6 ms·

I was also surprised the post focusses on Rus/Iran when Australia, UK, and many more countries (Malaysia, Thailand) have/are introducing laws to prevent large s

by nomilk 10mo ago

I was also surprised the post focusses on Rus/Iran when Australia, UK, and many more countries (Malaysia, Thailand) have/are introducing laws to prevent large swaths of free speech (banning mediums by age, banning conversation by topic, or by making speaking one's mind online too risky, as almost anything now can be interpreted as 'offensive' or 'hate speech').

Guestmodinfo 10mo ago
India why forget us. Only thing is you may not find exact data.
RobotToaster 10mo ago
Tor is primarily funded by the US State department, that's why.
- iamnothere 10mo ago
  Depends on what you mean by primarily. US government funding is still the largest single portion of their funding, but they are trying to diversify. Most funding comes from non-government sources: https://blog.torproject.org/financials-blog-post-2023-2024/ https://blog.torproject.org/financials-blog-post-2023-2024/
aprilthird2021 10mo ago
Yes. I think social media or app bans should count as well, as well as consequences for things posted on social media which are simply opinions. I think killing of journalists should count as well (so probably India, Israel, etc.) And I think also frivolous suits lodged by the govt at people for their speech. So that would include suing Twitter users for making jokes about the FBI director girlfriend, etc. One of the biggest things to censor speech the US is doing is forcing the sale of TikTok to government friendly group. There are many ways governments censor our speech, and they seem, sadly, to be increasing worldwide
otabdeveloper4 10mo ago
Iran is le bad. Oceania has always been at war with ~Venezuela~ Iran, citizen.
wartywhoa23 10mo ago
The neighbouring pot must always seem hotter to the frogs that are being boiled in their own one, that's a rule of the kitchen.
widdershins 10mo ago
> almost anything now can be interpreted as 'offensive' or 'hate speech' I only know about the UK, but this is not really true there. Your speech has to be obviously threatening or abusive, and obviously motivated by prejudice towards one of a few categories (disability, race, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation are the main ones). If you don't make threatening or abusive remarks towards these groups, you aren't breaking the law.
- jmnicolas 10mo ago
  "Abusive" and "threatening" is "in the eye of the beholder".
  - kolektiv 10mo ago
    Well, no, more accurately, when it comes to it, it's in the eyes of a judge (or a jury in some cases). You can have all kinds of arguments about validity of arrests, of prosecutions, etc., but it's still fundamentally a system where you'll be charged with an offence and then either convicted or not. I don't know of a single case (and don't believe anyone can point to one) where people have been arrested for simply criticising politicians. Has the number of incidents risen over recent years? Yes, and while this might be partly explained by stricter legal approaches, I suspect it's much more to do with a drastic rise in far-right activity and a consequent feeling among many that they can now say/do whatever they like with impunity (including making threatening and inflammatory remarks about minorities, and so on).
    - hkt 10mo ago
      Not exactly a judge or jury. IIRC a common law assault can go on with only the subjective experience of threat. Hard to prove, but the bar is not objective. See: https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/resources/common-offences/assault/ https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/resources/common-offences/a... That is by no means the only crime that is committed subjectively.
      - kolektiv 10mo ago
lukan 10mo ago
"as almost anything now can be interpreted as 'offensive' or 'hate speech'" Are you serious here? In russia you get problems for calling a war a war and worse problems if you say it is a bad war. In UK you certainly can call a war a war and you can critize the government or other people all day long. What you cannot do is calling for violence against them. Or do you have counterexamples?
- antonymoose 10mo ago
  In Germany you can receive a suspended sentence for raping a minor and then an actual jail sentence for insulting the rapist. I’ve seen similar outrageous arrests for mean tweets in the UK. Europe has lost its mind about right and wrong.
  - lukan 10mo ago
    I am german and live here, but am not aware of such rulings. Please provide sources.
    - aljgz 10mo ago
      As upvotes are not visible, I also ask for a few occurrences of this.
    - antonymoose 10mo ago
      The “Maja R” case would be a good start.
      - lukan 10mo ago
        Threats of violence, not insults.
    - sanskritical 10mo ago
