Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill • Hacker News Board

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#251

Post by paulnechifor » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 11:22 PM UTC

wrsh07 wrote: post #233

ttt0 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make any sense. What is that even supposed to mean? Yes, Polish people have only the free speech that doesn't violate the Polish law. Some people might think that the laws could be more strict or more relaxed, but this is just how the law works.

Calling it free speech when an authoritarian government heavily restricts what can legally be said feels a bit disingenuous Do you know anything about poland's heavy restrictions on speech?? https://notesfrompoland.com/2018/08/21/polands-insult-laws-a...

As an individual, when your speech is banned, it's all the same whether it's by an authoritarian government or by private companies.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#252

Post by intended » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 11:35 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #166

intended wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cant work. If you are in the super market buying food, and people are giving out free trials of crack cocaine -> addiction city. You can very regularly see Nazi apologia which is so dressed up and benign sounding. "Teach the facts", "did this really happen" - the debunking of which requires access to people used to debunking it. The same rule applies to a variety of topics. Simply put, the average person is not prepa…

>Simply put, the average person is not prepared for lawyer level rhetorical devices in the wild. This boils down to "censorship is okay because people might believe the wrong thing", and down that path lay a well-greased and well-trodden slippery slope ending in the maws of dragons. It's incredibly paternalistic. It is not your job, nor the government's, nor anyone else's to protect people from reading/thinking/etc.…

It actually was my job, I saw exactly what letting things alone did. I know how many ways your ideas are incorrect, because I worked from that same starting point.

If you believe that ideals are going to do the job, please feel free! There's 100s of subs that need mods. Take the time to find the most gnarly politically active sub and apply your ideas. Find the places where people actively deal with propo and indoctrination.

If you can solve what everyone else has failed at, every firm, regulator and moderator under the sun will cheer you on.

Till then, this is what works. Not because I like it, or because it's "paternal" - but because it conforms to how humans actually behave and how content performs online today.

IT is what it is, and we can only improve by knowing reality first.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#253

Post by enkid » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 11:42 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #165

busythrowaway22 wrote: post #139

As someone hiding behind a throwaway account in an effort to avoid doxing and harassment, and getting my more legitimate online presence removed due to hysterics: I welcome the idea of this change. Though I think it is wrong the way it is implemented. I do not speak Polish, and maybe perhaps the Polish law is more nuanced than the article describes. There should be a law that says you cannot produce a unilateral term…

> I agree to follow the rules of your service You have to be careful there, too, though: Amazon is claiming that Parler (to use the most currently relevant example) did violate their terms of service, because their terms of service are so vague and broad that they can be used to apply to almost anything.

I haven't used Parler, but from what I read there were loads of people actively calling for violence. Sure, there's no set line, but Amazon shouldn't have to support that if they don't want to.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#254

Post by garaetjjte » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 11:49 PM UTC

mamon wrote: post #212

seba_dos1 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This comment misrepresents the situation by failing to indicate that the 'Constitutional Crisis' started before the current Law and Justice government took power by the previous governments flagrant anti-constitutional actions of trying to appoint Supreme Court Judges ahead of the end of their terms. It was the Constitutional Court, not Supreme Court. Also, no, not really - that didn't start the crisis in any reaso…

> ruling party replaced not only the extraneous judges, but also those judges who were lawfully supposed to be appointed by previous government The problem is that previous government broke the law in more than one way: 1. They appointed more judges that they were allowed to. 2. They did appoint all those judges by means of single parliamentary resolution, despite the fact that Polish Constitution clearly requires vo…

Uh, whose interpretation is that? Constitutional tribunal ruled itself that three judges were correctly appointed by previous parliament. (case K34/15)

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#255

Post by wrsh07 » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 11:50 PM UTC

ttt0 wrote: post #245

wrsh07 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling it free speech when an authoritarian government heavily restricts what can legally be said feels a bit disingenuous Do you know anything about poland's heavy restrictions on speech?? https://notesfrompoland.com/2018/08/21/polands-insult-laws-a...

Are we playing semantics here? You called it "free speech". I wish we all had the 1st Amendment in Europe, but unfortunately we don't. Every European country claims it has free speech, but at the same time puts limits on it, let that be anti-communism laws, hate speech laws, laws against offending religious people, or whatever really. That's just how things are in Europe, sorry. Whatever the Polish government might h…

Thanks, I was not on the same page as you, but I take your points.

