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

Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

polandin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 386 posts

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#291

Post by alsetmusic »

thebouv wrote: post #15
offby37years wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a distinction between website and the quoted "social media services".

Really? Define it then. Facebook is a website by all technical terms. Where is the hard defined line between social media services and a website? What is a website that hosts a forum? What is Discord? What if I run a WordPress website with the BuddyPress plugin? What about comments on my blog articles?

Ben Thompson, of Stratechery, had an interesting way of talking about Facebook that might help with a future definition of "social media services."

He (and podcast co-host John Gruber[0]) talked about the idea that Facebook isn't the same site for any two people. Due to the algo, everyone has their own personal version of the site. Therefore, there's no individual snapshot of Facebook at any given time.

I found this an interesting concept to point out. If one needed to distinguish between a website and "social media services," perhaps a law could be drafted such that such a condition was true.

HN, for example, would be a website because commenting and voting is user-based. I suppose that might mean Spotify and Netflix would be swallowed by the definition. The definition would then need additional language about user-submitted content.

[0]: https://dithering.fm

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#292

Post by kodah »

notadev wrote: post #280
nitwit005 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the timing matched with the negative media attention, similar to the removals of a few Trump subreddits recently.

This has already been weaponized by subs like /r/AgainstHateSubs and other vigilante-like subs. Their tactics usually involve posting in those subreddits from sockpuppet accounts, using hateful or threatening messages. The few times the targeted subs mods aren't on the ball, they mass report the post for hate speech to try and get the sub banned, or the mods banned then later request the subreddit for themselves, som…

Is this not something that Reddit can show is happening? I guess you could avoid things like browser fingerprinting by using multiple machines as well as a VPN, however, if someone is going to that level of effort -- what's the end game?

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#293

Post by alsetmusic »

zettadam wrote: post #283
thebouv wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Define it then. Facebook is a website by all technical terms. Where is the hard defined line between social media services and a website? What is a website that hosts a forum? What is Discord? What if I run a WordPress website with the BuddyPress plugin? What about comments on my blog articles?

Technically Facebook/Twitter are not websites, but "social" applications (web/native). You need to have a user account to see (FB) or post (FB/Twitter) anything.

I need a user account to watch Netflix. Same for banking.

A user account is not the primary criteria of being a "social" application.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#294

Post by koolba »

kodah wrote: post #292
notadev wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has already been weaponized by subs like /r/AgainstHateSubs and other vigilante-like subs. Their tactics usually involve posting in those subreddits from sockpuppet accounts, using hateful or threatening messages. The few times the targeted subs mods aren't on the ball, they mass report the post for hate speech to try and get the sub banned, or the mods banned then later request the subreddit for themselves, som…

Is this not something that Reddit can show is happening? I guess you could avoid things like browser fingerprinting by using multiple machines as well as a VPN, however, if someone is going to that level of effort -- what's the end game?

If the site admins just want an excuse to get rid of a sub that doesn’t align with their political ideology, it’d be pretty easy to not bother investigating.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#295

Post by kevinh »

notadev wrote: post #280
nitwit005 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the timing matched with the negative media attention, similar to the removals of a few Trump subreddits recently.

This has already been weaponized by subs like /r/AgainstHateSubs and other vigilante-like subs. Their tactics usually involve posting in those subreddits from sockpuppet accounts, using hateful or threatening messages. The few times the targeted subs mods aren't on the ball, they mass report the post for hate speech to try and get the sub banned, or the mods banned then later request the subreddit for themselves, som…

> Their tactics usually involve posting in those subreddits from sockpuppet accounts, using hateful or threatening messages.

Any evidence for this?

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#296

Post by monday40 »

favorited wrote: post #285
kennywinker wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wikipedia page I linked to clearly points out that polish people WERE involved in the holocaust. Not all, in fact I believe the vast majority of poles were not collaborators... but that doesn't mean this law doesn't make it legally sketchy to talk about the poles who were collaborators

I visited a Nazi extermination camp in Poland where you could literally see the adjacent town from inside the camp fences. It's absolute lunacy to pretend there weren't Polish collaborators.

It's an absolute lunacy to think that because a group of people lives nearby a place where something bad is going on, it is certain that among them are people helping with it.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#297

Post by Nydhal »

root_axis wrote: post #239
jessaustin wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't find this dishonest at all. Not everyone in USA agrees with the Great Suspensioning. Why would we expect everyone in Poland to agree with it?

If they don't agree they don't have to use it. It's dishonest because the characterization suggests that sovereign nations are beholden to tech companies, but they aren't.

Define beholden.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#298

Post by radoslawc »

kennywinker wrote: post #18
mabbo wrote: post #5

> 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…

Yup, under this law a post mentioning true facts about nazi collaboration in poland during ww2 would be illegal.

Aren't facts true per definition?

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#299

Post by j0ba »

root_axis wrote: post #239
jessaustin wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't find this dishonest at all. Not everyone in USA agrees with the Great Suspensioning. Why would we expect everyone in Poland to agree with it?

If they don't agree they don't have to use it. It's dishonest because the characterization suggests that sovereign nations are beholden to tech companies, but they aren't.

If Facebook/Twitter doesn't agree to the law, they don't have to operate in Poland. Nobody is forcing them.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#300

Post by 1MachineElf »

mabbo wrote: post #5

> 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…

>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

You will have to put more limits up front to control what content gets uploaded.

Post reply on HN