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

Poland plans to make censoring of social media accounts illegal

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 125 posts

Re: Poland plans to make censoring of social media accounts illegal

#71

Post by trhway »

murphy1312 wrote: post #56
latch wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poland is a country. They aren't responsible for upholding US law. They can do what they want to companies that decide to operate in Poland. Not only can they have their cake and eat it too, they will - unless said companies stop operating there.

once suppose the polish politician says something that is not allowed in other countries, so for example facebook has to delete it. but in poland it must not be "censored". what should happen then? i think smaller companys will have start geo/ip blocking countries then. great.

well, we're already there. For example according to the Ukranian laws the Crimea is a part of Ukraine and according to the Russian laws - part of Russia, and you really don't want to violate those very politically sensitive laws in either country, so:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/12/302337754...

"Google Maps Displays Crimean Border Differently In Russia, U.S."

Re: Poland plans to make censoring of social media accounts illegal

#72

Post by ZGDUwpqEWpUZ »

stephenr wrote: post #64
ZGDUwpqEWpUZ wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you say that more than once? Freedom of speech, whatever your take on it, is by definition freedom from some consequences. The argument is over which consequences are acceptable.

Because people don't understand? Because people don't read? I don't know. Why would people keep failing to make the distinction between "free speech" and "consequence free speech"? Free Speech is, in most societies considered to be a concept that applies to the government's ability to censor people's speech. This is well defined in the case of the US 1st amendment: it has zero implication on private entities. Edit to…

They're not making the distinction because there isn't one.

Speech can have all sorts of consequences, from losing a friendship to being imprisoned or executed. "Consequences" are a spectrum, and you're simply drawing the line in a different place to other people.

> Free Speech is, in most societies considered to be a concept that applies to the government's ability to censor people's speech.

This is a bold claim without any evidence. Certainly it's not the understanding that I grew up with, but I had the good fortune to have a history teacher who liked JS Mill.

I see open debate as part of a healthy society. I value the ability to hear perspectives other than my own. That's what "freedom of speech" means to me, not the narrow, American legal definition.

> The hypocrisy on this topic by right wingers is pretty crazy when you think about it.

I fully agree, and I'm not interested in emulating their hypocrisy.

Re: Poland plans to make censoring of social media accounts illegal

#73

Post by newbie578 »

Let's not act surprised here, it was only natural it would come to this, and I expect other countries to follow suit.

If the (still current) president of the world's largest power can be silenced, then just how easily can Jack Dorsey silence a president of a country like let's say Moldavia... I'm not arguing if someone is a bad person or good person, just stating the obvious POV one might get looking at the status quo.

And for the classical comments here on HN about how it is "their platform" and they can choose what they want to, do not forget that the platform needs to play by the government's rule, not the other way...

Re: Poland plans to make censoring of social media accounts illegal

#74

Post by kypro »

While I strongly disagree with social media censorship and I think a lot it is politically motivated, I do recognise that they probably should have the legal right to censor content.

Where I personally get far more uncomfortable is with the payment processors. When you have a companies like MasterCard banning donations from all republicans who take a certain political positions (objecting to the electoral vote in this case) then something needs to be done.

If Twitter censors you it is possible to move to another platform, or even create your own, but if Visa and Master card ban you, what exactly do you do?

To some extent I feel similar about core AWS services. I think people probably should have a some legal right to basic internet services. I understand it's possible to build your own internet infrastructure as Gab has proven, but it's very difficult for the average person to do what Gab did. As an individual I could move to another social media platform, but if my web hosts bans me I wouldn't have the resources to host my own website which seems wrong given how important the internet is to us as a utility today.

IMO social media censorship, while an important conversation to have, isn't the primary conservation. This would be far less of an issue if alternative platforms like Gab and Parler weren't constantly under attack by monopolies which provide core services like payment processing and core internet services. The fact a company like Gab has had resort to accepting cash in the post for PRO membership for simply trying to protect its users right to free speech online is a complete failure of regulation IMO.

Re: Poland plans to make censoring of social media accounts illegal

#75

Post by newbie578 »

austincheney wrote: post #44

If I were a US based social media company I would simply deny service to any IP address from that country. Liability averted.

