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

191–200 of 222 posts

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

#191

Post by SiempreViernes »

steve_taylor wrote: post #71
tastroder wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From their website it seems like they perform periodical "action days" where they sit down jointly with different groups and flag content on specific platforms. Might have been one of those.

If it’s urgent enough that websites have to comply within an hour, why on earth do they wait so long to make these requests in batches?

The one hour compliance is proposed legislation, not actual law. If the requirement makes it in I expect it would be for extraordinary cases at high traffic sites, like the new zeeland terrorist livestrem on youtube.

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

#192

Post by nejlika »

Carpetsmoker wrote: post #122
mirimir wrote: post #8

Hey, someone ought to start reporting EU sites as "terrorist content". Edit: Or better yet, report major MPAA members for copyright infringement, using spoofed accounts for other major MPAA members :)

Wouldn't knowingly sending false reports be a misdemeanour, or even felony?

Then isn't sending reports without verifying their validity the same thing?

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

#193

Post by narag »

oarsinsync wrote: post #185
narag wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you're being downvoted. While the GP comment is total BS, what you wrote is simply the facts. There's nobody in jail for writing anything. The report is based on facts, but it goes overboard with the conclusions. Edit: the BS comment is by oarsinsync, so it should be GGP, sorry if that led to confusionl.

Apologies, I appear to have overstated things for sure. That said, satire against the police force lands you in court: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/07/satirical-arti... And tweeting can get you a suspended sentence (which got overturned on appeal, but didn't prevent the original conviction): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/01/spanish-studen... I did overstate things, but "total BS" doesn't se…

First of all, I'm opposed to that law. If it was up to me, it would be annihilated from existence.

Please understand that joining a few imprecisions, innocuous in isolation, the result is totally incorrect.

'Incorrect' would have been better than 'BS' indeed, sorry. The reason for verbal escalation is we have to see this kind of "imprecision" very often and it's not funny anymore.

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

#194

Post by ascendantlogic »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #163
ascendantlogic wrote: post #13

Politicians do not care about the ramifications of this. They only care about granting themselves power over who sees what when through the guise of combating hate speech, terrorism, child porn, etc. Posting a blog about this will change nothing.

So do you think none of those people actually care about combating hate speech, terrorism, child porn, etc? Or do you think they just see these things as usual tools to get power - and to what end exactly?

No, there are definitely people who care about those things and those are things that should definitely be cracked down on. But human nature always prevails and the power hungry always want more power. "Won't you think of the children" is sort of a punchline for any sort of barely-masked power grab legislation that has gone through in the last few decades.

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

#195

Post by fzeroracer »

PixyMisa wrote: post #167
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…

> 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. That would be illegal. > Or you'll be arrested if you laugh at someone powerful, like what happened with the Jeff Sessions incident That didn't happen. > The great irony of our rabid belief in freedom of speech is that it simply do…

Didn't happen? I provided you a link to the story of someone being arrested for laughing at Jeff Sessions.

You're going to have to expand on what you mean if you're going to say something didn't happen in the face of evidence that it did.

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

#196

Post by narag »

oarsinsync wrote: post #185
narag wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you're being downvoted. While the GP comment is total BS, what you wrote is simply the facts. There's nobody in jail for writing anything. The report is based on facts, but it goes overboard with the conclusions. Edit: the BS comment is by oarsinsync, so it should be GGP, sorry if that led to confusionl.

Apologies, I appear to have overstated things for sure. That said, satire against the police force lands you in court: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/07/satirical-arti... And tweeting can get you a suspended sentence (which got overturned on appeal, but didn't prevent the original conviction): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/01/spanish-studen... I did overstate things, but "total BS" doesn't se…

Oh, one more thing. Satire is a different thing than outright insult. Putting the insult in a cartoon makes no difference. The Guardian makes a good job mentioning the context, maybe because in the UK there're a libel laws.

Also in the other article correctly mention that the "rapper" was accused of death threats and asking terrorists to attack people. The guy is at large, thanks to certain terrorists haven country that happens to host EU institutions.

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

#197

Post by AnthonyMouse »

anon1385 wrote: post #169
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, am I being unclear or are the downvotes from anti-vaxxers? The anti-vaxxers send death threats to people who correct their erroneous claims. That's how you shut down reasoned discourse -- by having fervent zealots attack anyone who contradicts them. Obviously attacking people who disagree with you is the opposite of them having free speech. It suppresses the speech of anyone not willing to be subject to the thr…

You're getting downvoted because you're dangerously wrong. Yes some anti-vaxers send threats, but the idea that they have managed to silence the mainstream scientific opinion on vaccines is ludicrous. That information is widely available to everybody. I bet you can't find a single anti-vaxer who isn't aware of what the mainstream position on vaccine safety is. Being opposed to the orthodox position is a big part of t…

The way free speech works isn't that nobody is ever wrong, it's that the debate ultimately leads to the truth.

