5 ms·
The problem isn't the hate speech or the enforcement really. The problem is that these powers have, can, and will be abused by petty bureaucrats, power-hungry
by 23B1 2y ago
The problem isn't the hate speech or the enforcement really.
The problem is that these powers have, can, and will be abused by petty bureaucrats, power-hungry law enforcement, the government itself and, as a result, enable actual tyranny.
- BoredPositron 2y agoBecause there is no other way in a democracy to handle overreach... it's always the same straw man argument. "We'll end up in a dystopian autocratic tyranny nightmare TOMORROW if we do anything against it. With the only conclusion let's do nothing at all." Great input.
- whatshisface 2y agoCivil servants desperately trying to hide their mistakes won't believe they are overreaching, and neither will their friends or the politicians who would held responsible by the media.
- 23B1 2y agoTyranny doesn't require an autocratic dystopia to make life absolute hell.
- _heimdall 2y agoRather than disregarding the concern, how would you propose the overreach should be handled? And is it possible to handle the overreach before it harms citizens caught in the middle, or can it only be dealt with after innocent people are on the wrong end of the overreach?
- BoredPositron 2y agoAnd innocent people that get harmed by non action are irrelevant? Laws can and will always be abused but if they are about online discourse the only possibility seems to be that there will be nothing but abuse. As long as you are in a country with an intact democracy and separation of power you'll be fine and if not vote against it.
- _heimdall 2y agoWho is harmed specifically by online speech? Speech can certainly lead to people deciding to take some kind of action, but that action is what harms people and those actions are very likely already illegal. When it comes to separation of powers, that's a much bigger discussion but I have concerns over how our three branches operate in the US today. Our legislative branch has outsourced much of their power to the executive branch, though the overturn of Chevron may eventually help that. I wish it were as simply as voting, but I'm generally only offered one or two options for most elected positions and when it comes down to it neither party will allow anyone on the ballot that wants to actually reform anything meaningful about how the system works.
- BoredPositron 2y ago[flagged]
- _heimdall 2y agoDismissing others opinions by rolling them up into some faceless group of guys and refusing to discuss or consider your views is helpful to no one. You haven't get explained how speech online itself hurts anyone, I'd be interested to hear how that might work. I only brought up the US because you specifically referenced voting and separation of powers. I can only vote in the US so my context is limited, and the separation of powers is very much an American idea that has since been adopted in various ways in other countries.
- BoredPositron 2y agoYou're not even voicing an opinion. You're "just asking questions." Online hate speech isn't just words on a screen; it can seriously mess people up mentally and emotionally. That's why we've got laws like the Network Enforcement Act in Germany and the EU's Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online. These aren't for show – they're there because hate speech can lead to real-world violence and discrimination. If you're so curious, look up the studies on how online harassment affects mental health. But let's be real, you're probably not interested in facts, just in stirring up trouble. Well, I'm not biting. The laws are there, the research is there, and people's lived experiences are there. Deal with it.
- lmaoguy 2y agoThey are actively being be abused. The UK, Canada, Oz and NZ are excellent examples.