Digital Berlin wall: How the German prototype for online censorship went global
1–10 of 97 posts
Re: Digital Berlin wall: How the German prototype for online censorship went global
#2Censorship is a crucial foundation of capitalism.
Not just controlling the hegemonic narrative through media, etc.
But also the founder of SciHub is stalked by the fedz for liberating science, etc.
IP is censorship.
Re: Digital Berlin wall: How the German prototype for online censorship went global
#3Censorship is a crucial foundation of capitalism. Not just controlling the hegemonic narrative through media, etc. But also the founder of SciHub is stalked by the fedz for liberating science, etc. IP is censorship.
meds now!
Re: Digital Berlin wall: How the German prototype for online censorship went global
#4Censorship is a crucial foundation of capitalism. Not just controlling the hegemonic narrative through media, etc. But also the founder of SciHub is stalked by the fedz for liberating science, etc. IP is censorship.
[dead]
Re: Digital Berlin wall: How the German prototype for online censorship went global
#5Censorship is a crucial foundation of capitalism. Not just controlling the hegemonic narrative through media, etc. But also the founder of SciHub is stalked by the fedz for liberating science, etc. IP is censorship.
>Censorship is a crucial foundation of capitalism
No, nothing to do with capitalism, but elitism, that happens in capitalism communism and even tribalism.
>fedz for liberating science
Again no, liberating the free (as in free beer) access to papers. If you want to liberate science you need to pay the scientist for what they want to study (and not you)
Re: Digital Berlin wall: How the German prototype for online censorship went global
#6Censorship is a crucial foundation of capitalism. Not just controlling the hegemonic narrative through media, etc. But also the founder of SciHub is stalked by the fedz for liberating science, etc. IP is censorship.
Capitalism somehow existed well before the modern IP rights system.
The US patent office was created in 1832, the UK's, in 1850s, and the modern form of patent laws appeared in 1880s.
Copyright goes all the way to 1660s, but until relatively recently, the terms of copyright were much shorter, and extent, narrower.
Re: Digital Berlin wall: How the German prototype for online censorship went global
#7Censorship is a crucial foundation of capitalism. Not just controlling the hegemonic narrative through media, etc. But also the founder of SciHub is stalked by the fedz for liberating science, etc. IP is censorship.
Patents are, like, the opposite of censorship. They're the government saying that if you want legal protection for your invention then you have to openly share exactly how you did it with the world. (Except for military patents.)
Re: Digital Berlin wall: How the German prototype for online censorship went global
#8Censorship is a crucial foundation of capitalism. Not just controlling the hegemonic narrative through media, etc. But also the founder of SciHub is stalked by the fedz for liberating science, etc. IP is censorship.
No post body was provided.
Re: Digital Berlin wall: How the German prototype for online censorship went global
#9> Even if there are good reasons to counter online hate speech and disinformation, the approach prototyped by the German NetzDG law will exacerbate the decade-long global free speech recession which is part and parcel of the wider democratic recession.”
> “Once democracies cede the high ground and renege on their commitment to free speech by privatizing and outsourcing regulation, authoritarians will rush in creating a regulatory race to the bottom.
There are a lot of problems with the NetzDG, the small timeframe, the huge fines, which could incentivize platforms to be overcautious etc.
What this article doesn't mention, however, is that this law only forces platforms to delete content which is already illegal by German law. It just makes it easier to enforce the law.
Re: Digital Berlin wall: How the German prototype for online censorship went global
#10As much as I worry about online bullying (not quite legally hate speech, but obviously hate speech) and also misinformation (anti-vax, etc), I think that anything that squelches the ability to have open discussions on any topic is wrong.
It seems that we've strongly overgeneralized any fake news to be anything that is antithetical to the idea du jour, whether there is any merit to the idea or not.
This harms society in 2 ways:
1. It could be that the idea du jour, or parts of it are wrong, maybe not the central idea, but maybe its ramifications, or edge cases.
2. People having been indoctrinated differently, with a different set of inputs, will naturally come to a different set of conclusions. Their conclusions might be wrong, but ostracizing folks and kicking them off of public discourse is guaranteed to make them hold fast to their wrong conclusions. Engagement and open discussions seem like the only way to get to the root of their (possibly) misguided ideas.