Earlier quoted context omitted.
I presume that depends on who removes these posts. If the posts are removed by group owners or moderators who are not affiliated with the social media service itself, I think that should be totally fine according to that law. It's the social media service itself that's not allowed to do that.
So dang wouldn't be allowed to boot any technically legal posts on hacker news, or ban people?
Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill
221–230 of 386 posts
Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, exactly. It's a very restricted and strictly formatted form of compelled speech on specific products. Like other limitations on free speech, it exists because lawmakers have judged the benefits to be greater than the downsides of limiting manufacturers' free speech. Now imagine a law that forces anyone with a website who ever had an unmoderated comment section to host and display those comments forever. That's t…
Yeah, I know, and yet someone downvoted me for saying so o_O.
Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are some who like to call Nazi death camps 'Polish death camps' because they were located in Nazi occupied Poland. This, of course, is frowned on by Poland. It is seen as a way of blaming Poland for Germany's crimes, while the people who do it play innocent and claim they are merely stating 'true facts' about the locations of the camps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/"Polish_death_camp"_controvers...
Note the last part of that article, though[1]: You're also not allowed to refer to camps like Zgoda or Jaworzno - which were labour camps operated by poles on behalf of the communist regime - as 'Polish concentration camps'. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Polish_death_camp%22_contro...
It's not what I'd call a great law. But I think it's a law with a wholly reasonable motivation.
Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill
#224> 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…
His childhood/teenage hero was Janosik, a highlander bandit along the lines of Robin Hood. Being a fan of vigilante justice is not a good sign if you're a minister of justice.
He's bothered by independent courts and independent prosecutors. He puts pressure on judges ruling not along his will, he harasses them, stripped one of immunity for investigating a break of parliamentary statute. If you do something he doesn't like, he might relocate or harass you under a pretext. Make an example out of you. His actions are clearly aimed to produce a chilling effect. But priests accused of pedophilia get silent protection, including getting a peek into court documents. He also likes to micromanage court cases, especially in flashy cases where it's easy to get an emotional reaction from people, such as accusions of rape, pedophilia (except by priests), murder.
He gets in bed with Ordo Iuris, a para-legal branch of the Brazilian catholic sect TFP, condemned by bishops in Brazil in the 80's. They are absolutely against abortion and openly seek goals like forbidding divorce.
He's a mediocre lawyer.
He objects to the idea that European Union cares about law-abidingness and asked the consitutional court to check if the idea is compatible with constitution. Political goals and "good of the nation" are more important to him.
He's a paranoid, petty and vindictive person. Also, very power hungry.
> does not break Polish law
The ruling party intentionally creates ambiguous law that can be applied in an arbitrary manner. Be on the party's good side.
Current Polish government is a lite version of authoritarianism, and getting more so over time. It doesn't control all aspects of life like a totalitarian party would, yet. But it's trying, for example religion, against sexuality(including basic sexual education), edits history textbooks, paints new people as heroes and erases old ones. Doctors and experts don't have much to say in matters of the pandemic. One party official openly stated they have no use for experts because they refuse to implement the party policy.
Don't miss the fact no ruling party member congratulated Joe Bidden on winning the election. The closest they got was congratulating him on a "good campaign", echoing the statements of those like Vladimir Putin. They are very much fans of Donald Trump. NATO's new focus on "defense of democracy", EU's attention to law-abidingneness, Biden's ostensible emphasis on values and democracy are all dark clouds for the Polish ruling party.
The bottom line: for the pro-West, pro-EU Poles, Ziobro is an awful person.
Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill
#225An far right government being authoritarian, quelle surprise.
If authoritarianism means that people can freely speak their mind on the internet, then let so be it.
Sometimes I wonder if certain people are using "free speech" as a stepping stone to authoritarianism to then destroy freedom of speech.
Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill
#226The idea that the internet is just a "town square" except "everyone on the planet" simply does not work. Period. Human behavior was never designed to scale like that; we can't handle the discourse, we can't handle using that power responsibly, or internalizing what we read responsibly.