      Because this thread started in a discussion about the United Kingdom, I think it is relevant to cite how this exact scenario did happen in the United Kingdom. https://www.facebook.com/piersmorganuncensored/videos/elizabeth-kinney-the-mum-who-was-arrested-for-using-a-slur-word-in-private-text-/25218375061188976/ https://www.facebook.com/piersmorganuncensored/videos/elizab... Elizabeth Kinney was arrested for a homophobic slur used privately in a text message to a third party -- not even a public comment -- against a man who physically beat her. The man served no jail time for beating her.
blell 10mo ago
It’s much simpler. The Tor project is politically biased in a way that they think the things the UK arrest people for should get people arrested.
- berkes 10mo ago
  That's a very serious and bold accusation you make there. It's so serious, that you should really back it up with some evidence or at least some foundation. Got any?
  - blell 10mo ago
    What kind of evidence would you take? If it’s someone from the project openly saying what I imply, there obviously isn’t any. But if you are looking for evidence that the project took a politically biased turn to one side of the aisle, I’m sure you’ll find a lot on your own. And from there you can understand why there isn’t a single mention of what’s happening in the UK. In this very thread you can find lots of comments excusing the censorship because it’s being used to censor the “wrong ideas”.
    - fn-mote 10mo ago
      I would even accept hearsay as better than “you’ll find a lot on your own.” I totally agree these comments contain discussion of controversial cases, but your claim is surprising to the point of being unbelievable without any kind of support. To give the most optimistic take: Perhaps in your country, one political party is much more pro-censorship than another, so an anti-censorship stance seems aligned against that party? That’s believable; it happens in many countries (probably including mine; it can be hard to tell, since pro-censorship is a very common stance here).
    - berkes 9mo ago
      I'll take any of the lot that i could "find [..] on my own". Or hearsay. Or quotes from tinfoilhats or conspiracy nuts even. Without any of these, you are seriously discrediting people and projects. And without any of these, there's no way for me counter any. Or even authorize any (ie a random russian troll, vs a journalist with reputation to lose)
berkes 10mo ago
> swaths of free speech Which is very cultural dependent as well. "Not being able to log in on TikTok if you are under 16" is not "preventing free speech". And "having no access to pornhub" is not preventing free speech either. Edit: TBC: this is not me defending these laws or rules. E.g. Freedom of speech in the US, is rather narrow. It merely states you may "speak, write, and print with freedom" but not that you may do so anywhere, on any platform, on private property. It doesn't state that such speech, writings or printings must reach everyone. The UNHCR article 19 goes further, though. But it doesn't automatically apply to the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#cite_note-:1-13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... It includes `... and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers`. And all these only apply to governments. Many of the examples you mention, aren't government-imposed but imposed by private entities (who, granted, often pre-emptively self-censor). E.g. certain words used on Instagram or in Yourube videos will hurt monetization, or will cause it's discovery or promotion to severely degrade; which is why people use phrases like "unalived". So let's not pretend the US is any good in this. Dutch culture used to be rather free with nudity in movies and on TV. Every Dutch movie from before the era of US streaming services had at least a pair of naked boobies bouncing around. But this, and in it's wake the entire culture has become more prude-ish. A form of cultural colonialism by the US. Not terrible, but a good example of private companies imposing self-censorship even in places where it really is not needed. IANAL, but I'm quite certain youtube would be allowed to run videos with nudity just fine in most of (nothern?) Europe. But they don't.
- orbital-decay 10mo ago
  >"Not being able to log in on TikTok if you are under 16" is not "preventing free speech". And "having no access to pornhub" is not preventing free speech either. Right. It's having to profile yourself under the excuse of not letting kids use TikTok or PornHub.
- lux-lux-lux 10mo ago
  Restrictions on adult websites are invariably extremely political. PornHub gets tailored bans while the Reddits and Twitters gleefully serve up gargantuan amounts of pornography; payment processors threaten to wreck Itch and Steam for including 18+ games while Ani is sexting with children.

by nomilk 10mo ago

Guestmodinfo 10mo ago

India why forget us. Only thing is you may not find exact data.

