3 ms·

> So you are basically arguing that it's hard to distinguish, therefore we shouldn't try No, I said because it's hard to distinguish, therefore we can not use

> So you are basically arguing that it's hard to distinguish, therefore we shouldn't try No, I said because it's hard to distinguish, therefore we can not use it as an excuse to enact censorship. > By that logic, we couldn't prosecute fraud Fraud is illegal. > couldn't have espionage laws Espionage is illegal. No matter what you do or what you write, enacting "desinformation laws" would require a ministry of truth to decide what is fact and what isn't, a task governments are famously incredibly bad at because they always have vested interests in not telling the truth. > A state funded operation running hundreds of fake accounts pretending to be American citizens, artificially amplifying divisive content, is something different, it's basically a form of information warfare And yet it is still speech and not distinguishable from genuine Russians sharing their opinions. It is easy to refute the opinions of many a people by discrediting them to be of the origin of a manufactured propaganda machine. Once you start doing this for foreign people, the next logical step is to continue this strategy for local activists or political opponents. > And what I write here isn't theoretical, coordinated influence operations have inflamed ethnic tensions from the Balkans to Myanmar, not to mention Russian-Ukraininan conflict propaganda. These aren't just "opinions we disagree with", they're documented operations with measurable effects on real world violence. I mean this is a form of war, in which some countries want to destroy your society fabric for their advantage I know this to be factual. I'm not denying it's existence at all. I'm making a point here. I don't want the government to hold these tools you propose. Any law enacted and every power given will not only be wielded by a government of parties you support, but also at one point by factions you disagree with entirely.

lossolo 9mo ago
The issue I have with your argument is that you're treating inaction as neutral. It isn't. Choosing not to act against coordinated foreign influence operations is itself a choice with consequences. If a hostile state can freely run thousands of fake accounts to inflame divisions, amplify extremism, and erode trust in institutions (and we deliberately tie our hands) then we're not preserving some pristine free speech environment. I mean we're ceding the information space to whoever is willing to manipulate it most aggressively. The "marketplace of ideas" doesn't function when one participant is a state apparatus with unlimited resources pretending to be thousands of organic voices. Your slippery slope argument applies to laws we already have and accept. Lets take US as an example, the Foreign Agents Registration Act has existed since 1938. Foreign campaign contributions are illegal. These laws require distinguishing foreign influence from domestic speech. By your logic, these should have already devolved into tools of domestic political persecution. Have they? Imperfect enforcement, sure. But "the government of a faction I disagree with might someday abuse this" hasn't been a reason to repeal FARA. Another issue that I have with your argument is that you've identified risks of action but proposed nothing. What's your actual framework here? If coordinated foreign information warfare is real and harmful, and ongoing (which you acknowledge) what should democracies do? I mean if your answer is "nothing, because any tool could theoretically be abused" then you are not offering any policy, right? but basically you are arguing for resignation.
- selfmodruntime 9mo ago
  > The issue I have with your argument is that you're treating inaction as neutral. The issue I have with your argument is that you're treating action as a necessary evil enacted by a well meaning government. It isn't. > I mean we're ceding the information space to whoever is willing to manipulate it most aggressively. I am well aware that this is a difficult thing to solve. What is it then, that you propose we do? > These laws require distinguishing foreign influence from domestic speech. By your logic, these should have already devolved into tools of domestic political persecution. Have they? Yes. YES. The FARA has sometimes been applied asymmetrically, especially against individuals or organizations connected to political opponents, lobbyists and think tanks. It is the perfect example for what I mean. The FARA is broadly defined and with a DOJ under an administration, it is prone to misuse. The DOJ under Trump considered to use it to charge Hunter Biden. The identification of "hostile agents" that you argue is necessary is exactly what I mean when I point to government misuse, as the Trump admin is currently using these exact laws to identify activists and nonprofits as domestic terrorists [1]. We have people in this thread decry the Trump administration for their actions and stances on selectively applying free speech while they at the same time argue for more government power even while it is being abused in this very moment. I am aghast at how this is happening. > Another issue that I have with your argument is that you've identified risks of action but proposed nothing. What's your actual framework here? If coordinated foreign information warfare is real and harmful, and ongoing (which you acknowledge) what should democracies do? Do what democracy's are already doing. Issue sanctions that hurt. A large amount of LNG and gas imports in Europe are still traceable to Russia. Invest into digital thinking and digital literacy. But that would require putting your money where your mouth is, instead of arguing for those sweet tools of citizen control. Germany spends below average on education and our pupils suffer. The same is true for US education. Sorry, but I won't argue for controlling a stupid populace when we fail at teaching at the same time. I will give you an example. The censorship tools already exist, at least in Germany, and they are justified and enacted by politicians that cite "studies" from NGOs like Amadeu Antonio, HateAid, Demokratie leben! or NETTZ. All organizations that receive massive funds from the govt that exist only to deliver "proof" and "reasons" for censorship because of "hate" and "misinformation". Of course, these studies [2] are then cited massively [3] by the media aparatus and ultimately the same politicians that paid to have this information produced [4]. Sometime after, the truth may be reveiled [5], the falsified data exposed, but the damage is done and laws are proposed [6] that enable the government to break and enter into journalist offices and media companies and shutting them down without a court order. All in the name of fighting misinformation and saving democracy. [1]: https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/how-nspm-7-seeks-to-use-domestic-terrorism-to-target-nonprofits-and-activists https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/how-nspm-7-seeks... [2]: https://hateaid.org/neue-studie-politisch-engagierte-und-digitale-gewalt/ https://hateaid.org/neue-studie-politisch-engagierte-und-dig... [3]: https://nachrichten.idw-online.de/2025/01/15/neue-studie-digitale-gewalt-schreckt-menschen-ab-politische-verantwortung-zu-uebernehmen https://nachrichten.idw-online.de/2025/01/15/neue-studie-dig... [4]: https://taz.de/Justizministerin-Lambrecht-ueber-NetzDG/!5689014/ https://taz.de/Justizministerin-Lambrecht-ueber-NetzDG/!5689... [5]: https://www.publicomag.com/2020/07/publico-dossierverfolgter-hass-gefoerderter-hass/ https://www.publicomag.com/2020/07/publico-dossierverfolgter... [6]: https://dserver.bundestag.de/brd/2025/0766-25.pdf https://dserver.bundestag.de/brd/2025/0766-25.pdf
lovich 9mo ago
You are jumping back and forth between moral arguments and legalistic arguments. If your defense for going after fraud and espionage is its illegal, are you fine if a country makes censorship legal?
- selfmodruntime 9mo ago
  No. My point is that real people are hurt by fraud and espionage and comparing outlawing those to outlawing speech is inane
  - lovich 9mo ago
    I am hurt when I think I am hearing words from a fellow citizen that are their own opinion, when instead it is a foreign actor pushing a narrative for their state. I am all for free speech, but I am not for anonymous speech which is choking the internet. If I am in person speaking with you, I can be fairly certain that you aren't actually a completely different person underneath a rubber mask. I want to at least know that an account I am speaking to is a _person_ and not a robot, although Id probably want country of origin too. I do not have a good answer for how to achieve that without having a chilling effect on speech, but maybe that's a good thing? I go back and forth on if its better or not to require you to say who you are if you want to say something in public. In private, go hog wild.
    - selfmodruntime 9mo ago
      > I am hurt when I think I am hearing words from a fellow citizen that are their own opinion, when instead it is a foreign actor pushing a narrative for their state. No you are not. > I am all for free speech, but I am not for anonymous speech which is choking the internet Then you are not for free speech. Have you ever considered from your point of view that anonymity is incredibly valuable to people who live under an oppressive regime, like Iran or Russia? > I want to at least know that an account I am speaking to is a _person_ and not a robot, although Id probably want country of origin too. I too, want many things. That does not give me the right to unveil people who wish to be anonymous. It's pretty wild that this is an opinion on hacker news, of all sites.
jacquesm 9mo ago
Guess what? Copyright violation is also illegal. You are all over this thread in god knows how many comments arguing about Germany and world wide censorship whereas this thread - and the fine - is about copyright and Italy. The second they use it for anything else I'll be happy to jump the line but until then they are - for once - using this law as it is intended and it doesn't really matter that there are other unrelated wrongs that you could commit using the same mechanism.

