4 ms·

What liability implications are there? With section 230 there really isn't any. And even without that it's basically impossible to libel a public figure so I

What liability implications are there? With section 230 there really isn't any. And even without that it's basically impossible to libel a public figure so I doubt there would be much change in terms of politics.

alephnerd 2y ago
> What liability implications are there EU [0], not US. There's a reason JD Vance was harping about "free speech" and "personal freedom" during MSC. Hot take, but if we as Ds sacrifice Bruxelles to bring back Obama era tech donors who are overly impacted by the Digital Services Act, I'm fine with it. [0] - https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act_en https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-...
- Karrot_Kream 2y ago
  Hot for HN maybe but not that hot in general. But we all know Dems have a lot of voters who demand ideological purity who will make a huge show of anger if they do something like this. The Dems have a cranky, fractious base and this contributed to their loss IMO.
  - watwut 2y ago
    Your party can't handle no dissent. Not internally and really go to emotional temperature tamptrum if the see outsiders.
  - dkarl 2y ago
    We've forgotten what politics is. We think it's just about being right and having our rightness rewarded and memorialized by history. Less than 40% of the adult population has a college degree. Less than 45% of voters have college degrees. Yet we took for granted the ascendence of ideas that few non-college-educated voters have been able to digest and see the evidence for. That it happened at all is pretty amazing, yet our only response has been to whine and moan that it hasn't happened faster or more completely. We could see that a lot of people weren't really getting it, and as long as we thought they were a minority, our response was who cares, they're losing. If they aren't educating themselves and keeping up to date, they're simply bad people and if they're confused and angry, fuck 'em, they deserve it. It is not necessarily wrong as a moral stance, but it's not a strategy for succeeding in a democracy where those people can tip the balance of an election. As we felt more and more entitled to our triumph and got more and more angry and whiny about the bad people holding us back, surprise surprise, those people decided we weren't the best party to represent them anymore. If there's any lesson we should take from this, it's that if we hold people in contempt, we can't count on their votes. There's nothing coherent behind the shift to Trump except mutual contempt. I hope we are getting to a point where we can talk about our own political failings without reflexively changing the subject to the voters' moral failings. Also, we should consider that when our definition of a good person includes the rapid assimilation of new information and ideas, the ability to be a good person is not evenly distributed. We're only a tiny way towards building a world where that ideal isn't elitist and exclusionary. A lot of people were not raised with that definition of moral goodness. Acting in good faith, they did not equip themselves with the necessary skills, because they thought they could be good people without them. What we're demanding from them now is that they either exercise intellectual skills and habits they don't have, or they speak and believe in obedience to those of us who have them. I don't see a good way around it, but we shouldn't be surprised if they're unhappy about it.
    - Karrot_Kream 2y ago
      Yes I agree 100%. The Dem base has forgotten what democratic politics is. It's not the manifest destiny of moral progress into history. It's building coalitions. It's compromising with people who you deeply, fundamentally disagree with about some things but are willing to support you in others. It's about trying to get a large bloc of people to support something.
- olivierduval 2y ago
  Seriously ???? Did you buy JD Vance on "free speech" in EU ? Actually, you should get better information (and a link to the EU Commission website is nothing if you dont read or understand it... it's only the old FUD) Right now, the POTUS is so much reducing freedom in US that it's enough for him to say that it doesn't like something (like DEI) for a lot of companies to trash DEI in the hope to please him. And it's enough for the WaPo to change what will be the content of its "opinion" pages... And EU is the one reducing freedom ?????? You should really wake up guys
