU is doing here is just a political farce to convince the gullible that they're doing something rather than spending any money or taking any risks.

invalidname 3y ago
Did you ask? Trying to help is hard. See the case of Somalia. Yes, there are other worse problems. But misinformation ISN'T free speech. Just like an anti-democracy organization using democracy to cancel elections isn't democratic. You're equating speech anarchy with free speech. They are not the same.
- nradov 3y ago
  The US Supreme Court and I disagree with you: speech anarchy is the same as free speech. Attempts to block misinformation inevitably turn out worse than the misinformation itself.
  - invalidname 3y ago
    I don't live in the USA so no. The US Supreme court took both sides e.g. "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is a limit on free speech by the supreme court. Copyright is upheld by the supreme court, etc.
    - nradov 3y ago
      The example that you're using is ridiculous and doesn't even support your point. https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/blog/legal-mythbusting-series-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/blog/legal-mythbusting-serie... I give thanks every day that I live in the USA where we have a written Bill of Rights and a Supreme Court with the courage to stand against government overreach.
      - invalidname 3y ago
        Seriously? Your country is banning books... I suggest learning a bit about other countries. The reality is freedom of speech is always a tradeoff in every country. There's always a line. The USA draws it inconsistently and erratically all the time. I would never want to live in the USA. Don't get me wrong, I love your country. But a country that can just go on about the second amendment after the murder of school children isn't a place I would ever call home.
        junofan 3y ago
        I’m not aware of any banned books. Under the Tenth Amendment states have the power to select books for school libraries.

junofan 3y ago

The EU does not have a compelling interest in policing speech in Myanmar.