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

EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content

blog.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 222 posts

Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content

#101

Post by rhizome »

topspin wrote: post #56
rhizome wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you stand on falsely claiming "fire" in a crowded movie theater?

I'm old enough to remember when conservative pundits would pose similar challenges when discussing which forms of contemporary music needed to be outlawed. So where I stand is that I've learned to associate anyone offering the fire in a crowded theater argument as another advocate of the prevailing moral panic.

Well, then let's take your favorite other-example! My point is not to relitigate the "fire" standard or any individual case, but to point out that

The point of the principle of free speech is not that all speech is beneficial but that we can’t possibly trust any agency with the power to decide what is and isn’t.

those agencies already exist! So, in order to execute GP's preferences, what agencies shall be eliminated? I find that tends to focus the debate and reveal the parts that are based in reality and those that aren't.

Perhaps I should stay away from recognizable cases or be sure they aren't lightning rods, knowing that people are going to get hung up on the specific example. It's hard to do that, though.

Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content

#102

Post by fzeroracer »

meowface wrote: post #94
fzeroracer wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to disagree. A lot of the time in America we tend to believe we have an absolute right to freedom of speech, but the reality is that our rights to speech are already tied to our race, sexuality, etc. A black man mouthing off to a police officer for example would be very likely putting himself in a dangerous situation and anything the officer does would end up 'justified' in the court of law. Or you'll be arres…

I do fully agree and understand that freedom of speech by statute is not the same as freedom of speech in practice. But you at least have to start at the level of the laws. If your laws don't provide for freedom of speech, you're certainly not going to get it in practice. A legal framework for freedom of speech is not a sufficient condition for achieving it, but it is a necessary one. And the issues you mention happe…

It's easy to say we should just 'tackle freedom and liberty issues as they arise' if you're not the person getting shot when you express your rights to freedom of speech. You're right in that you can express yourself online, but I think that's bit of a rather sad point when minorities have to censure themselves in order to not enflame the powers that be.

And even that's not particularly true either, considering how the US has placed an uneven focus on Black Identity Extremists over the group actually causing real and daily harm to individuals. Which goes back to my point of freedom of speech not really existing in the US: It's more acceptable to be a white supremacist (and in turn, your rights to 'freedom of speech' strongly defended) and express extremely violent views under the protection of the police and government.

Which is why you see an increasingly strong reaction to any form of white supremacy.

Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content

#103

Post by rhizome »

mjevans wrote: post #34
rhizome wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you stand on falsely claiming "fire" in a crowded movie theater?

Depends on how false false is. If someone actually believes there to be a fire that's one thing. If someone is clearly doing it with intent to cause harm to others, then that's a crime and they should be charged with such; after the fact. I'm against installing verbal filters on everyone just in case someone might shout 'fire' in a crowded place with intent to cause harm.

If someone actually believes there to be a fire that's one thing

You don't have to wonder, there are long defined and continuously refined standards in operation. But it's irrelevant to the thread, so we don't need to detail them here.

Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content

#105

Post by natch »

jdietrich wrote: post #14
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #2

It's very sad to see the path the EU has chosen to follow in regards to speech and the free flow of ideas.

It's a path that pre-dates the EU. We're a crowded continent with a huge amount of diversity and a long and bitter history of war. We have learned through bitter experience that, while free speech is a precious right, it is also an extremely dangerous one in the wrong circumstances. Germans in particular are acutely aware of the disastrous consequences of allowing incitement to go unchallenged. Free speech is not unc…

It’s debatable whether the problem in Europe was too much free speech. Some would argue the problem was suppression of free speech.

Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content

#106

Post by fzeroracer »

deogeo wrote: post #100
fzeroracer wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to disagree. A lot of the time in America we tend to believe we have an absolute right to freedom of speech, but the reality is that our rights to speech are already tied to our race, sexuality, etc. A black man mouthing off to a police officer for example would be very likely putting himself in a dangerous situation and anything the officer does would end up 'justified' in the court of law. Or you'll be arres…

By that logic, no-one has any rights anywhere, because you can always find some incident where the law was subverted or abused by the powerful. But I would dearly like to hear how freedom of speech is used to suppress minorities. Note that in my own country (or the region that became my country), censorship was used to suppress the growing independence movement. A movement of a minority of the population. Perhaps if…

An easy way to examine this issue is how rallies, protests etc are treated differently depending on their racial origins.

