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

‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

news.umich.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 645 posts

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#21

Post by bootcampwhere »

thursday0987 wrote: post #9
bendbro wrote: post #7

It is extremely dangerous to our democracy to have unlimited free speech. 1. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. 2. Corporations aren't the government, so the first amendment doesn't apply. 3. Haven't your heard of "fire in a movie theater"? 4. Hate speech IS violence. 5. Reading disinformation from un-check-marked, non-fact-checked sources is anti scientific. Since all scientists have check marks, we…

> Hate speech IS violence. speech is not violence, no matter how many times this lie is repeated.

But, what if it hurts my feelings :(

/s

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#22

Post by cbozeman »

bendbro wrote: post #7

It is extremely dangerous to our democracy to have unlimited free speech. 1. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. 2. Corporations aren't the government, so the first amendment doesn't apply. 3. Haven't your heard of "fire in a movie theater"? 4. Hate speech IS violence. 5. Reading disinformation from un-check-marked, non-fact-checked sources is anti scientific. Since all scientists have check marks, we…

Posts like these are dangerous because there's simply not enough people that realize you're being facetious.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#23

Post by cbozeman »

thursday0987 wrote: post #9
bendbro wrote: post #7

It is extremely dangerous to our democracy to have unlimited free speech. 1. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. 2. Corporations aren't the government, so the first amendment doesn't apply. 3. Haven't your heard of "fire in a movie theater"? 4. Hate speech IS violence. 5. Reading disinformation from un-check-marked, non-fact-checked sources is anti scientific. Since all scientists have check marks, we…

> Hate speech IS violence. speech is not violence, no matter how many times this lie is repeated.

I love how you're being downvoted for what is obviously and objectively true.

I'd wager that there's a not insignificant group of Americans that actually think hate speech is illegal (hint: it isn't).

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#24

Post by paxys »

Fits well with the current wave of authoritarianism/nationalism that has taken root all over the world. A free and open internet represents everything that a government that wishes complete control over its people would be afraid of.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#25

Post by Cerealkiller050 »

bendbro wrote: post #7

It is extremely dangerous to our democracy to have unlimited free speech. 1. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. 2. Corporations aren't the government, so the first amendment doesn't apply. 3. Haven't your heard of "fire in a movie theater"? 4. Hate speech IS violence. 5. Reading disinformation from un-check-marked, non-fact-checked sources is anti scientific. Since all scientists have check marks, we…

This post is gonna be a good litmus test to see how many people read this comment to the end before they start attacking their keyboards

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#26

Post by neximo64 »

Emmanuel Macron has been getting newspapers to pull down their articles in the past few weeks (the FT usually never removes articles but they did too). I bet barely anyone notices.

Interesting that politico sent one straight to print today without an online article first.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#27

Post by ogre_magi »

chrisco255 wrote: post #16
thursday0987 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hate speech IS violence. speech is not violence, no matter how many times this lie is repeated.

This year I've heard that both speech and silence is violence...so you can't win either way with some people.

Unless you say exactly what they want ;)

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#28

Post by vinni2 »

> ISPs in Norway are imposing what the study calls “extremely aggressive” blocking across a broader range of content, including human rights websites like Human Rights Watch and online dating sites like Match.com.

I have no trouble accessing hrw.org and match.com in Norway. I wonder is it specific to some ISPs? I also couldn’t find any law that was passed to block certain pornogrpahic websites in Wikipedia [1] and I don’t know where else to look.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_Norway

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#29

Post by cambalache »

grezql wrote: post #19
cambalache wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let the laws and courts determine that. Not Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey.

Im totally against Social medias. And believe they have caused mental health damage to large section of the population. but lets talk about general censorship vs freedom without Social medias in the equation.

There are 2 approaches.

You could argue that freedom of speech is a sacrosant right, like the right to live, that no law(not even the constitution) can overrule. You will lost that battle, with reason, because things like child pornography or slander must not be protected.

So the second approach is to say, ok, some things are better censored, let the laws to clearly define that. If something must be appended or removed, do it through the appropriate channel, sponsor a bill, vote it, make it law, create the precedent.Rinse and repeat. A tedious game, but a needed one.

What you cannot do is to let the techno-barons to decide themselves what should or shouldnt be said, when they are managing platforms that are quasi-monopolistic.

Post reply on HN