MrSlovenia

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by MrSlovenia 7y ago

   Better question: are we willing to risk it just because some who-know-how-much-p-hacked study said so?
2. 2.▲
   by MrSlovenia 7y ago

   Honestly that sounds like an excuse to do nothing, that you are not truly serious about it. The last best time was yestrday. The next best one is now.
3. 3.▲
   by MrSlovenia 7y ago

   Makes sense: when a country has an industrial revolution it just wants to grow fast. Then when the extreme growth part passes it starts to stabilize: this is when the country & the people start doing well enough so that they can look at
4. 4.▲
   by MrSlovenia 7y ago

   Good point. There should definetly be a requirement for a large mass of users. Because otherwise FB, Tweeter and Google can push their views. So a "must be a large social network or forum" must be a requirement in this law. If Twe
5. 5.▲
   by MrSlovenia 7y ago

   If that will be the case then it's: a) a bad law b) institutions are corrupt: which means that no matter who is leading the goverment free speech will always be policed. And if the institutions really are that corrupt...well...then we&
6. 6.▲
   by MrSlovenia 7y ago

   In that case the people could just file a joint lawsuit because their (non-governement) views have been censored.
7. 7.▲
   by MrSlovenia 7y ago

   A lot of outrage on reddit. But it seems that this is not a censorship law at all: instead it makes social media sites liable to be sued if they remove political content they don't agree it. So it's more a free speech law that avo