61–70 of 386 posts
An far right government being authoritarian, quelle surprise.
The worst kind of authoritarianism, where the tyrant protects the rights of the people, at the cost of rights of the (mostly foreign) corporations.
I don’t know what they expected, other politicians saw how much power platforms hold and they are not going to sit still and wait for it to happen to them.
Jack Dorsey is not an elected leader, and he has no right to act as the jury, judge and executioner.
I for one welcome this kind of bill, I am sad that this brings the balkanization of the internet, but it is inevitable.
> Under its provisions, social media services will not be allowed to remove content or block accounts if the content on them does not break Polish law. This is kind of insane. So if I offer a free website- a private company operating as I like- I would be forbidden from removing content from my own website that I don't like because the person who wrote it- again, not a paying customer- wants it to be there. Not only…
I hope this will be taken up by the EU. Poland on its own is too small fry for the social Media conglomerate.
Regarding the majority party of the coalition which he is governing with. The party has caused what constitutional law scholar Wojciech Sadurski termed a "constitutional breakdown"[58] by packing the Constitutional Court with its supporters, undermining parliamentary procedure, and reducing the president's and prime minister's offices in favor of power being wielded extra-constitutionally by party leader Jarosław Kac…
You're only really a liberal democracy if the ruling elite can coerce private actors to take the repressive actions instead of doing it officially. You must also allow your civil service to be an unaccountable branch of government controlled by the professional managerial class and unresponsive to the commands of elected leadership (unless they're from the correct side). Furthermore, you must allow lawyers to use the…
> Under its provisions, social media services will not be allowed to remove content or block accounts if the content on them does not break Polish law. This is kind of insane. So if I offer a free website- a private company operating as I like- I would be forbidden from removing content from my own website that I don't like because the person who wrote it- again, not a paying customer- wants it to be there. Not only…
Put another way: In the US at least, r/jailbait didn't actually break any laws (well, maybe some individual posts did, but the whole idea of that subreddit was essentially to ogle underage women/children but in a way that was not explicitly illegal). So with something like this law all social media sites would be forced to host the equivalent of r/jailbait.
Right wing, nationalist leader decides to create law that would prevent his posts getting removed by the platform owner for violating their ToS, unless actually illegal under national law.. Can't help but wonder what recent deletions he could possibly be thinking of..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you can take the issue to court instead. if you're win, you pay nothing, if you're wrong, you pay the fine and court expenses - or whatever the court finds wrong at the same time. accepting the ticket means basically confessing that you're guilty. the idea is that policemen are wrong sometimes and refusing the ticket gives you an out; it keeps the police honest. with the new law you could in theory get a speeding tic…
If I take the issue to court, I can either prove I didn't do the 'crime', or argue there is insufficient evidence. But police officers testimonies carry a lot of weight, so that is not a fruitful path. It is still unclear to me what you are exactly saying.
This will continue happening around the world. Who knew - sovereign states don’t want American megacorporations deciding what ideas are appropriate? Prepare for massive Balkanization of the Internet.
Trolling and many other forms of online abuse may not be against any law but it is in the public interest to allow platforms to remove such content. This initiative may turn out to be the opposite of what it claims to stand for.
> it is in the public interest to allow platforms to remove such content This is not always true, and that is the issue. If the government is going to, for instance, tell us we can't gather on public property, there has to be some way to guarantee that a digital commons will remain.