3 ms·

The press release itself says that the formal proceeding concern "the dissemination of illegal content in the context of Hamas' terrorist attacks against Israel

by lhnz 3y ago

The press release itself says that the formal proceeding concern "the dissemination of illegal content in the context of Hamas' terrorist attacks against Israel" and the person you refer to as "some guy" is a adjunct professor of law at a few institutions, as well as a legal fellow of the Adam Smith Institute where his research interests have focused on free speech and related technology regulation.

downWidOutaFite 3y ago
Some guy's credentials have nothing to do with the lack of evidence provided.
- lhnz 3y ago
  1. His credentials are literally relevant to the evaluation that he is "some guy" and therefore not able to weigh in on free speech and related technology regulation. Specifically, this is his area of interest and he is capable of giving expert opinions on this. 2. The claim in question was within the EU's press release itself, however, the EU haven't made their specific evidence publicly available. It's quite likely that others also aren't allowed to divulge specifics but this doesn't mean that they haven't seen evidence or that the EU hasn't provided any evidence.
  - downWidOutaFite 3y ago
    Some guy isn't just giving his opinion, "If memory serves" implies that he has knowledge of an unreleased EU government report but his credentials seem to be of an american or maybe uk corporate lawyer and barely a professor at an american university. No reason to believe he has privileged access to the report. Though there is reason to believe he's practiced in the arts of online propaganda wars.
crote 3y ago
Sooo, what's the "illegal content" here? Because I saw quite a few people calling for various forms of genocide against either party, and that's pretty illegal too. While actual factual videos about the attack are undoubtedly newsworthy and should not be banned, claiming that promoting genocide is be in the people's interest would be a bit of a stretch, would it not?
- ExoticPearTree 3y ago
  This is what bugs me the most: "preventing" stuff by censoring it. Let people call for whatever they want on the "other" side and punish only those that perpetrate such acts that are illegal in a country or another. But let people speak their minds without any repercussion. I wager that will let a lot of people blow off some steam and then go on with their lives.
Vinnl 3y ago
He might have relevant research interests, but he's still not pointing to a source that shows that "illegal content in the context of Hamas' terrorist attacks against Israel" refers to all footage of those attacks. Presumably, such a source exists? If so, it would still be great to see a link to it.
- lhnz 3y ago
  The EU's Digital Services Act permits the gathering of evidence and enforcement activities to be conducted confidentially behind closed doors. It does not require the EU to make their evidence available to the public, particularly when information is considered to be sensitive. This approach aims to preserve the integrity of the investigation and to protect the rights of involved parties. Once such a law is passed there is no right to public scrutiny. While certain aspects of the process may not be open to public scrutiny, this does not entirely preclude the public's right to some level of transparency as it is stipulated that any decisions taken will be widely publicised (paragraph 101). That is, once they've made their judgement the matter will be settled and a superficial amount of information will be released to the public. This is exactly why I think it's so important for us to speak openly about the speech rights we expect on the platforms we use and the level of policing of speech we're happy for there to be. If we don't do so, lawmakers can and do pass draconian laws that take these considerations away from us, and at this point we have little recourse to rollback our loss of freedom. I'm not a free speech absolutist but believe that it's incredibly wrongheaded to try to argue away conversation about this as being without evidence particularly after lawmakers passed laws that denied us this same evidence. Blithely allowing lawmakers to pass laws that enable confidential evaluation of evidence limiting public scrutiny, but then afterwards criticising public discourse for lacking evidence without acknowledging that access to such evidence has been restricted by the same laws -- what a manipulative argument/framing! The whole conversation on speech rights is also incorrectly centered in my opinion, as freedom of speech rights are centered on the speaker instead of the audience/public. I personally find myself advocating the following approach to speech rights: > "It’s not just the right of the person who speaks to > be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience > to listen and to hear."
  - 3y ago

by lhnz 3y ago

downWidOutaFite 3y ago

Some guy's credentials have nothing to do with the lack of evidence provided.

lhnz 3y ago
1. His credentials are literally relevant to the evaluation that he is "some guy" and therefore not able to weigh in on free speech and related technology regulation. Specifically, this is his area of interest and he is capable of giving expert opinions on this. 2. The claim in question was within the EU's press release itself, however, the EU haven't made their specific evidence publicly available. It's quite likely that others also aren't allowed to divulge specifics but this doesn't mean that they haven't seen evidence or that the EU hasn't provided any evidence.
- downWidOutaFite 3y ago
  Some guy isn't just giving his opinion, "If memory serves" implies that he has knowledge of an unreleased EU government report but his credentials seem to be of an american or maybe uk corporate lawyer and barely a professor at an american university. No reason to believe he has privileged access to the report. Though there is reason to believe he's practiced in the arts of online propaganda wars.

crote 3y ago

Sooo, what's the "illegal content" here? Because I saw quite a few people calling for various forms of genocide against either party, and that's pretty illegal too. While actual factual videos about the attack are undoubtedly newsworthy and should not be banned, claiming that promoting genocide is be in the people's interest would be a bit of a stretch, would it not?

ExoticPearTree 3y ago
This is what bugs me the most: "preventing" stuff by censoring it. Let people call for whatever they want on the "other" side and punish only those that perpetrate such acts that are illegal in a country or another. But let people speak their minds without any repercussion. I wager that will let a lot of people blow off some steam and then go on with their lives.

Vinnl 3y ago

He might have relevant research interests, but he's still not pointing to a source that shows that "illegal content in the context of Hamas' terrorist attacks against Israel" refers to all footage of those attacks. Presumably, such a source exists? If so, it would still be great to see a link to it.

lhnz 3y ago
The EU's Digital Services Act permits the gathering of evidence and enforcement activities to be conducted confidentially behind closed doors. It does not require the EU to make their evidence available to the public, particularly when information is considered to be sensitive. This approach aims to preserve the integrity of the investigation and to protect the rights of involved parties. Once such a law is passed there is no right to public scrutiny. While certain aspects of the process may not be open to public scrutiny, this does not entirely preclude the public's right to some level of transparency as it is stipulated that any decisions taken will be widely publicised (paragraph 101). That is, once they've made their judgement the matter will be settled and a superficial amount of information will be released to the public. This is exactly why I think it's so important for us to speak openly about the speech rights we expect on the platforms we use and the level of policing of speech we're happy for there to be. If we don't do so, lawmakers can and do pass draconian laws that take these considerations away from us, and at this point we have little recourse to rollback our loss of freedom. I'm not a free speech absolutist but believe that it's incredibly wrongheaded to try to argue away conversation about this as being without evidence particularly after lawmakers passed laws that denied us this same evidence. Blithely allowing lawmakers to pass laws that enable confidential evaluation of evidence limiting public scrutiny, but then afterwards criticising public discourse for lacking evidence without acknowledging that access to such evidence has been restricted by the same laws -- what a manipulative argument/framing! The whole conversation on speech rights is also incorrectly centered in my opinion, as freedom of speech rights are centered on the speaker instead of the audience/public. I personally find myself advocating the following approach to speech rights: > "It’s not just the right of the person who speaks to > be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience > to listen and to hear."
- 3y ago