RobotToaster 10mo ago

Tor is primarily funded by the US State department, that's why.

iamnothere 10mo ago
Depends on what you mean by primarily. US government funding is still the largest single portion of their funding, but they are trying to diversify. Most funding comes from non-government sources: https://blog.torproject.org/financials-blog-post-2023-2024/ https://blog.torproject.org/financials-blog-post-2023-2024/

aprilthird2021 10mo ago

Yes. I think social media or app bans should count as well, as well as consequences for things posted on social media which are simply opinions. I think killing of journalists should count as well (so probably India, Israel, etc.) And I think also frivolous suits lodged by the govt at people for their speech. So that would include suing Twitter users for making jokes about the FBI director girlfriend, etc. One of the biggest things to censor speech the US is doing is forcing the sale of TikTok to government friendly group. There are many ways governments censor our speech, and they seem, sadly, to be increasing worldwide

otabdeveloper4 10mo ago

Iran is le bad. Oceania has always been at war with ~Venezuela~ Iran, citizen.

wartywhoa23 10mo ago

The neighbouring pot must always seem hotter to the frogs that are being boiled in their own one, that's a rule of the kitchen.

widdershins 10mo ago

> almost anything now can be interpreted as 'offensive' or 'hate speech' I only know about the UK, but this is not really true there. Your speech has to be obviously threatening or abusive, and obviously motivated by prejudice towards one of a few categories (disability, race, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation are the main ones). If you don't make threatening or abusive remarks towards these groups, you aren't breaking the law.

jmnicolas 10mo ago
"Abusive" and "threatening" is "in the eye of the beholder".
- kolektiv 10mo ago
  Well, no, more accurately, when it comes to it, it's in the eyes of a judge (or a jury in some cases). You can have all kinds of arguments about validity of arrests, of prosecutions, etc., but it's still fundamentally a system where you'll be charged with an offence and then either convicted or not. I don't know of a single case (and don't believe anyone can point to one) where people have been arrested for simply criticising politicians. Has the number of incidents risen over recent years? Yes, and while this might be partly explained by stricter legal approaches, I suspect it's much more to do with a drastic rise in far-right activity and a consequent feeling among many that they can now say/do whatever they like with impunity (including making threatening and inflammatory remarks about minorities, and so on).
  - hkt 10mo ago
    Not exactly a judge or jury. IIRC a common law assault can go on with only the subjective experience of threat. Hard to prove, but the bar is not objective. See: https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/resources/common-offences/assault/ https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/resources/common-offences/a... That is by no means the only crime that is committed subjectively.
    - kolektiv 10mo ago

lukan 10mo ago

"as almost anything now can be interpreted as 'offensive' or 'hate speech'" Are you serious here? In russia you get problems for calling a war a war and worse problems if you say it is a bad war. In UK you certainly can call a war a war and you can critize the government or other people all day long. What you cannot do is calling for violence against them. Or do you have counterexamples?

antonymoose 10mo ago
In Germany you can receive a suspended sentence for raping a minor and then an actual jail sentence for insulting the rapist. I’ve seen similar outrageous arrests for mean tweets in the UK. Europe has lost its mind about right and wrong.
- lukan 10mo ago
  I am german and live here, but am not aware of such rulings. Please provide sources.
  - aljgz 10mo ago
    As upvotes are not visible, I also ask for a few occurrences of this.
  - antonymoose 10mo ago
    The “Maja R” case would be a good start.
    - lukan 10mo ago
      Threats of violence, not insults.
  - sanskritical 10mo ago
    Because this thread started in a discussion about the United Kingdom, I think it is relevant to cite how this exact scenario did happen in the United Kingdom. https://www.facebook.com/piersmorganuncensored/videos/elizabeth-kinney-the-mum-who-was-arrested-for-using-a-slur-word-in-private-text-/25218375061188976/ https://www.facebook.com/piersmorganuncensored/videos/elizab... Elizabeth Kinney was arrested for a homophobic slur used privately in a text message to a third party -- not even a public comment -- against a man who physically beat her. The man served no jail time for beating her.