Many are afraid of a rogue AI taking over the world. The internet, and social media specifically, is that AI. Every human is a neuron, programmable by exploiting flaws in human evolution, or even self-programmable by living in feedback bubbles where their own fears and doubts are amplified. Every human is an actor; capable of traumatic harm by executing on that programming and, say, storming the capital.
Even my fears about this reality we live in are a byproduct of the programming I've received via the sites I visit, and the feedback bubbles I decide to live in online.
I cannot believe that my programming, and the programming many of the people in this Hacker News bubble receive every day, is any more or less dangerous to the fabric of society than the programming the people on Parler received. I'm angry at what transpired in the Capital and on Parler. I'm angry at AWS, Google, and Apple for reacting the way they did. I'm scared that something like that could happen to the products I'm working on, even though that's crazy because I work on dumb data entry and not social media for revolutionists. My fear and anger comes from reactions to actions taken by other people who were scared and mad; their fear and anger came from reactions to actions taken by the left, from the right, from the left, from the right, this is the feedback bubble; not between revolutionists on Parler, but between Us and Them. Because, it is Us and Them; it shouldn't be, but it always has been. The comments I've seen here over the past few days just confirm this; Parler gets shut down then hacked, by-and-large we applaud it.
I think about the idea of the Great Filter, and I wonder if what we're seeing here is the most likely filter for civilization. What happens when you give a billion products of survival-focused evolution the ability to talk to each other, with no limits, filters, or self-control? What happens to society? I want to believe that, if a Filter exists, its at least something outside our control like a virus, or its something we did to ourselves like global warming. But, maybe its actually just Us. Maybe products of evolution can never work together well enough to reach any stage of science-fiction like enlightenment.
I no longer believe there's any course a company or government could take to stop this. Its happening too fast, and by the time anyone in power realizes how much damage this has done, and is doing, to our society, it will be too late. At the very least, we need to shut down Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Hacker News, and every other platform which allows peer-to-peer broadcast-like communication between everyone on the planet. Even the act of me posting this and you reading it is part of the problem. But, that won't happen in the west.
I suppose the only course of action I can take is to remove myself from the equation. If everyone did that, then the world would be a better place. Not everyone will, but its the only step I'm capable of. I guess, to some degree, it was fun while it lasted.
Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill
#227> 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?
Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill
#228That might be the wrong way to go about it, but I sympathize with the sentiment. If you pretend to be a public square you must act like a public square. As it happens the US Supreme Court is also sympathetic - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama Now many here already raised an obvious objection - someone tending to a small blog should be able to police it. That is sensible. So I suppose we need to find a…
Even bigger problem might be your own content hosted on public squares. I wonder if Instagram/Fb/TikTok are declared a public square, does it mean that I can't delete someone's comment under my own photo, status or video because it violates their free speech even though it is my profile or page?
Just as an exercise. Suppose a private club is where all members are know to the owner and all associate members are know to a member. A public square is a place where people can stumble into without any direct affiliation (search, directory, discovery, recommendations, shares).
Under this definition it matters not who is hosting your pictures, it only matters if strangers are welcome. And if they are then all strangers are welcome.
Now my idea here does cover the hypothetical theater - you want people to discover it, but you don’t want them causing noise during the performance. So it’s not a great definition. But it serves to illustrate.
Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill
#229Freedom of speech is also freedom from compelled speech. This kind of law means the government can compel any private party to speak what they want and punish them for not doing so. This is also demonstrably damaging to the effected party. It costs money to host content. Forcing a business to host content costs them - is poland going to fund this? No. If the polish government has a problem with it then they should ma…
We force businesses to do a lot of things. The compliance costs here, for example, are a rounding error compared to GDPR compliance costs (especially around the ability to look up your own data), or right-to-be-forgotten compliance costs.
It's possible this is a bad law, but this is a sorta weak argument.
Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill
#230> 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…
“Hey, no pornography!” “What are you gonna do about it?”
Completely reactionary and fails to consider practicality.