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

81–90 of 131 posts

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

#81

Post by AdrianB1 »

roadwarrior7822 wrote: post #18
bennysonething wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really see no problem with states demanding that their censorship laws apply world wide?

Did I say that? I don't think so. I see a problem in a generalization of the kind done in the title of the article. Facebook is not "the Internet". The Austrian court rule does not apply to "The Internet" at all. It applies to Facebook and Facebook only. If someone published the same content on another platform then the court would have to rule again. I see the real problem in Platforms like Facebook becoming the onl…

Facebook is not Internet, that is right. But the decision that applies to Facebook can apply to anything on Internet within the reach of the Austrian state and, piece by piece, that means almost the entire Internet. Saying it is just a Facebook incident is very short sighted, many people could not care less about FB.

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

#82

Post by lopmotr »

dane-pgp wrote: post #73
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…

> Then it becomes a race to the bottom indeed. The article used that wording, "a classic risk of a race to the bottom", but it doesn't feel entirely accurate to me. A classic example of a race to the bottom is when jurisdictions compete to attract businesses by lowering their corporation tax rates and regulations. The end result would be zero taxes and zero regulations (unless a country offered a negative tax rate or…

Is a tax or regulation incentive race to the bottom really a bad thing? The residents of those jurisdictions that end up without much tax income and the externalities of the lax regulations so they would suffer and pressure their government to increase the tax and make the regulations stricter. Eventually, it should reach an equilibrium where those things are "fair" as determined by all the participants in the market. Jurisdictions would also have the ability to tax or ban imports from places they don't like. Maybe this is too much of a libertarian view? It seems to be the default state of the world though. What are the alternatives besides something oppressive like using military power to prevent other countries from taxing their citizens too little?

Did Washington residents really prefer not to have Boeing at all rather than the tax-incentivized Boing they got? Wasn't it up to them in how they voted? Sometimes they do reject it, like how New York rejected Amazon.

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

#83

Post by AdrianB1 »

Glavnokoman wrote: post #6

So you are not concerned about massive Facebook censoring but is really worried about Austrian court decision which apparently takes 3 years per case? To be clear I am not saying there is no problem, I am saying the Austrian court decision is really the least of it. But honestly enabling any psycho to shout whatever for the whole world to hear is also a problem.

This is a red herring, just because FB is arguably doing bad things it does not mean we should accept other actors to do bad things.

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

#84

Post by notimetorelax »

avhon1 wrote: post #78
legulere wrote: post #60

No it doesn’t. It just means if you offer a service in a country, you have to follow its laws. The problem is that we have huge multinational companies centralizing the internet.

If I host my own website in the United States and post writing which is non-protected speech in Australia, might I be required to block Australian IP addresses from accessing it, or even to remove it altogether? Even though I don't have any Australian presence, my content is available in Australia, which might meet a standard for offering a service in Australia. I know this is not what this ruling is about, but it do…

This seems symmetrical to me to all the cases where EU copyright violators or varying US national security threats would get extradited to the US for a trial.

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

#85

Post by AdrianB1 »

Logical exercise:

1. If it happened to FB it can happen to anyone else, especially to small companies or people with less financial power to fight in court. It means it can apply to the entire Internet presence in Austria.

2. If any country can do such a ruling, then the entire Internet (see #1) is either abiding to all rules, being reduced to almost zero, or cut out extreme countries. This means Austria should be excluded from Internet? In the end Internet interlinks come from neighboring countries and an Austrian court cannot force them to connect the country to the rest of the world.

Not very sound logic, but the conclusion is quite scary to me.

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

#86

Post by lopmotr »

puszczyk wrote: post #24
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.

Omg are you serious? Do you have any good things to say about NK political or judicial system? Would you defend Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia the same way?

The correct person to ask would be a patriotic citizen of one of those countries. People are usually biased towards their own system and have trouble even conceptualizing the motivations behind radically different ones, especially when they don't even try because they've already internalized the belief that they're automatically bad. But the people who supported those systems had their own experiences motivations and in many cases it did work out well for them compared to the alternatives or what came before.

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

#87

Post by blacksmith_tb »

ben_w wrote: post #80
tedunangst wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are several US based sites which allow nipple posting, if that's your thing.

There is a big difference between “treated as porn” versus “this part of anatomy is specially evolved to be inserted into the mouth of an infant, so we don’t care if you show pictures of that exact scenario”.

I agree bans on images of nursing are absurd, but I am not sure you can make an appeal to evolution - genitals also are 'specially evolved' but also not postable in many places...

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

#88

Post by naniwaduni »

save_ferris wrote: post #55
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has there been another Western democracy more tested and compared to Orwell's 1984 in the last 5 years than the US? None of those people are in jail. And that regime, despite its best efforts, is being peacefully removed from power. America is the world’s oldest [EDIT: large, old] extant democracy. I wouldn’t lightly consider toying with something so basic as free speech. Several European and Asian democracies are…

> America is the world’s oldest [EDIT: large, old] extant democracy. Nothing about our history guarantees our future as a democracy, this is hot hand fallacy at its finest. If there's one thing that's consistent across human history, civilizations always fail at some point. > I wouldn’t lightly consider toying with something so basic as free speech. Several European and Asian democracies are already teetering towards…

> hot hand fallacy at its finest.

Interesting choice of analogy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_hand#Recent_research_in_su...

Hot hand "fallacy" is only fallacious if cross-event outcomes are unrelated. Back in reality, neither hot hand nor reverse gambler's are actually fallacious.

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

#89

Post by lopmotr »

avhon1 wrote: post #78
legulere wrote: post #60

No it doesn’t. It just means if you offer a service in a country, you have to follow its laws. The problem is that we have huge multinational companies centralizing the internet.

If I host my own website in the United States and post writing which is non-protected speech in Australia, might I be required to block Australian IP addresses from accessing it, or even to remove it altogether? Even though I don't have any Australian presence, my content is available in Australia, which might meet a standard for offering a service in Australia. I know this is not what this ruling is about, but it do…

Australia can and will block your website locally. That's the pressure for you to conform to their laws. You don't have to but they don't have to let their citizens access it either. If Facebook ignored other country's laws, they would find themselves excluded entirely, such as has already happened in places like China.

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

#90

Post by Sniffnoy »

avhon1 wrote: post #78
legulere wrote: post #60

No it doesn’t. It just means if you offer a service in a country, you have to follow its laws. The problem is that we have huge multinational companies centralizing the internet.

If I host my own website in the United States and post writing which is non-protected speech in Australia, might I be required to block Australian IP addresses from accessing it, or even to remove it altogether? Even though I don't have any Australian presence, my content is available in Australia, which might meet a standard for offering a service in Australia. I know this is not what this ruling is about, but it do…

Minor note: You mean Austria, not Australia.
Post reply on HN