81–90 of 97 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
France is a relatively small market?
France is a medium-sized market, roughly equivalent to California—much smaller than the US, China or Japan, but larger than many countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
France is a medium-sized market, roughly equivalent to California—much smaller than the US, China or Japan, but larger than many countries.
Unless the market size for a population is not proportional to that population, then I'm missing something. France is ~67 million people. California is ~40 million people. There are ~330 million US citizens. So France is ~double California and ~ a fifth of the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, But this broad "yielding a kind of wanting-to-sound-objective argumentation to harm them" is where the devil is. I can consider the downvotes "hate speech" because they were targeted at me as a "protected minority," and it does not consider my emotions. I felt very depressed about it, and HN did not make accommodations to make me feel safe expressing it without any prejudice. And I demand it to be removed. How a…
But the first example is just unspecific, and attributing the downvotes to some reason is difficult without real replies. And the example of master/slave is at most insensitivity, not at all hate speech. Hate speech is really more characterized than that. Besides true insults and slurs, those are for example the theories that make some minorities the cause of societal problems by blunt reasoning, often using abusive…
That is hate speech, can you see? You can't see it because you are privileged.
That is the reason only me as a "protected minority" can relate and say what is or not hate speech against us.
You simply can't understand our life experience.
--> by simple "twist" I can bend your intent and make you a hater
Does the Law have space for replies? Don't think so. Who will decide a reply is good enough?
"Besides true insults and slurs, those are for example the theories that make some minorities the cause of societal problems by blunt reasoning"
I think it is more of "think about the children" slippery slope.
You sell it about a "good excuse" then later abuse it.
The countries that seems to implement it are doing it most in a way to curb criticism to some govt policies than protecting "groups". Then every criticism about govt policy is "hate speech".
E.g: govt decides to give iPhones to X group.
If you complain that will be "hate speech"?
Again this is very lax and prone to abuse.
We as good intended and polite can see it has to be more specific but the "govt" does not.
Are we smart than people that make laws everydays? I don't think so.
Then I rather not have it.
Better hate people for what they think/say than for what they hide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless the market size for a population is not proportional to that population, then I'm missing something. France is ~67 million people. California is ~40 million people. There are ~330 million US citizens. So France is ~double California and ~ a fifth of the US.
And car companies comply with California's emissions laws rather than miss out on California sales, so it seems like "pulling out" is unlikely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not constitutional for the US to make it illegal to remove content. Regardless of why you would remove it. The 1st Amendment cuts both ways there - you can't be punished for removing something from your billboard. That's your freedom as a US entity to decide what you express. The reasoning behind why you removed content (a violation of your website's terms, a request from a foreign government, contractual oblig…
They can certainly make it illegal to pay any fines, though. Also, >you can't be punished for removing something from your billboard. Sure you can, you can just be treated as a "curator" rather than a "publisher" and thus liable for your curated collection. That's the whole point of S. 230, after all.
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
"Information content provider" is:
> The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service
In fact, the point of S. 230 was to allow sites to block and filter offensive material without that making them liable for the material that their filtering or blocking did not remove. There's a decent history of how this came about on Wikipedia [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who decides what needs to be censored? How do we ensure a fair process if we could be silenced for just questioning the censors? The hate speech slope is slippery and unscrupulous politicians will always want to interfere.
Anything you cannot biologically change is hate speech. It’s not complicated and it’s objective.
How long until internet companies decide that relatively small and litigious markets aren't worth their time and simply ignore laws like this? If every country with an economy the size of 1 or 2 large US states start making up their own censorship laws and trying to force companies to enforce them, at some point this causes huge inefficiencies. I can see two end states to this: 1. If the censoring country has enough…
Hasn't the same thing happened with respect to copyright in the other direction? Any online business with proper revenue already needs to abide by laws to take down copyrighted material, and the same arguments had been made when enforcement of them became a thing. I don't see that the burden with respect to hate speech is fundamentally different, arguably even lower.
How long until internet companies decide that relatively small and litigious markets aren't worth their time and simply ignore laws like this? If every country with an economy the size of 1 or 2 large US states start making up their own censorship laws and trying to force companies to enforce them, at some point this causes huge inefficiencies. I can see two end states to this: 1. If the censoring country has enough…
There is a third possible 'end state', which is that each restrictive country with a large market ends up in a 'sandbox'. This could look a lot like the Great Firewall, but outsourced.
For example, Chinese services are still available beyond the firewall, just not catered to the average non-Chinese.
To the consumer, most don't care, for most purposes; c.f. TikTok's popularity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the first example is just unspecific, and attributing the downvotes to some reason is difficult without real replies. And the example of master/slave is at most insensitivity, not at all hate speech. Hate speech is really more characterized than that. Besides true insults and slurs, those are for example the theories that make some minorities the cause of societal problems by blunt reasoning, often using abusive…
"But the first example is just unspecific, and attributing the downvotes to some reason is difficult without real replies." That is hate speech, can you see? You can't see it because you are privileged . That is the reason only me as a "protected minority" can relate and say what is or not hate speech against us. You simply can't understand our life experience. --> by simple "twist" I can bend your intent and make yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless the market size for a population is not proportional to that population, then I'm missing something. France is ~67 million people. California is ~40 million people. There are ~330 million US citizens. So France is ~double California and ~ a fifth of the US.
And car companies comply with California's emissions laws rather than miss out on California sales, so it seems like "pulling out" is unlikely.