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

131–140 of 147 posts

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

#131

Post by ota001 »

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…

I am really glad you made this comment. I know that this won't bring any "value" into the conversation but comments like these give me the much-needed hope and optimism that not all is lost (yet) .. well, except people arguing against your point. FS, You can not be "half pregnant" same as there is no such thing as "limited free speech". You either are allowed to think and share your thoughts freely or you are(or will soon become) enslaved, mentally, physically. @people below: History is written by the victors, you should never forget this, esp. when you are tempted to use a shallow, uneducated. ad-hoc out-of-context history reference. How can you distill any conclusions from our history if you did not manage to overcome your mental bubble, did not do the grunt work and actually went over all available sources. if you did, regardless of your thought predispositions(I have no inclination on that part, believe me), it would at least teach you modesty(like in any other science field, the more you know the more modest / careful you are when referencing a subject of your expertise). Liked that AT&T analogy

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

#132

Post by lap42 »

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…

So what? It's the PRESIDENT of EU, regardless of power... It says a lot about who's in charge of EU, the globalists. That's why BREXIT occurred, that's why Trump won: to fight them.

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

#133

Post by Accacin »

lap42 wrote: post #132
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…

So what? It's the PRESIDENT of EU, regardless of power... It says a lot about who's in charge of EU, the globalists. That's why BREXIT occurred, that's why Trump won: to fight them.

Brexit occured because people were lied to for years and years and conditioned to believe the EU was bad.

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

#134

Post by VeejayRampay »

allendoerfer wrote: post #36
VeejayRampay wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turkey is not part of the EU yet. I don't see how exactly the power "sits with Erdoğan".

Turkey also won't be part of the EU. Both Merkel and her contestant for the current election stated on Sunday, that they have had enough and want to abort the negotiations about Turkey joining.

Just because we're hitting a bump along the road doesn't mean they won't join eventually. And I hope they do, they belong in the Union with us.

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

#135

Post by VeejayRampay »

Pica_soO wrote: post #57
allendoerfer wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now after the very same dream, has allowed for the life-standard growth of most of its citizens to disappear - they are in for a rude wake up with extremists devouring the corpse. What are you even talking about? We just had an Australian guest, who drove freely through Europe using one currency. These states previously fought two world wars against each other.

France nearly voted nationalist last vote. All of eastern europe is basically slowly abandoning democracy and demolishing its institutions. Germany is in for a AFD government. Sorry, but drive through tourism does not paint a accurate picture.

If 35% to 66% is "nearly" getting "nationalist vote" then yeah. You can also say that despite a huge economic recession, the unexpected influx of a large population of war refugees and on the back of Brexit, the populist far-right only got half of the votes the elected party got in the end and that's actually comforting, because scaring people off is always easier than vision and reform planification.

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

#136

Post by SimbaOnSteroids »

majormajor wrote: post #127
ntuch wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I agree that it doesn't have much a historical precedent and its important to have this debate, I'm not sure where I fall on it myself if I'm being honest, but facebook does have historical precedent in its size, in the past we've busted up corporations that have grown to this size into smaller individual entities but idk how you'd do that with fb, you could spin off instagram or maybe spin off its video hosting services but this all gets really tricky really fast.

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

#137

Post by middleorigin »

SimbaOnSteroids wrote: post #92
JBReefer wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A huge chunk of millennials are non longer believe in free speech [0], and everyone seems to agree that Facebook et. al's censorship of objectionable content is great. Between the insanity of the current government/far right, and the rise of the far/tankie left, I'm not sure that liberalism is long for this world, even in the West. [0] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millen...

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…

Right, nobody is arguing that facebook doesn't have a right to do this. It's just alarming that eg the NyTimes portray it as facebook's responsibility.

EDIT: apparenty people do talk about free speech, but they seem unaware of their rights.

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

#138

Post by erikpukinskis »

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…

I find this metaphorical argumentation incredibly boring. Either Facebook is a metaphor for the phone company, or it's a metaphor for a publisher. Who cares? Maybe we need a third category. Maybe we need to end common carriers entirely. We're obviously treading new ground here. Let's argue about proposed law, how it works, and cost/benefit analysis.

What law you would write and who it should apply to? You think Facebook should be mandated to host all non-illegal content, yes?

What about Flickr? What about Gardening.com? What about NoNazisAllowed.com? What would you propose as the legal standard for deciding who is a common carrier and who is not?

I don't have a horse in this race, but let's at least start the discussion with something concrete.

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

#139

Post by guelo »

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…

My prefered analogy is an online forum. Online forums have existed for about 30-40 years without much regulation. And what people have figured out in that time is that in order to run a successful community forum you need strong moderation, otherwise it'll be destroyed by the spammers and the assholes. Determining who the spammers and the assholes are is somewhat of an artform, moderators need flexibility to guide the community towards civil discourse, you can't have strict moderation rules. Asking for the government to regulate online forums is ridiculous.

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

#140

Post by lap42 »

Accacin wrote: post #133
lap42 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? It's the PRESIDENT of EU, regardless of power... It says a lot about who's in charge of EU, the globalists. That's why BREXIT occurred, that's why Trump won: to fight them.

Brexit occured because people were lied to for years and years and conditioned to believe the EU was bad.

So there is no room for people to believe that EU is really bad? So that must be a lie? Come on...
Post reply on HN