  - Clubber 2y ago
    One example is Germany will now arrest you for insulting someone in public or online, including insulting politicians. The UK has had some questionable laws passed as well. Pockets of Europe has much weaker free speech protections than the US does, that much is for certain. 60 Minutes did a recent segment on German speech laws. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMzFDpfDwc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMzFDpfDwc
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    > Did you buy JD Vance on "free speech" in EU I don't buy JD Vance's argument, but I am fine sacrificing the EU if it means Dem-turned-GOP donors (especially on the Tech side) return to our party.
  - sickofparadox 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - MadcapJake 2y ago
      From the article you posted: > Maja R was sentenced to a weekend in jail after her comments because she had a previous conviction for theft and had not attending the court hearing for the case. I'm not supportive of defamation laws but clearly you (and this journalist) are sensationalizing what happened.
      - sickofparadox 2y ago
- watwut 2y ago
  JD Vance harps about that to make it harder to see what he really is - fascist in the process of remove the freedom.
  - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
    How does this contribute to the conversation any more than accusing him of having eyes for the furniture?
    - watwut 2y ago
      The initial claim was: "There's a reason JD Vance was harping about "free speech" and "personal freedom" during MSC." And that reason has nothing to do with J.D.Vance having any concern at all about free speech and personal freedom. Not just zero of it, his goal is to remove both. He would love Europe to become fascist which is incompatible with both. What does not contribute to the conversation is to pretend otherwise. To pretend that he has a point or any other meaning then to grab power and punish dissent.
- pjc50 2y ago
  > if we as Ds sacrifice Bruxelles What does this mean? What does the US VP have to do with EU law?
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    A major reason why American social media companies flipped support from the Dems to GOP this cycle was because the EU is rolling out the DSA, and felt the Biden admin didn't do enough to push back on this. Social Media organizations like FB/Meta and Google have historically been some of the largest donors to the Dems, and their flip was a massive reason why 2024 went the way it did. Vance has been consistently lobbying against the DSA over the past few weeks, and that's where his "free speech" argument is coming from. I don't really care one way or the other, but I care about ensuring that large donors who flipped from D to R return to the D fold.
    - touisteur 2y ago
      I'm far from able to understand american politics but didn't Dems get far more money in the last election than Republicans? I've read about twice as much? What would big (social media oligarchs/moguls ?) donors flipping back bring about?
      - alephnerd 2y ago
        That was mostly because ActBlue (the DNC's fundraising platform) is well built while GOP's WinRed is a hot piece of garbage, and donors now sidestep the GOP to create SuperPACs for Trump and Trump-affiliates directly. What you end up seeing is the GOP raises nearly as competitive as the DNC when you add Trump PACs plus WinRed.
    - pjc50 2y ago
      And do what exactly? Sanctions against the EU for not allowing social media poison while at the same time banning Chinese social media?
      - 2y ago
- Karrot_Kream 2y ago
  As an aside alephnerd, I really enjoy your comments because you actually think about politics as a game with objectives, strategies, and tactics. The way the game is actually played, not the way the kid who took the Political Compass Online Test and played Civ thinks politics should be. Not some sort of moral ideological sounding board. HN and a lot of online fora these days are filled with moralistic shouting and arguments.

