Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don’t push back on the process, we push back on the principle. 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. The “process” probably has no more flaws than any other process designed and implemented by mortals, it just goes to demonstrate why the whole censor-the-internet idea is wrong.
Where do you stand on falsely claiming "fire" in a crowded movie theater?
EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content
201–210 of 222 posts
Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
Germany is ruled by liberal conservatives for well over a decade. While there is some maliciousness and desire to expand control, I see mostly the lashing out in an attempt to retain the control the state used to have. The internet brings an unprecedented amount of freedom, and that weakens the state. Where previously you could wiretap the phone of a criminal, today you have no way to read his whatsapp. They don't kn…
Just as a reminder, the ruling party, specifically our chancellor Merkel, said: "the Internet is Neuland (uncharted territory) for all of us". And that was only 6 years ago.
Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content
#203Earlier 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…
Another thought occurred to me, can free speech survive speech that attacks free speech? If so, there's nothing to worry about. If not, then you enter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance where speech arguing against the freedom of speech must be banned and we agree there must be limits on speech to protect itself.
Free Speech does just fine against other speech. It's administrative dirty tricks on campus, and the use of corporate force through de-platforming which creates a de facto regime of top-down censorship -- which we have to worry about in 2019. Noam Chomsky called such behavior out in the 80's in the media of the day. Such behavior fits the "propaganda model" described in Manufacturing Consent.
In 2019, it's not the government we have to worry about in terms of free speech. It's powerful corporations and the established media misinforming people and stacking the deck.
Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content
#204A clever circumvention of innocent until proven guilty - make disobedience carry huge legal risk. You must obey orders (takedown 'requests'), not backed by any court. If you fail, and one turns out to be legitimate, you get punished. Imagine if you had to stop doing business with anyone reported as a thief (but not convicted).
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…
Heck, some things have become so heated that there can only be one right answer, ex: global warming. If you dare voice anything other than slavish obedience to this notion. If you DARE question anything about it - from the models/assumptions used to the moralizing - then you are branded an outcast and castigated.
Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content
#205Earlier 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.
The overall point is that we need to defend our ideas through speech and not through IG/FB censoring anti-vaxx speech.
Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your facts argue against your point. In your words, a city , the government itself, tried to block the "Unite the Right" rally. Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter "was treated with far more disdain"(presumably by private actors exercising their own freedom of speech - not government actors?). It sounds like there was plenty of disdain for the "Unite the Right" rally as well - I can't imagine what else would lead a city to…
No, my facts argue in favor of my point. Which is that the policing apparatus in America functions to serve those that are already in power. That was the point of my comparison, because white supremacist rallies tend to be treated very well by the police with violence committed by the rally members allowed to go unchecked, while others are met with immediate violence by the state and a zealous show of force from the…
What makes you believe censorship laws won't also serve those in power?
Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content
#207I could see a TPB-style federated proxy service emerging for archived URLs that are unduly censored.
Why does it need to be federated? Why not something p2p like IPFS or just torrents?
Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you know where that first term comes from? It's strongly related to the second.
Are you suggesting the term 'conspiracy theorist' is somehow a new thing tied to the emergence of 'fake news'?
Consider how logically meaningless the term "conspiracy theory" is. A great deal of US law is specifically written to address conspiracies.
They are forms of psychological warfare.
Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content
#209Earlier 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…
Thought Police from 1984.
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
"If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves."
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals. ... Both publicly and privately you were warned that it was ‘not done’. What you said might possibly be true, but it was ‘inopportune’ and played into the hands of this or that reactionary interest."
"... there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought."
"These people don’t see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you. Make a habit of imprisoning Fascists without trial, and perhaps the process won’t stop at Fascists."
(Ironically, the preface itself was soft-censored in the original publication of "Animal Farm", and it took 25 more years for it to see print.)
Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content
#210Earlier 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…
Another thought occurred to me, can free speech survive speech that attacks free speech? If so, there's nothing to worry about. If not, then you enter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance where speech arguing against the freedom of speech must be banned and we agree there must be limits on speech to protect itself.