And by doing that you allow a competitor to emerge. You are free to do that, however note that there are more than enough companies willing to jump at the opportunity...

Re: Poland plans to make censoring of social media accounts illegal

#76

Post by stephenr »

BlackFly wrote: post #69
stephenr wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people don't understand? Because people don't read? I don't know. Why would people keep failing to make the distinction between "free speech" and "consequence free speech"? Free Speech is, in most societies considered to be a concept that applies to the government's ability to censor people's speech. This is well defined in the case of the US 1st amendment: it has zero implication on private entities. Edit to…

> Free Speech is, in most societies considered to be a concept that applies to the government's ability to censor people's speech. While this is mostly technically true, unique aspects of the law in the US compared to other countries makes this false for practical purposes. For example, labor protection laws in other countries protect employees from retaliation for their speech: a company is usually only allowed to f…

Your argument about employment falls down because the law doesn't prevent them from reacting to things you do.

If you go on TV and call the CEO a pig fucker, I guarantee you will face some consequences.

If you go on TV and call the President or Prime Minister a pig fucker, you may also face consequences from your employer, but the government (in countries where a concept of free speech applies) can't do shit about you saying that. They may decide to look more closely at your tax filings, or immigration status, or what have you.

Re: Poland plans to make censoring of social media accounts illegal

#77

Post by xeyownt »

praptak wrote: post #60

If you wonder what exactly they want to protect, [1] is the recent ruling of a Polish court. As of Jan 12th, publicly saying that "gay people are perverts" is fine as far as Polish law is concerned. [0] Background in English: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/polish-activis... [1]The ruling (Polish only): https://oko.press/kaja-godek-wygrala-w-sadzie-zboczency/

Yes exactly. Typical far right / extremists tactic, disguise their discourses as well accepted democratic ones. They say they want to protect free speech, etc, but in fact are only pushing for their own definition of free speech and will be very quick at banning any other speech that are not according to their views/laws.

Re: Poland plans to make censoring of social media accounts illegal

#78

Post by synnejye »

pelliphant wrote: post #42
synnejye wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is absurd. So you would let all media companies censor someone "because they don't like him"? The only reason you trust private media companies is because they are supposed to be as neutral as possible, not political. If not neutral, then perhaps society should start treating them for what they really are - private political machines. Furthermore censorship is stupid. You might like it when it's Trump gettin…

That is a very american take on things... I am european and I have the exact opposite view: Public entities are supposed to be neutral, private ones are not.

Well, I am from Europe...

I disagree. :)

Re: Poland plans to make censoring of social media accounts illegal

#79

Post by zxcvbn4038 »

Politics aside this is an interesting situation in that social media companies have forever sought special protections based on the claimed impossibility of their moderating user content - turns out they can moderate content just fine when they want to, so maybe it’s time for their special protections to end, and for them to be responsible for their content.

You can blame Twitter for shattering the myth since they keep broadcasting the number of accounts they are suspending and hash tags they are banning, at this point it’s impossible to backtrack and say it’s too hard to do - and if Twitter can do it then it’s hard for any of the other giants to say they can not.

I’m betting in future we’ll see these companies held to the same standards that newspapers, tv, and radio are held to today.

Re: Poland plans to make censoring of social media accounts illegal

#80

Post by klunger »

latch wrote: post #27
klunger wrote: post #15

This is absurd. Twitter etc are private companies and can do what they want wrt their user's accounts. If they don't want their far-right politicians getting censored, then they can ban those platforms from the country completely. As the saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Poland is a country. They aren't responsible for upholding US law. They can do what they want to companies that decide to operate in Poland. Not only can they have their cake and eat it too, they will - unless said companies stop operating there.

ok. This is basically what I said, so it seems like I did not explain it well enough.

It's like what Google did in China. They did not want to agree to the censorship terms imposed by the Chinese government so they stopped operating there. (It looks like they are reversing course on this now and may release a censored version soon, but that is neither here nor there)

The Polish government cannot make Twitter do something it does not want to and still permit it to operate in the country. They will have to ban it outright if Twitter does not agree to their terms.

Post reply on HN