Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering

edri.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 147 posts

Re: Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering

#121

Post by rhcom2 »

ntuch wrote: post #114
SimbaOnSteroids wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't recall a time in history when publishers (what Facebook et al. are) were required or expected to publish whatever any random person or organizations opinions. Furthermore, the country most in favor of limiting free speech to protect minorities, Germany(70% pro, 29% against, total population) , ironically has the most experience with the dangers of both extremes of allowances on speech. On one hand the Nazi's…

> publishers (what Facebook et al. are) They're not publishers, so your argument falls apart in the very first sentence. I don't recall a time in history when services (what Facebook et al. are) were allowed to police the content of communications made with their service. I don't recall AT&T, when they allow customers to communicate using their telephone lines, being allowed to police the content of those communicati…

Why is it all or nothing? The other poster already brought up Germany, it isn't all or nothing there and they seem fine.

Re: Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering

#122

Post by gozur88 »

digi_owl wrote: post #28
rovek wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For this reason the article seems at least a little alarmist. It wouldn't be news that Estonian politics is delving into censorship/surveillance; tacking on "EU Presidency" just ads faux-gravitas.

There are times i wonder if politicians use EU as a "trump card". This in the sense of getting it into a EU directive and then turning around to the nation, stating as it is part of an EU directive their hands are tied...

It would surprise me if they didn't.

Re: Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering

#123

Post by eveningcoffee »

icebraining wrote: post #17
pmyteh wrote: post #12

Non-EU readers should bear in mind that the presidency of the EU is much much weaker than that of, say, the US. It's rotated around the countries on a schedule, and has mainly agenda-setting authority. That is, countries who hold the presidency will use it to try to get movement on some issues that they care about, but it doesn't have anywhere close to enough power to get something passed which the other member state…

True. One wonders what Estonia, or its government, has to gain from this, though.

It looks like a copyright industry lobby. So most probably somebody at some level got paid.

Re: Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering

#124

Post by [deleted] »

dalbasal wrote: post #49

China’s example is massive. China’s success has proven that countries can succeed without adopting western liberal freedoms. In fact, success adopting only a small subset of economic and personal freedoms, and none of the political freedoms. The economy is good, the state is stable.. Proof of concept for non-liberal systems. This means freedoms need to be argued for on their own merits. Free speech for its own sake.…

[deleted]

Re: Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering

#125

Post by anotherbrownguy »

dalbasal wrote: post #78
anotherbrownguy wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>western liberal freedoms I'm sure China would happily adopt "western liberal freedoms" if didn't mean opening their citizens to brainwashing by western media and all their data being accessible to the CIA.

How sure?

Because China is all about growth at the moment and having citizens open to new ideas would only encourage growth if it was not for western elites using establishment media to tell everyone how bad China is.

Re: Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering

#126

Post by SimbaOnSteroids »

ntuch wrote: post #114
SimbaOnSteroids wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't recall a time in history when publishers (what Facebook et al. are) were required or expected to publish whatever any random person or organizations opinions. Furthermore, the country most in favor of limiting free speech to protect minorities, Germany(70% pro, 29% against, total population) , ironically has the most experience with the dangers of both extremes of allowances on speech. On one hand the Nazi's…

> publishers (what Facebook et al. are) They're not publishers, so your argument falls apart in the very first sentence. I don't recall a time in history when services (what Facebook et al. are) were allowed to police the content of communications made with their service. I don't recall AT&T, when they allow customers to communicate using their telephone lines, being allowed to police the content of those communicati…

A publisher is anyone who distributes information and brands it under their label. AT&T is not this, AT&T is more akin to the power company. If you're a neon sign maker no one can force you to make a sign that says"Irish Need Not Apply". However if you have a sign that says the above the power company can't turn off your power for it. If you put a tag on the sign that says power by acme power company, then they can shut you off.

This is because by posting on facebook or appearing on google you are implicitly now a representative of them because they're branding is all over that homepage. If you say something that facebook really disagrees with and would rather not say they have every right to not say it.

It's why Cloudflare didn't drop the Daily Stormer until after DS started to try and say the CF was on board with their views.

Re: Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering

#127

Post by majormajor »

ntuch wrote: post #114
SimbaOnSteroids wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't recall a time in history when publishers (what Facebook et al. are) were required or expected to publish whatever any random person or organizations opinions. Furthermore, the country most in favor of limiting free speech to protect minorities, Germany(70% pro, 29% against, total population) , ironically has the most experience with the dangers of both extremes of allowances on speech. On one hand the Nazi's…

> publishers (what Facebook et al. are) They're not publishers, so your argument falls apart in the very first sentence. I don't recall a time in history when services (what Facebook et al. are) were allowed to police the content of communications made with their service. I don't recall AT&T, when they allow customers to communicate using their telephone lines, being allowed to police the content of those communicati…

The problem with your analogy is that it is tied to a very small window in history.

Has liberalism and free speech only existed in the time span where there's been regulated common-carrier type "services"?

Lets roll back the clock to before AT&T. Was there free speech and liberalism? Was any printer required to print anyone's manuscript? Was any newspaper required to be open to all opinions? Was any private person or organization required to spread those opinions across the world?

Historically, Facebook is much more like an open-to-the-masses publisher/distributor than you claim, with the difference resting more in economics (cost of publishing) than anything else. But that difference is hugely significant in practical terms - an unrestricted Facebook doesn't have much historical analog at all, hence the debate.

Re: Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering

#128

Post by csomar »

dalbasal wrote: post #49

China’s example is massive. China’s success has proven that countries can succeed without adopting western liberal freedoms. In fact, success adopting only a small subset of economic and personal freedoms, and none of the political freedoms. The economy is good, the state is stable.. Proof of concept for non-liberal systems. This means freedoms need to be argued for on their own merits. Free speech for its own sake.…

Except that success is, well, relative. Defining success is impossible because you can't have an agreed upon frame of reference.

However, freedom is not. Freedom is well defined. The right to travel. The right to exchange your currency, or your work value. The right to buy and sell stuff with foreign countries (ie: trade).

Think your country ban travelling for 6 months to save up on hard currencies. Think your country banning certain imports (luxury)

China might be good for the average and bottom person but not for the freedom seeker.

Re: Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering

#129

Post by panic »

dalbasal wrote: post #49

China’s example is massive. China’s success has proven that countries can succeed without adopting western liberal freedoms. In fact, success adopting only a small subset of economic and personal freedoms, and none of the political freedoms. The economy is good, the state is stable.. Proof of concept for non-liberal systems. This means freedoms need to be argued for on their own merits. Free speech for its own sake.…

China is riding a wave of economic growth. When the growth runs out, we'll see how stable the state really is.

Re: Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering

#130

Post by freeone3000 »

anotherbrownguy wrote: post #125
dalbasal wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How sure?

Because China is all about growth at the moment and having citizens open to new ideas would only encourage growth if it was not for western elites using establishment media to tell everyone how bad China is.

Yes, China censoring the internet is entirely based on us saying China is bad for censoring the internet.

How laughably circular. Governments do not get to be immune to criticism.

Post reply on HN