lossolo 9mo ago

The issue I have with your argument is that you're treating inaction as neutral. It isn't. Choosing not to act against coordinated foreign influence operations is itself a choice with consequences. If a hostile state can freely run thousands of fake accounts to inflame divisions, amplify extremism, and erode trust in institutions (and we deliberately tie our hands) then we're not preserving some pristine free speech environment. I mean we're ceding the information space to whoever is willing to manipulate it most aggressively. The "marketplace of ideas" doesn't function when one participant is a state apparatus with unlimited resources pretending to be thousands of organic voices. Your slippery slope argument applies to laws we already have and accept. Lets take US as an example, the Foreign Agents Registration Act has existed since 1938. Foreign campaign contributions are illegal. These laws require distinguishing foreign influence from domestic speech. By your logic, these should have already devolved into tools of domestic political persecution. Have they? Imperfect enforcement, sure. But "the government of a faction I disagree with might someday abuse this" hasn't been a reason to repeal FARA. Another issue that I have with your argument is that you've identified risks of action but proposed nothing. What's your actual framework here? If coordinated foreign information warfare is real and harmful, and ongoing (which you acknowledge) what should democracies do? I mean if your answer is "nothing, because any tool could theoretically be abused" then you are not offering any policy, right? but basically you are arguing for resignation.