I'm very skeptical of this approach, but I don't think I have anything else to add to this thread

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#256

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 11:52 PM UTC

ayende wrote: post #183

wrsh07 wrote: post #144

> In the event of removal or blockage, a complaint can be sent to the platform, which will have 24 hours to consider it. Within 48 hours of the decision, the user will be able to file a petition to the court for the return of access. The court will consider complaints within seven days of receipt and the entire process is to be electronic. It seems like this is not a burden for Facebook but requires manual work from…

The court would start handing out 2.2 million USD per offence very quickly. Even at Facebook scale, that will hurt

[deleted]

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#257

Post by intended » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 11:53 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #188

intended wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cant work. If you are in the super market buying food, and people are giving out free trials of crack cocaine -> addiction city. You can very regularly see Nazi apologia which is so dressed up and benign sounding. "Teach the facts", "did this really happen" - the debunking of which requires access to people used to debunking it. The same rule applies to a variety of topics. Simply put, the average person is not prepa…

> Simply put, the average person is not prepared for lawyer level rhetorical devices in the wild. Maybe we should figure out how to educate people to prepare them? Can we really build our safety on our ability to keep stupid people ignorant of stupid ideas? I think that's the kind of security through obscurity that is currently failing us so hard. Stupid people are finding stupid ideas anyways, sharing them, building…

People aren't code. Plus you dont see people exposing themselves to prions or the plague.

More pertinently, you could argue that we shouldn't worry about sociopaths, and that if they convince or charm someone - that's just bad luck, and it boosts people's immunity.

Why did we worry about lootboxes or attention manipulating algorithms?

Because when its not a fair fight, the outcome is not fair.

If I sent you up against professional Nazi denying content, and you knew jack about the Nazis - I guarantee you would think they had a point. There are supremely persuasive books saying the numbers are wrong, or that the data doesn't add up.

There are some ideas that are simply that toxic - handling them without training is a sure shot way to radicalize someone.

=------=

Sure, I would love to have classes like their are doing in some countries.

First - I doubt that flies in America, where Fox news is one of the largest networks.

Second - even if you did start classes for kids and teens - it still leaves your adults vulnerable.

I don't even know if it is possible to de-radicalize the already radicalized. If you don't stop the radicalization, you will simply have more of such people.

So sure, get those classes going, but its only one part of the solution.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#258

Post by root_axis » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 11:54 PM UTC

_oqcu wrote: post #249

root_axis wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a dishonest line. The internet is federated, they don't have to use websites created by American megacorporations.

That's exactly the argument for GDPR is. If an American megacorp doesn't want to respect the rights of non Americans then it shouldn't be allowed to profit at all from them. You can't just ban some and profit from the rest.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for non-American countries to impose laws on the tech businesses if they want to do business in those regions, but it's a dishonest characterization to suggest that what happens on a handful of American websites "determines what is appropriate", they don't have any such power.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#259

Post by wrsh07 » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 11:56 PM UTC

ayende wrote: post #183

wrsh07 wrote: post #144

> In the event of removal or blockage, a complaint can be sent to the platform, which will have 24 hours to consider it. Within 48 hours of the decision, the user will be able to file a petition to the court for the return of access. The court will consider complaints within seven days of receipt and the entire process is to be electronic. It seems like this is not a burden for Facebook but requires manual work from…

The court would start handing out 2.2 million USD per offence very quickly. Even at Facebook scale, that will hurt

I'm only seeing that they can be fined if they disobey the ruling

I do not propose they do that - rather they can have the courts do the moderation for them.

Very easy.

> If a special court rules in favour of the plaintiff and the internet service does not obey the ruling

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#260

Post by seba_dos1 » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 12:03 AM UTC

mamon wrote: post #212

seba_dos1 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This comment misrepresents the situation by failing to indicate that the 'Constitutional Crisis' started before the current Law and Justice government took power by the previous governments flagrant anti-constitutional actions of trying to appoint Supreme Court Judges ahead of the end of their terms. It was the Constitutional Court, not Supreme Court. Also, no, not really - that didn't start the crisis in any reaso…

> ruling party replaced not only the extraneous judges, but also those judges who were lawfully supposed to be appointed by previous government The problem is that previous government broke the law in more than one way: 1. They appointed more judges that they were allowed to. 2. They did appoint all those judges by means of single parliamentary resolution, despite the fact that Polish Constitution clearly requires vo…

> and there was no other way forward than repeal the whole resolution

That's not what happened though. The Constitutional Court ruling[1] deemed the appointment of three judges constitutional, and two of them unconstitutional - and, according to the Constitution, those rulings are final, immutable and to be immediately published. However, president Duda didn't swear any of the new judges, despite of being legally obliged to (the president doesn't have the right to decide whether the judges were appointed legally or not, it's the Constitutional Court's job) and once PiS appointed five new judges (instead of two they were legally able to) the president swore them all.

[1] https://trybunal.gov.pl/postepowanie-i-orzeczenia/wyroki/art...