People who don't understand science don't trust random scientists, and there is a reason for that -- anyone can put on a lab coat and say whatever they want. You have to consider the source and actually read the research and determine if it's credible. Most people don't have the training for that, and many of the others don't have the time, but that's not a problem as long as you trust someone who does. Your brother in law is a chemist and you trust his opinion; he trusts the CDC's. When your trusted chemist and your trusted nurse disagree, they get together and hash it out and if they're both being reasonable then one ultimately convinces the other.

The problem comes when you introduce a culture of attacking rather than debating people. Because you're not going to silence the CDC, but you may very well silence the brother in law, and then you create a group of people who don't trust anyone providing the true facts because everyone within their in-group is being silenced.

Which is why, despite a century of various fringe anti-vax misinformation, it's only now, in the climate of filter bubbles and deplatforming, that enough people believe it to compromise herd immunity and allow diseases like measles to stage a comeback.

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

#198

Post by stcredzero »

minikites wrote: post #186
narag wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The merits of truth aren't guaranteed to win this battle. Winning a battle is an unfortunate metaphor for public debate or democracy in general. After all, what we want is to discuss options without violence. Someone has to win elections, right. But that doesn't make the losing option wrong, just not as popular. There are many options that I consider wrong, or very wrong, that are "winning" right now. I accept that s…

>After all, what we want is to discuss options without violence. One side of this debate is inherently violent. People are dying from easily preventable diseases. >What I find scary is what stcredzero points: that many ideas "win" by despicable means. Anti-vaccination beliefs are already winning by despicable means because those with virtuous means choose to do nothing.

One side of this debate is inherently violent. People are dying from easily preventable diseases.

It's dangerous to call someone having a natural biological reaction to a pathogen, "violent." That label should be reserved for people taking intentional physical action to do other people harm. Anti-vaxxers simply don't fit that category. One can argue that they are being irresponsible. Vaccines, viruses, and diseases are all tangible and physical. It's entirely reasonable to make laws and regulations around those things.

If we start saying that people having ideas is "violent," then we are creating "thoughtcrime" and opening the door to incredible levels of tyranny.

Anti-vaccination beliefs are already winning by despicable means because those with virtuous means choose to do nothing.

As far as I can tell, anti-vax beliefs are thoroughly discredited.

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

#199

Post by stcredzero »

anon1385 wrote: post #169
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, am I being unclear or are the downvotes from anti-vaxxers? The anti-vaxxers send death threats to people who correct their erroneous claims. That's how you shut down reasoned discourse -- by having fervent zealots attack anyone who contradicts them. Obviously attacking people who disagree with you is the opposite of them having free speech. It suppresses the speech of anyone not willing to be subject to the thr…

You're getting downvoted because you're dangerously wrong. Yes some anti-vaxers send threats, but the idea that they have managed to silence the mainstream scientific opinion on vaccines is ludicrous. That information is widely available to everybody. I bet you can't find a single anti-vaxer who isn't aware of what the mainstream position on vaccine safety is. Being opposed to the orthodox position is a big part of t…

Yes some anti-vaxers send threats, but the idea that they have managed to silence the mainstream scientific opinion on vaccines is ludicrous.

I don't read what he said that way at all. When one uses force instead of trying to convince, one has admitted to losing the argument.

You are trying to push your own ideological position (more "free speech" is good and will solve the problem) onto an issue, and it doesn't fit what actually happened at all

You're strawmanning here. Free speech is good and did win the argument. Your conceit is that "solving the problem" being the same as "winning the argument" is a false equivalence. Solving the problem is something else entirely.

No one in 2019 publicly defends drunk driving. It still happens. There are southern California communities of explicit white supremacists, but mainstream society shuns them. Those are examples of groups who have thoroughly lost the argument. However, "solving the problem" doesn't mean that the state and industrial complex gets to enforce their will over the populace to the point of creating "thoughtcrime."

I don't want to live in that kind of society. (Tired of having to argue? Looking for a solution which is final?)

I do think that exposing others to pathogens and damaging herd immunity is quantifiable, and we can pass laws around that. It's much preferable to legislate the tangible and physically measurable, instead of creating "thoughtcrime."

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

#200

Post by stcredzero »

minikites wrote: post #112
stcredzero wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ability to smear through accusation, without proof, without due process, and without the presumption of innocence has always been the province of tyrants in power and the tool of would-be tyrants trying to gain power. Those who accuse and un-person are the villains throughout history. In the past, people were smeared as sexually loose, as belonging to the "wrong" religion, or as having the "wrong" sexual orientat…

>A free society is one, where people and ideas can show up, be given a chance, and stand or fall on their character and merits. How do you square this with the recent surge in flat Earth and anti-vaccination beliefs? The merits of truth aren't guaranteed to win this battle.

How do you square this with the recent surge in flat Earth and anti-vaccination beliefs?

People should be free to believe what they want to believe. That's a pretty fundamental level of freedom.

The merits of truth aren't guaranteed to win this battle.

There's no guarantee of that. Once the argument is won, legislation can follow.

Post reply on HN