3 ms·
Does anyone have an even remotely feasible explanation on the EU hard-on for censorship, other than wanting to cover up their own blatant corruption and power t
by waihtis 3y ago
Does anyone have an even remotely feasible explanation on the EU hard-on for censorship, other than wanting to cover up their own blatant corruption and power tripping?
"Disinformation" is not an acceptable answer because it's about as tangible as quicksand.
- Proven 3y ago[dead]
- underseacables 3y agoGovernments like to control people and they never back down. Once the government commits to a position like censorship, it can be near impossible to force them back. Since the EU member countries have not pushed back very much on this, and those politicians in the countries that represent the people have not felt any pushback, the government will keep going. I also think government bureaucrats saw how much they were able to push citizens during the pandemic, and force them to do things they vocally did not want to do, and so now they feel emboldened.
- waihtis 3y agoThis plus the fact that legislation in the EU happens via one or more proxies, so the potential for a citizen of a member country to have a say in these matters is close to zero
- bt4u 3y agoWell, in my country the citizens managed to push back on broad logging of all internet traffic. It went to court and the logging was deemed illegal. Appealed to supreme court - deemed illegal again. Entered EU court, deemed illegal again. That was 3 years ago I believe. The logging never stopped and continues to this day. The courts are a lie. Democracy is a lie. Pushing back doesn't matter. The only solution is some sort of technology similar to encryption, Tor, freenet etc.
- rightbyte 3y ago> Governments like to control people and they never back down. Once the government commits to a position like censorship, it can be near impossible to force them back. This seems like a fatalistic take. Surely, for the government and legislative body, removing government censorship is easier than enforcing it?
- psychlops 3y ago> blatant corruption and power tripping That about sums it up. Censorship is another way of saying control of information.
- sandoze 3y agoMaybe their.. issue.. is more related to yelling ‘fire’ in a theatre. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t...
- thrill 3y agoFrom that same source: The utterance of "fire!" in and of itself is not generally thought to be illegal within the United States
- happytoexplain 3y agoThe premise of the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example is obviously not predicated on the illegality of shouting "fire" in and of itself. > Ultimately, whether it is legal in the United States to falsely shout "fire" in a theater depends on the circumstances in which it is done and the consequences of doing it. Edit: I am not agreeing with the parent that there is value in the comparison, only that the premise of the example is valid - i.e. that speech can have consequences dire enough to make it worth controlling that speech in certain contexts.
- throw__away7391 3y agoI can’t say for sure that this is the cause, but after WWII the US created the German constitution (originally intended to be temporary). The priority was “keep people from becoming Nazis” and not “freedom of expression”.
- happytoexplain 3y agoHow can tangibility be a prerequisite for content/dissemination rules? That's unrealistic. It's a very subjective arena.
- waihtis 3y agoSomething as invasive as a censorship rule needs to be extremely tangible and precise to avoid censorship "creep"