4 ms·

Like the UK, where you can tweet that someone should burn down a hotel full of migrants, and you can be arrested for tweeting that. Or like Russia, where you c

Like the UK, where you can tweet that someone should burn down a hotel full of migrants, and you can be arrested for tweeting that. Or like Russia, where you can tweet that you don't like the president, and you can be arrested for tweeting that?

lII1lIlI11ll 8mo ago
Like both, of course! When you build a panopticon for some group you perceive as "good guys" to use keep in mind that eventually it will be controlled by "bad guys".
- tim333 8mo ago
  The burn down a hotel thing wasn't about panopticons - Lucy Connolly posted publicly with her own name and photo. (https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRestIsPolitics/comments/1lvrepk/lucy_connolly_and_kneecap_can_comparisons_be_drawn/ https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRestIsPolitics/comments/1lvrepk/...) The sentence was probably excessive though.
  - lII1lIlI11ll 8mo ago
    UK also apparently arrest people for posting videos of zieg heiling dogs and other such nonsense. Which is exactly my point - once the instruments to track and de-anonymize people online are set up, they eventually will be used for all kinds of purposes.
    - tim333 8mo ago
      Yeah but that doesn't seem to be the purpose or design of the current tech. Like anyone can still make an anonymous account and post whatever.
      - direwolf20 8mo ago
        X requires email and phone number verification and your tweets are still buried if you don't pay (with a credit card)
    - direwolf20 8mo ago
      Should it be legal to tweet a sieg heiling dog in Germany, when it's your dog, and you taught it to sieg heil, and you filmed it at Auschwitz? Or what's the exact boundary between acceptable and unacceptable?
      - lII1lIlI11ll 8mo ago
        > Should it be legal to tweet a sieg heiling dog in Germany, when it's your dog, and you taught it to sieg heil, and you filmed it at Auschwitz? Or what's the exact boundary between acceptable and unacceptable? Yes? Yes, of course? Being an idiot on internet has traditionally been legal in civilized liberal western countries. Such person could be banned by a platform that doesn't want such content and ostracized by their peers (they guy who made sieg heiling dog video claimed he did it for his girlfriend or something and I would dump him, if I was her) but I don't want my government to build a panopticon to prevent such behavior and I don't want my taxes wasted on policing it.
        direwolf20 8mo ago
        In Germany it's illegal to venerate the Holocaust in any way whatsoever — for obvious reasons. Are you suggesting that should change?
        int_19h 8mo ago
        Yes, absolutely. It should be perfectly legal to venerate whatever people want to venerate, that's basic freedom of conscience.
bmitch3020 8mo ago
> someone should burn down a hotel full of migrants > you don't like the president One of these things is not like the other. In the second case, it's expressing disagreement with a political figure that has directed multiple mass murders of vulnerable people. But in the first, it's promoting the mass murder of vulnerable people. Free speech isn't freedom to promote hate crimes.
jansper39 8mo ago
> Like the UK, where you can tweet that someone should burn down a hotel full of migrants, and you can be arrested for tweeting that. During the middle of a riot where people were actively trying to set fire to a hotel full of migrants.
Razengan 8mo ago
Look up how people were prosecuted in the US during the 1950s and onwards for having "communist sympathies" or being against racism.
jonplackett 8mo ago
Do you think someone should be arrested for encouraging the burning down of a hotel full of people in real life? If so, why should it be different online? If not, well then you have more serious problems.
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  I do, but a lot of people don't think it should be possible for the government to track down the person who tweeted let's burn down the migrants hotel.
  - lII1lIlI11ll 8mo ago
    Does not having government-controlled cameras in our apartments make it impossible for police to prosecute wife-beaters? Can police do some actual work to catch "bad people" as opposed to making internet a panopticon?
  - int_19h 8mo ago
    I don't think that's a goal, but as a side effect of truly respecting privacy, I'm fine with that.
- nondrool 8mo ago
  Do you have someone announce you when entering somewhere in real life, and if not why should it be any different online?

lII1lIlI11ll 8mo ago

Like both, of course! When you build a panopticon for some group you perceive as "good guys" to use keep in mind that eventually it will be controlled by "bad guys".

tim333 8mo ago
The burn down a hotel thing wasn't about panopticons - Lucy Connolly posted publicly with her own name and photo. (https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRestIsPolitics/comments/1lvrepk/lucy_connolly_and_kneecap_can_comparisons_be_drawn/ https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRestIsPolitics/comments/1lvrepk/...) The sentence was probably excessive though.
- lII1lIlI11ll 8mo ago
  UK also apparently arrest people for posting videos of zieg heiling dogs and other such nonsense. Which is exactly my point - once the instruments to track and de-anonymize people online are set up, they eventually will be used for all kinds of purposes.
  - tim333 8mo ago
    Yeah but that doesn't seem to be the purpose or design of the current tech. Like anyone can still make an anonymous account and post whatever.
    - direwolf20 8mo ago
      X requires email and phone number verification and your tweets are still buried if you don't pay (with a credit card)
  - direwolf20 8mo ago
    Should it be legal to tweet a sieg heiling dog in Germany, when it's your dog, and you taught it to sieg heil, and you filmed it at Auschwitz? Or what's the exact boundary between acceptable and unacceptable?
    - lII1lIlI11ll 8mo ago
      > Should it be legal to tweet a sieg heiling dog in Germany, when it's your dog, and you taught it to sieg heil, and you filmed it at Auschwitz? Or what's the exact boundary between acceptable and unacceptable? Yes? Yes, of course? Being an idiot on internet has traditionally been legal in civilized liberal western countries. Such person could be banned by a platform that doesn't want such content and ostracized by their peers (they guy who made sieg heiling dog video claimed he did it for his girlfriend or something and I would dump him, if I was her) but I don't want my government to build a panopticon to prevent such behavior and I don't want my taxes wasted on policing it.
      - direwolf20 8mo ago
        In Germany it's illegal to venerate the Holocaust in any way whatsoever — for obvious reasons. Are you suggesting that should change?
        int_19h 8mo ago
        Yes, absolutely. It should be perfectly legal to venerate whatever people want to venerate, that's basic freedom of conscience.

bmitch3020 8mo ago

> someone should burn down a hotel full of migrants > you don't like the president One of these things is not like the other. In the second case, it's expressing disagreement with a political figure that has directed multiple mass murders of vulnerable people. But in the first, it's promoting the mass murder of vulnerable people. Free speech isn't freedom to promote hate crimes.

jansper39 8mo ago

> Like the UK, where you can tweet that someone should burn down a hotel full of migrants, and you can be arrested for tweeting that. During the middle of a riot where people were actively trying to set fire to a hotel full of migrants.

Razengan 8mo ago

Look up how people were prosecuted in the US during the 1950s and onwards for having "communist sympathies" or being against racism.

jonplackett 8mo ago

Do you think someone should be arrested for encouraging the burning down of a hotel full of people in real life? If so, why should it be different online? If not, well then you have more serious problems.

direwolf20 8mo ago
I do, but a lot of people don't think it should be possible for the government to track down the person who tweeted let's burn down the migrants hotel.
- lII1lIlI11ll 8mo ago
  Does not having government-controlled cameras in our apartments make it impossible for police to prosecute wife-beaters? Can police do some actual work to catch "bad people" as opposed to making internet a panopticon?
- int_19h 8mo ago
  I don't think that's a goal, but as a side effect of truly respecting privacy, I'm fine with that.
nondrool 8mo ago
Do you have someone announce you when entering somewhere in real life, and if not why should it be any different online?