blell 10mo ago

It’s much simpler. The Tor project is politically biased in a way that they think the things the UK arrest people for should get people arrested.

berkes 10mo ago
That's a very serious and bold accusation you make there. It's so serious, that you should really back it up with some evidence or at least some foundation. Got any?
- blell 10mo ago
  What kind of evidence would you take? If it’s someone from the project openly saying what I imply, there obviously isn’t any. But if you are looking for evidence that the project took a politically biased turn to one side of the aisle, I’m sure you’ll find a lot on your own. And from there you can understand why there isn’t a single mention of what’s happening in the UK. In this very thread you can find lots of comments excusing the censorship because it’s being used to censor the “wrong ideas”.
  - fn-mote 10mo ago
    I would even accept hearsay as better than “you’ll find a lot on your own.” I totally agree these comments contain discussion of controversial cases, but your claim is surprising to the point of being unbelievable without any kind of support. To give the most optimistic take: Perhaps in your country, one political party is much more pro-censorship than another, so an anti-censorship stance seems aligned against that party? That’s believable; it happens in many countries (probably including mine; it can be hard to tell, since pro-censorship is a very common stance here).
  - berkes 9mo ago
    I'll take any of the lot that i could "find [..] on my own". Or hearsay. Or quotes from tinfoilhats or conspiracy nuts even. Without any of these, you are seriously discrediting people and projects. And without any of these, there's no way for me counter any. Or even authorize any (ie a random russian troll, vs a journalist with reputation to lose)

berkes 10mo ago

> swaths of free speech Which is very cultural dependent as well. "Not being able to log in on TikTok if you are under 16" is not "preventing free speech". And "having no access to pornhub" is not preventing free speech either. Edit: TBC: this is not me defending these laws or rules. E.g. Freedom of speech in the US, is rather narrow. It merely states you may "speak, write, and print with freedom" but not that you may do so anywhere, on any platform, on private property. It doesn't state that such speech, writings or printings must reach everyone. The UNHCR article 19 goes further, though. But it doesn't automatically apply to the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#cite_note-:1-13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... It includes `... and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers`. And all these only apply to governments. Many of the examples you mention, aren't government-imposed but imposed by private entities (who, granted, often pre-emptively self-censor). E.g. certain words used on Instagram or in Yourube videos will hurt monetization, or will cause it's discovery or promotion to severely degrade; which is why people use phrases like "unalived". So let's not pretend the US is any good in this. Dutch culture used to be rather free with nudity in movies and on TV. Every Dutch movie from before the era of US streaming services had at least a pair of naked boobies bouncing around. But this, and in it's wake the entire culture has become more prude-ish. A form of cultural colonialism by the US. Not terrible, but a good example of private companies imposing self-censorship even in places where it really is not needed. IANAL, but I'm quite certain youtube would be allowed to run videos with nudity just fine in most of (nothern?) Europe. But they don't.

orbital-decay 10mo ago
>"Not being able to log in on TikTok if you are under 16" is not "preventing free speech". And "having no access to pornhub" is not preventing free speech either. Right. It's having to profile yourself under the excuse of not letting kids use TikTok or PornHub.
lux-lux-lux 10mo ago
Restrictions on adult websites are invariably extremely political. PornHub gets tailored bans while the Reddits and Twitters gleefully serve up gargantuan amounts of pornography; payment processors threaten to wreck Itch and Steam for including 18+ games while Ani is sexting with children.