alephnerd 2y ago

> What liability implications are there EU [0], not US. There's a reason JD Vance was harping about "free speech" and "personal freedom" during MSC. Hot take, but if we as Ds sacrifice Bruxelles to bring back Obama era tech donors who are overly impacted by the Digital Services Act, I'm fine with it. [0] - https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act_en https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-...

Karrot_Kream 2y ago
Hot for HN maybe but not that hot in general. But we all know Dems have a lot of voters who demand ideological purity who will make a huge show of anger if they do something like this. The Dems have a cranky, fractious base and this contributed to their loss IMO.
- watwut 2y ago
  Your party can't handle no dissent. Not internally and really go to emotional temperature tamptrum if the see outsiders.
- dkarl 2y ago
  We've forgotten what politics is. We think it's just about being right and having our rightness rewarded and memorialized by history. Less than 40% of the adult population has a college degree. Less than 45% of voters have college degrees. Yet we took for granted the ascendence of ideas that few non-college-educated voters have been able to digest and see the evidence for. That it happened at all is pretty amazing, yet our only response has been to whine and moan that it hasn't happened faster or more completely. We could see that a lot of people weren't really getting it, and as long as we thought they were a minority, our response was who cares, they're losing. If they aren't educating themselves and keeping up to date, they're simply bad people and if they're confused and angry, fuck 'em, they deserve it. It is not necessarily wrong as a moral stance, but it's not a strategy for succeeding in a democracy where those people can tip the balance of an election. As we felt more and more entitled to our triumph and got more and more angry and whiny about the bad people holding us back, surprise surprise, those people decided we weren't the best party to represent them anymore. If there's any lesson we should take from this, it's that if we hold people in contempt, we can't count on their votes. There's nothing coherent behind the shift to Trump except mutual contempt. I hope we are getting to a point where we can talk about our own political failings without reflexively changing the subject to the voters' moral failings. Also, we should consider that when our definition of a good person includes the rapid assimilation of new information and ideas, the ability to be a good person is not evenly distributed. We're only a tiny way towards building a world where that ideal isn't elitist and exclusionary. A lot of people were not raised with that definition of moral goodness. Acting in good faith, they did not equip themselves with the necessary skills, because they thought they could be good people without them. What we're demanding from them now is that they either exercise intellectual skills and habits they don't have, or they speak and believe in obedience to those of us who have them. I don't see a good way around it, but we shouldn't be surprised if they're unhappy about it.
  - Karrot_Kream 2y ago
    Yes I agree 100%. The Dem base has forgotten what democratic politics is. It's not the manifest destiny of moral progress into history. It's building coalitions. It's compromising with people who you deeply, fundamentally disagree with about some things but are willing to support you in others. It's about trying to get a large bloc of people to support something.
olivierduval 2y ago
Seriously ???? Did you buy JD Vance on "free speech" in EU ? Actually, you should get better information (and a link to the EU Commission website is nothing if you dont read or understand it... it's only the old FUD) Right now, the POTUS is so much reducing freedom in US that it's enough for him to say that it doesn't like something (like DEI) for a lot of companies to trash DEI in the hope to please him. And it's enough for the WaPo to change what will be the content of its "opinion" pages... And EU is the one reducing freedom ?????? You should really wake up guys
- Clubber 2y ago
  One example is Germany will now arrest you for insulting someone in public or online, including insulting politicians. The UK has had some questionable laws passed as well. Pockets of Europe has much weaker free speech protections than the US does, that much is for certain. 60 Minutes did a recent segment on German speech laws. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMzFDpfDwc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMzFDpfDwc
- alephnerd 2y ago
  > Did you buy JD Vance on "free speech" in EU I don't buy JD Vance's argument, but I am fine sacrificing the EU if it means Dem-turned-GOP donors (especially on the Tech side) return to our party.
- sickofparadox 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - MadcapJake 2y ago
    From the article you posted: > Maja R was sentenced to a weekend in jail after her comments because she had a previous conviction for theft and had not attending the court hearing for the case. I'm not supportive of defamation laws but clearly you (and this journalist) are sensationalizing what happened.
    - sickofparadox 2y ago
watwut 2y ago
JD Vance harps about that to make it harder to see what he really is - fascist in the process of remove the freedom.
- DiggyJohnson 2y ago
  How does this contribute to the conversation any more than accusing him of having eyes for the furniture?
  - watwut 2y ago
    The initial claim was: "There's a reason JD Vance was harping about "free speech" and "personal freedom" during MSC." And that reason has nothing to do with J.D.Vance having any concern at all about free speech and personal freedom. Not just zero of it, his goal is to remove both. He would love Europe to become fascist which is incompatible with both. What does not contribute to the conversation is to pretend otherwise. To pretend that he has a point or any other meaning then to grab power and punish dissent.
pjc50 2y ago
> if we as Ds sacrifice Bruxelles What does this mean? What does the US VP have to do with EU law?
- alephnerd 2y ago
  A major reason why American social media companies flipped support from the Dems to GOP this cycle was because the EU is rolling out the DSA, and felt the Biden admin didn't do enough to push back on this. Social Media organizations like FB/Meta and Google have historically been some of the largest donors to the Dems, and their flip was a massive reason why 2024 went the way it did. Vance has been consistently lobbying against the DSA over the past few weeks, and that's where his "free speech" argument is coming from. I don't really care one way or the other, but I care about ensuring that large donors who flipped from D to R return to the D fold.
  - touisteur 2y ago
    I'm far from able to understand american politics but didn't Dems get far more money in the last election than Republicans? I've read about twice as much? What would big (social media oligarchs/moguls ?) donors flipping back bring about?
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      That was mostly because ActBlue (the DNC's fundraising platform) is well built while GOP's WinRed is a hot piece of garbage, and donors now sidestep the GOP to create SuperPACs for Trump and Trump-affiliates directly. What you end up seeing is the GOP raises nearly as competitive as the DNC when you add Trump PACs plus WinRed.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    And do what exactly? Sanctions against the EU for not allowing social media poison while at the same time banning Chinese social media?
    - 2y ago
Karrot_Kream 2y ago
As an aside alephnerd, I really enjoy your comments because you actually think about politics as a game with objectives, strategies, and tactics. The way the game is actually played, not the way the kid who took the Political Compass Online Test and played Civ thinks politics should be. Not some sort of moral ideological sounding board. HN and a lot of online fora these days are filled with moralistic shouting and arguments.