71–80 of 127 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh, not really. To be prosecuted you still have to prove intent - that the person intended to cause harm or distress by their words. For example you could say "black people are smelly" in conversation, even to someone of colour, and it would be pretty rude and bigotted but not an offense. But to say to someone of colour in an aggressive manner "you are smelly because you are black!" it would be. Seems pretty sensible…
I'm unclear about lawful differentiation between both sentences that makes one hate speech and other not. Or is it the manner of delivery?
It's an interesting progression - 5 years ago the Vietnamese government was trying to block Facebook (it was pretty easy to get around). Then they gave up on that and allowed everyone on Facebook, and now they are more concerned with dissent so I guess they are going to patrol social media. It's interesting that they have not decided to return to their previous policy of blocking Facebook. They have some pretty stran…
So is this really fundamentally different from the plans in EU and Germany? https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/call-appl... It's a dangerous illusion of modernity that you can just pick up a "high quality" newspaper or watch the news and understand what is happening in the world. Or even in your own region. One possible advantage of the total chaos of internet news is that the noise becomes so strong…
If so... why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they want to operate somewhere they're going to have to comply with local laws. What is your comprehensive alternate?
I heard someone mention once that Richard Stallman’s extremism is valuable (in part) because, by setting one end of the spectrum so far out, he moves the middle in his direction. By cowing to oppressive government demands, rather than support the side of the spectrum they were born on, Facebook and YouTube allow the middle to move towards oppression. In the same way that you do not reward a child’s tantrum with their…
Facebook and YouTube are happy to push their political views, so long as the consequences don't interfere too much with cash flow. As a secondary effect, they're happy to let you believe they're nonprofit-minded with profitable products -- and that's also good for business, as demonstrated in the negative by late-90s era Microsoft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somewhere along the line, they realised that deploying a bunch of KGB-style bots on Facebook was a hell of a lot more effective at controlling people than simply banning it. When dissent results in a crushing flood of mean-spirited trolls, who needs censorship?
You cannot remove ideas from the mind but you can flood it with so much misinformation that the ideas are basically destroyed. Effectively, people will "block Facebook" from themselves through self-censorship or completely writing off Facebook as a "poisoned well."
While I think the internet provides amazing and revolutionary communications options to the human race, Facebook is quite clearly not among them.
So is this really fundamentally different from the plans in EU and Germany? https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/call-appl... It's a dangerous illusion of modernity that you can just pick up a "high quality" newspaper or watch the news and understand what is happening in the world. Or even in your own region. One possible advantage of the total chaos of internet news is that the noise becomes so strong…
I wanted to clarify. Are you saying that drowning out reliable journalism with intentional disinformation on social media is a GOOD thing? If so... why?
London Metropolitan Police already has an Online Hate Speech Hub with varying reports of staff (5-20?). This is in spite of admissions they do not have enough resources to respond to property offenses.
They almost certainly get a lot of reports of hate speech, and it is actually an offence, so having some level of specialist response is probably justified. What's wrong is ignoring any category of crime where there are victims, property or otherwise. London it a multi-ethnic city and in order to stay peacefully that way the more extreme provocateurs of racial and religious hatred need to be silenced. Some background…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/19/paul-gascoig... is the concrete case to look at here. A tasteless, mean-spirited thing to say it may have been, but it should not have been a crime.
The charge seems ok to me, and he was not charged with hate speech. At the end of the day, 12 ordinary people came to the same conclusion, and so he is guilty. It's hardly the "big evil government cracking down on this nice man's (non existent) right to be racist". Perhaps in a one on one situation it wouldn't be a crime, but doing infront of a thousand people is clearly very bad and distressing. Perhaps it's down to…
So is this really fundamentally different from the plans in EU and Germany? https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/call-appl... It's a dangerous illusion of modernity that you can just pick up a "high quality" newspaper or watch the news and understand what is happening in the world. Or even in your own region. One possible advantage of the total chaos of internet news is that the noise becomes so strong…
I wanted to clarify. Are you saying that drowning out reliable journalism with intentional disinformation on social media is a GOOD thing? If so... why?