selfmodruntime 9mo ago
> The issue I have with your argument is that you're treating inaction as neutral. The issue I have with your argument is that you're treating action as a necessary evil enacted by a well meaning government. It isn't. > I mean we're ceding the information space to whoever is willing to manipulate it most aggressively. I am well aware that this is a difficult thing to solve. What is it then, that you propose we do? > These laws require distinguishing foreign influence from domestic speech. By your logic, these should have already devolved into tools of domestic political persecution. Have they? Yes. YES. The FARA has sometimes been applied asymmetrically, especially against individuals or organizations connected to political opponents, lobbyists and think tanks. It is the perfect example for what I mean. The FARA is broadly defined and with a DOJ under an administration, it is prone to misuse. The DOJ under Trump considered to use it to charge Hunter Biden. The identification of "hostile agents" that you argue is necessary is exactly what I mean when I point to government misuse, as the Trump admin is currently using these exact laws to identify activists and nonprofits as domestic terrorists [1]. We have people in this thread decry the Trump administration for their actions and stances on selectively applying free speech while they at the same time argue for more government power even while it is being abused in this very moment. I am aghast at how this is happening. > Another issue that I have with your argument is that you've identified risks of action but proposed nothing. What's your actual framework here? If coordinated foreign information warfare is real and harmful, and ongoing (which you acknowledge) what should democracies do? Do what democracy's are already doing. Issue sanctions that hurt. A large amount of LNG and gas imports in Europe are still traceable to Russia. Invest into digital thinking and digital literacy. But that would require putting your money where your mouth is, instead of arguing for those sweet tools of citizen control. Germany spends below average on education and our pupils suffer. The same is true for US education. Sorry, but I won't argue for controlling a stupid populace when we fail at teaching at the same time. I will give you an example. The censorship tools already exist, at least in Germany, and they are justified and enacted by politicians that cite "studies" from NGOs like Amadeu Antonio, HateAid, Demokratie leben! or NETTZ. All organizations that receive massive funds from the govt that exist only to deliver "proof" and "reasons" for censorship because of "hate" and "misinformation". Of course, these studies [2] are then cited massively [3] by the media aparatus and ultimately the same politicians that paid to have this information produced [4]. Sometime after, the truth may be reveiled [5], the falsified data exposed, but the damage is done and laws are proposed [6] that enable the government to break and enter into journalist offices and media companies and shutting them down without a court order. All in the name of fighting misinformation and saving democracy. [1]: https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/how-nspm-7-seeks-to-use-domestic-terrorism-to-target-nonprofits-and-activists https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/how-nspm-7-seeks... [2]: https://hateaid.org/neue-studie-politisch-engagierte-und-digitale-gewalt/ https://hateaid.org/neue-studie-politisch-engagierte-und-dig... [3]: https://nachrichten.idw-online.de/2025/01/15/neue-studie-digitale-gewalt-schreckt-menschen-ab-politische-verantwortung-zu-uebernehmen https://nachrichten.idw-online.de/2025/01/15/neue-studie-dig... [4]: https://taz.de/Justizministerin-Lambrecht-ueber-NetzDG/!5689014/ https://taz.de/Justizministerin-Lambrecht-ueber-NetzDG/!5689... [5]: https://www.publicomag.com/2020/07/publico-dossierverfolgter-hass-gefoerderter-hass/ https://www.publicomag.com/2020/07/publico-dossierverfolgter... [6]: https://dserver.bundestag.de/brd/2025/0766-25.pdf https://dserver.bundestag.de/brd/2025/0766-25.pdf

lovich 9mo ago

You are jumping back and forth between moral arguments and legalistic arguments. If your defense for going after fraud and espionage is its illegal, are you fine if a country makes censorship legal?

selfmodruntime 9mo ago
No. My point is that real people are hurt by fraud and espionage and comparing outlawing those to outlawing speech is inane
- lovich 9mo ago
  I am hurt when I think I am hearing words from a fellow citizen that are their own opinion, when instead it is a foreign actor pushing a narrative for their state. I am all for free speech, but I am not for anonymous speech which is choking the internet. If I am in person speaking with you, I can be fairly certain that you aren't actually a completely different person underneath a rubber mask. I want to at least know that an account I am speaking to is a _person_ and not a robot, although Id probably want country of origin too. I do not have a good answer for how to achieve that without having a chilling effect on speech, but maybe that's a good thing? I go back and forth on if its better or not to require you to say who you are if you want to say something in public. In private, go hog wild.
  - selfmodruntime 9mo ago
    > I am hurt when I think I am hearing words from a fellow citizen that are their own opinion, when instead it is a foreign actor pushing a narrative for their state. No you are not. > I am all for free speech, but I am not for anonymous speech which is choking the internet Then you are not for free speech. Have you ever considered from your point of view that anonymity is incredibly valuable to people who live under an oppressive regime, like Iran or Russia? > I want to at least know that an account I am speaking to is a _person_ and not a robot, although Id probably want country of origin too. I too, want many things. That does not give me the right to unveil people who wish to be anonymous. It's pretty wild that this is an opinion on hacker news, of all sites.

jacquesm 9mo ago

Guess what? Copyright violation is also illegal. You are all over this thread in god knows how many comments arguing about Germany and world wide censorship whereas this thread - and the fine - is about copyright and Italy. The second they use it for anything else I'll be happy to jump the line but until then they are - for once - using this law as it is intended and it doesn't really matter that there are other unrelated wrongs that you could commit using the same mechanism.