311–320 of 386 posts
This looks good at the surface, but given the current Polish government I would not be so sure that it is created with good intentions in mind. Let's wait for how it is applied before deciding if this is a good or a bad thing.
I don't think anybody thinks this has good intentions
The actual rationale behind this is to protect bigots from getting kicked off social media for hate speech against LGBT people. Article 256 of the Polish criminal code makes it illegal to incite hatred based on religion, race or nationality but not sexual orientation.
To be clear, I am basically a Free speech abolitionist, but I am very suspicious of the motivation here. I can't see a clean philosophy in corrupting the judiciary but claiming to support this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 indoctri…
Do you think your views will never be wrongfully censored?
Those attitudes and behaviors are merely engineered traits to make Reddit engaging and active, sad to see who seems to be an otherwise happy person being wasted like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Look, all I'm gonna say is that the social media are not a free speech refuge. You still can't say anything that your government made illegal. Just as the article you posted says, Jaś Kapela was put on trial for something he said on the internet. So I really can't see how this could backfire at people in any way, as it can only expand the freedom. Unless you believe that you can trust private corporations with censor…
I don't think the answer is "everything that's legal"
Laws aren't light enough weight to make some determinations. Eg I think it's reasonable to ban posts that incite violence after people literally storm a government building, and I don't expect most (non authoritarian) governments will react quickly enough to do anything meaningful.
However, we need better, more transparent systems (especially in the US) of deciding what should or shouldn't be allowed
(Note: I actually think that changing algorithms to make it so that people aren't encouraged to see conspiracy theories is much better than censoring them outright. And so I think there is interesting space for innovation there.)
I fully agree, though, that it's incredibly concerning to have 3 (or fewer) unelected people deciding what shouldn't be read or seen
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?
Websites that host user generated content are social media. HN is a social media, your basement server isn’t, hosted content on AWS probably needs some definition workarounds but instinctively shouldn’t be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What "the federal courts in America" did is state that the rights of other human beings are not up for a vote.
“Rights” are what other human beings agree to recognize. That’s just the nature of law as a construct. What the federal courts in America have done is set themselves up as a tribunal of elites for deciding moral issues that other countries decide democratically. This unsurprisingly causes a lot of friction. Same sex marriage actually wasn’t one of those areas—US opinion and that in other developed countries wasn’t fa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What "the federal courts in America" did is state that the rights of other human beings are not up for a vote.
“Rights” are what other human beings agree to recognize. That’s just the nature of law as a construct. What the federal courts in America have done is set themselves up as a tribunal of elites for deciding moral issues that other countries decide democratically. This unsurprisingly causes a lot of friction. Same sex marriage actually wasn’t one of those areas—US opinion and that in other developed countries wasn’t fa…