For example, when a city attempted to block the march of the Unite the Right rally, they were met with a strong resistance under their right to freedom of speech. Yet Black Lives Matter was treated with far more disdain and had a considerably stronger and disproportionate response to their activism. Freedom of Speech can be a bludgeon to allow movements filled with hatred to further their own causes, while it's conveniently ignored for minorities or said to be 'at the wrong place'.

This is why the ACLU has started to shift their position on an absolutist view of freedom of speech. Because in defending Unite the Right they directly caused harm to minority populations.

Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content

#107

Post by rhizome »

ghda wrote: post #48
rhizome wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you stand on falsely claiming "fire" in a crowded movie theater?

This has always struck me as a weird sort of edge case, because the hypothetical situation is pretty disconnected from all the other situations where people might seek restrictions on free speech that it doesn’t really matter which way I go. If I say that yes, I suppose we can carve out some sort of exception for people who directly cause harm to life and limb by falsely proclaiming the existence of immediate dangers…

There are other small and well established edge-case restrictions on free speech I am willing to accept, mind you, eg market manipulation or giving false statements to police. But I don’t see the classic fire-in-theatre one as being relevant to anything.

This contradicts the point you were making before, which I was responding to, where no agency is qualified to establish limits, so I guess this part of the thread is over.

HOWEVER

refuse to carve out the exception and accept the risk of the occasional unnecessary evacuation

You're still hung up on theaters, not to mention a whole whack of cherry-picked hyper-specific scenarios. Look into the Hillsborough Disaster some time. Or here's an on-point example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster ...would that be no fault of anybody in the free-speech society you are advocating? Maybe pulling a fire alarm would have to be established as a form of speech first, but I bet that could be done.

Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content

#108

Post by mschuster91 »

filoleg wrote: post #66
_Schizotypy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia banned drug information? What sort of information, like pharmacology?

It is implied that the parent comment was talking about illegal drugs. Interesting side fact: unlike in english, there are two completely distinct words for illegal and legal drugs in russian language. Which a lot of times makes it easier to spot russian-speaking posters, as they tend to refer to illegal drugs as just "drugs", while referring to legal ones using other more specific terms, like "pills" or something el…

> Interesting side fact: unlike in english, there are two completely distinct words for illegal and legal drugs in russian language.

German is the same: "Drogen" = illegal drugs like cannabis, "Medizin" = medicine. For Germans learning English, "drug store" may sound confusing until one learns about the various distinct meanings of the word "drug" in English.

Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content

#109

Post by matt4077 »

Essentially, this is the DMCA for terrorist content. With a somewhat short time requirement driven by some recent events (New Zealand being the most prominent, but not first).

Here's a link to the current EU draft: https://www.laquadrature.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019...

(It's a document highlighting the latest changes from committee, making it somewhat hard to read but not less interesting)

I'm not sure if it's fair to compare notices from the current program, which sends out notices without any legal force, to what this envisages. The directive sets out a process and requirements for notices, including detailed reasoning for each. It also specifically mentions avenues to protest (and sue) in cases of disagreements.

I'm no particular fan of this for both practical and philosophical reasons. If youtube had invested in some sort of oversight that prevented this kiwi neckbeard from live-streaming his massacre of innocents, the vote this week would probably have ended differently.

Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content

#110

Post by manigandham »

w1nst0nsm1th wrote: post #97
smsm42 wrote: post #26

Funny how exactly EU follows the path Russia has recently taken. After Russia passed the law that banned online material promoting terrorist content, suicide, drug information and harm to children, and so on, there was an avalanche of false takedown requests and misidentifications, including attempting to block Wikipedia, ban Bhagavad Gita commentary (yes, really) and many more anecdotes that sound funny unless you l…

I think we’re still a long way before we reach the excess of Russia regarding free speech et subordination of democratic values.

How long? It's always quicker than you think once you're sliding down the slope.
Post reply on HN