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

A court ruling in Austria could censor the internet worldwide

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 131 posts

Re: A court ruling in Austria could censor the internet worldwide

#61

Post by TrevorLee »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #59
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obviously no one wants to give North Korea any say about what can and what cannot be published in the web. But between sovereign, free, democratic societies, different standards might exist. The problem is that whether a country can enforce its speech restrictions against outsiders has very little to do with how much we agree with them. If you don't want to follow the law of North Korea, you'll lose access to the N…

> But what happens when it's China? What happens is US companies quickly capitulate and start appeasing the chinese authorities! They still get access to the american market if they sacrifice core western and american values like freedom of speech and privacy but they lose the growing chinese market if they refuse to do so. It's an easy decision for them.

Lol. Companies are already “capitulating” for the US market. Nike will run ads for Colin Kaepernick but then use questionable ethics in their production line. Of course we as consumers eat all that up.

Why do you care if Nike wants to put on a fake face for their brand in China? They are already doing the same thing here and probably several other places.

Re: A court ruling in Austria could censor the internet worldwide

#62

Post by PicassoCTs »

choeger wrote: post #3

That's quite the problem we are in, as a global society. Obviously no one wants to give North Korea any say about what can and what cannot be published in the web. But between sovereign, free, democratic societies, different standards might exist. And if you want to do business with, say, the EU as, say, a US tech company you cannot expect US law and commons to apply everywhere. Then it becomes a race to the bottom i…

Well, i think what will happen , is the implementation of adapter classes, eh companies, that represent and adapt a concept locally - and are for the local law responsible, while formally independent from the multi-national mother ship.

Re: A court ruling in Austria could censor the internet worldwide

#64

Post by generalizations »

victorbstan wrote: post #63

Free speech without universal free education is a mistake.

> universal

Depends on who gets to choose the curriculum...don't assume it's people you like or fundamentally agree with.

And, if you do put hard limits on the sort of things that should be taught - and from what perspective - then it really sounds like you're saying that in order to have free speech, people should be taught to agree with you.

Edit: to be clear, I like both ideas. But coupling them, saying we shouldn't have one without the other, is dangerous.

Re: A court ruling in Austria could censor the internet worldwide

#65

Post by sudosysgen »

dsr_ wrote: post #15
YarickR2 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your statement about North Korea strikes me as a very discriminatory, as it implies your judgement about NK is somehow objective, and it's political system is a condition justifying them being denied equal treatment in various situations.

No, their judgement about NK is subjective but widely shared. It is perfectly reasonable to discriminate against political systems that you disagree with. It's pretty much the basis of international diplomacy, such as it is: a system of bargaining and coercion that usually prevents outright war.

The basis of international diplomacy isn't discrimination against systems you disagree with, it's about getting most power and resources possible.

Caring about political systems is just spin used as an excuse.

Indeed, the US at the same time went hard after Japan whose political system (even though in practice is barely it at all democratic) it created, but courted the Chinese one-party state.

The rest is just rhetoric.

Re: A court ruling in Austria could censor the internet worldwide

#66

Post by sudosysgen »

alpaca128 wrote: post #54
pjc50 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but forcing people to replace certain words in their communication only differs from Orwell's dystopia in the size of the dictionary. It's dystopian that people can't hurl the N-word at each other?

But they absolutely can hurl the N-word at each other. It is frowned upon for good reason, but it's not illegal. What I was talking about was the proposal to actually force people to refer to others by their preferred pronouns. I am not against new pronouns, but the government should not enforce such a change in how people communicate. Language evolves naturally with society, not the other way around. Also there's en…

In my country, you're not allowed to use the N-Word on purpose as an insult.

In Canada, you're not allowed to misgender people on purpose to harass them. You can not use their pronouns at all, or you can use wrong pronouns by accident, but you can't use someone's wrong pronouns repeatedly on purpose to harass them.

It's not anymore compelled speech than disallowing people from using the n word for the purpose of harassment.

Re: A court ruling in Austria could censor the internet worldwide

#67

Post by hahaiscjaaka »

roadwarrior7822 wrote: post #4

The title should be rephrased to "A Court Ruling in Austria Could Censor Internet Platforms Worldwide". The Ruling applies to Facebook as a legal person and has no direct effect on other publishers. A contrary example: The Gutenberg Project was ruled illegal (due to a select number of books still in copyright) in Germany and is blocking German IPs ever since, until the issue is resolved. Here the company has chosen a…

What makes you think FB won’t withdraw Austria’s market? It is tiny and globally irrelevant

Re: A court ruling in Austria could censor the internet worldwide

#68

Post by throwaway2245 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #10
save_ferris wrote: post #7

> The case started with an April 2016 Facebook post, in which a user shared an article featuring a photo of Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek, then-chair of Austria’s Green Party, along with commentary labeling her a “lousy traitor,” “corrupt oaf,” and member of a “fascist party,” apparently in response to her immigration policies. This is core, protected speech in the United States. But it was deemed defamation under Austria…

I just don't see the equivalence here. I agree that platforms have a responsibility not to enable harassment and death threats, but calling a politician "traitor", "corrupt", "fascist" is neither of those things. What are you supposed to do when a politician is corrupt or fascist, if you aren't allowed to talk about it?

I closely associate calling someone a "traitor" with a threat of death.

Its history up to the modern day makes it equivalent to a statement that your opponent should be killed for their opposition. National politicians will certainly see that as a specific threat.

Jo Cox (UK Member of Parliament) was murdered in 2016 by someone repeating claims that she was a "traitor".

Re: A court ruling in Austria could censor the internet worldwide

#69

Post by hahaiscjaaka »

bennysonething wrote: post #36
eznzt wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People here don't because the attitude here is "it's Facebook so fuck them".

Which I don't really understand, it's an attempt at global censorship, that's the concern. But as it's a ruling against Facebook the general impression I get is casual dismissal

Because people here are thinking based on principles and values shared by the majority. They are thinking based on elitism that thinks highly of itself for disliking facebook. The same happens in US politics, where people disregard the “common good” (you know, healthcare) because “muh freedom trump good obama bad”

Re: A court ruling in Austria could censor the internet worldwide

#70

Post by [deleted] »

zxcmx wrote: post #28

Users everywhere have had to put up with U.S law for a long time. The laws and norms of the USA are more or less "fully baked in". Try posting a nipple or copyrighted track, for example. If Facebook had come from a different place, all songs and body bits might be Ok but perhaps discussion of government would be banned. I can't tell if that would actually be a better facebook than the one we got.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN