111–120 of 386 posts
I'm betting on internet balkanization long term. Even in the West, people can't agree on what you can and can't say on social media.
But even without legal barriers, the internet has most always been that way, due to language. Most people don't fire up a translator to visit sites on the other side of the planet; they just use the same sites that the rest of their community does.
> 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…
> This is kind of insane. It's especially insane because Polish law is not a superset of every other country's law. If a web site is forced to remove content because it violates a law specific to the country the site is based in -- boom, now they've broken the law in Poland.
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.
It is not as if there is a worldwide consensus on whether mocking him is even legal. Some people consider it a crime worthy of death and others their natural right. You can't get much bigger polarization than that. Compared to the Cartoon Question, differences between R and D are not that big.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gay marriage has a popular majority in the UK and Ireland in both polls and referenda. Is it that different in the US? Interpreting old documents is hard, and where there is silence or substantial ambiguity it seems right to err on the side of popular opinion.
Gay marriage had a popular majority in favour before it became legal (though obviously a popular majority doesn’t necessarily mean much in the US system.) Compare this to interracial marriage which was not approved of by the majority of the population for many years after it was made fully legal across the country .
https://news.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx
Here's polling on interracial marriage:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-...
Interracial marriage became legal nationwide in 1967 with Loving v Virginia, but wasn't approved of by the majority of Americans until 1997.
Edit: I only add this to support the the comment replied to.
As previously several people commented, big tech shot itself in the foot by banning everyone they don’t agree with and suspiciously acting in the same time (Twitter and Facebook). 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…
Jack had every right, it’s his website. He pays for it, so he gets to decide what appears on it. The same would apply to anyone else running a website. This is not a new idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a valuable and reasonable opinion, and does not deserve the downvotes.
This government has learned from that time, but looking at the state of TVP and these "tematy zastępcze" they seem rather fond of Goebbels' methods. Paint "the west" as the enemy to your "great traditions" and use the wedges like this law to distract people from creeping towards authoritarianism.
Because all the shit going on in the US isn't ?
This is all done so political trolls can spam freely before elections. Imagine this site -> trolls come and promote a certain party (guess which) - and mods cannot delete it. It doesnt matter that this site is about hackernews, or some other website is about cat pictures -> you still cannot delete the political spam.
> 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…
Like they sing in Poland, Jebać PiS. Note that PiS is actually pronounced piss, which must be some kind of divine providence.
> 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'm not a lawyer, and at the risk of sounding ignorant, but I don't understand how a Polish law can be enforced on a company/service/piece of hardware under US (presumably, but could be any other) jurisdiction. At the end of the day, the data is sitting on a piece of hardware somewhere , isn't the "owning" place the one that dictates what laws can be enforced on it?