EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

Very good question.

It has been tested in court before and the test failed

https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/hans-bu...

> The Court first acknowledged that Mr Nix’s conviction for having displayed a picture of Himmler with a swastika armband in his blog post amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of expression. Then, it went on to analyse whether this interference was prescribed by law, in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and necessary in a democratic society. On the first two parts of this test, the Court noted that Mr. Nix’s conviction had a legal basis (Article 86a of the Criminal Code) and that it pursued the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder.

> The Court went on to say that, “[i]n the light of their historical role and experience, States which have experienced the Nazi horrors may be regarded as having a special moral responsibility to distance themselves from the mass atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis”. [para. 47] Furthermore, it considered that the “legislature’s choice to criminally sanction the use of Nazi symbols, to ban the use of such symbols from German political life, to maintain political peace (also taking into account the perception of foreign observers), and to prevent the revival of Nazism must be seen against this background.”

> The Court concluded by reiterating that the historical experience of Germany was a weighty factor to be taken into account when considering cases involving Nazi symbols, and whether there exists a pressing social need for interfering with an individual’s right to freedom of expression in this context. ... Therefore, the interference was found to be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and “necessary in a democratic society”.

Sounds like wishy washy nonsense to me

100%.

Germany is so wrong about this, and this is not the way we should go.

We Americans needs to grow thicker skin and cherish our free speech more. If we don't, we're going to slip into a world with less liberty.

Libel, slander, and "yelling fire" are sufficient limits on free speech. Seeing or hearing people say things you don't like isn't going to kill you. Society already has the tools to shun those who act egregiously.

We have other legal mechanisms to quell the events that happened last week. Prosecute for politicians inciting violence, fine trusted news organizations spreading misinformation, jail those who destroy property, trespass, or assault another person.

We have ways to stop radicalization too: being better to one another and making sure people have their needs met.

I vehemently disagree with Voat, Parler, thedonald.win, /r/sino, J. K. Rowling, and many other communities and persons. But they have a right to carry on, and we shouldn't deplatform them.

If we didn't have free speech, we wouldn't have gotten to where we are today. I'd rather live in America than a country that has less free speech.

That boat has long sailed once Big Tech banned Parler and everyone cheered it. America is no longer a country where free speech is paramount. Atleast in other democratic countries Censorship happens through the elected Government. As a citizen you can always remove the elected representatives if you don't like the Censorship implemented by your elected representatives for whatever reason. You can't remove/vote out Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon et all because of the powerful grasp they have over digital communications and media.

The very fact that Parler was banned by Big Tech and not by US Congress puts a very bad light on America. Why would any Government trust American Government's word if a Private Company can undo it or act unilaterally without Congress approval? What does it convey to the World leaders? Is there 1 power center in America or 2? We used to mock Pakistan for having dual power centers (the elected Government and the military since their military doesn't come under the control of the elected Government). It caused a lot of confusion for World powers to interact with Pakistan as no one knew who the controller was. Was it the elected Government or the military? I'm seeing the same thing happening in America. Why should my Government take US Government seriously if a private company can ban/censor US Government communications?

Deleting a sitting US President's account is not going to be respected by any Government. Period.

I agree, in the sense that "break them up" seems to be an undefined action left as an exercise for the reader.

I'm not necessarily against reasonable regulations, but it is hard to agree or disagree if there is nothing on the table other than "break them up". Some specific framework or principle or proposal is needed to have any sort of a cogent discussion.

I think an awful lot of Americans have family members on "the other side" even if they mostly associate with their own kind otherwise. So people know something first hand, completely apart from "journalism and social media".

At this point, the people I know who are on the right seem to be basically "waiting for the rapture", i.e. when the global conspiracy of literally everyone in the world against Trump will be revealed. While denying that they are a fan of the President, but both sides are criminal and bad, etc.

Discussing current events ends up being like watching Clint Eastwood argue with a chair. It clearly isn't fun for them, nor are they having any real dialogue. So it feels bad, and you try not to talk about politics any more.

I tried repeatedly with someone I know to propose that, if you don't trust anything in the "MSM", why don't you read the documents that are making news, the primary source when it's easily available? I rephrased it three times or so and it didn't stop the rant.

And I'm talking about someone who is really not that dumb, has a decent job, and is fine to talk to on other things than politics. But I just can't envision what a "serious effort" to break through would even look like.