Do they not realize that they will kill democracy in the process?
An exhaustive list of leftists who care about democracy:
UK version of “Online Harms Bill” wants to prefilter content without due process
91–100 of 111 posts
Re: UK version of “Online Harms Bill” wants to prefilter content without due process
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, this will get downvoted, but during covid, A LOT of stuff got censored as "misinformation", that later got proved to be true by the same authorities and scientists (expert groups, etc.), without any apology or even acknowledgement of "the past" and "the current truth". And I'm not talking about the 5g conspiracy theories, we started all this with "masks don't help".
I've seen people say this, but I've not actually observed that at all. What got censored exactly? Personally I feel I got to know everything in proper time as knowledge was being formed and refined. I think it might be because I know how to read papers and understand nuances? And the average person take policies as the same as high confidence proven scientific conclusions, as opposed to the best guess of the time by…
Mentioning a lab leak as being worth considering was effectively banned on multiple major platforms for a long period.
Re: UK version of “Online Harms Bill” wants to prefilter content without due process
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've seen people say this, but I've not actually observed that at all. > What got censored exactly? Zerohedge was kicked off Twitter for suggesting that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was a likely candidate for the origin. We're seeing that Fauci & Ecohealth co-ordinated the paper to "debunk" the lab leak theory and now the lab leak is looking to be the most likely culprit (it is not without precedent, the 1977 Ru…
Can you please post a source for the ivermectin point? If I understand your comment you're suggesting that it is effective against covid, but I may be misunderstanding.
Are you asking for a source on "ivermectin is not a horse de-wormer" Other than that it has been an FDA approved drug for over thirty years?
Or are you asking for a source on somebody getting deplatformed for saying that, and Dr. Peter McCullough comes to mind there.
The Great Barrington Declaration was also de-indexed from Google for disputing lockdowns.
Re: UK version of “Online Harms Bill” wants to prefilter content without due process
#94One question to UK fellas: is it me or the UK is becoming some sort of a surveillance state right in front of us just like china?
is it me or the UK is becoming some sort of a surveillance state right in front of us just like china Yes and no. The UK is a highly surveilled country. We have more CCTV cameras than any other country. We have Automatic Number Plate Recognition tracking cars literally everywhere. We're a part of Echelon and Five Eyes and probably a whole bunch of other things. Pretty much everything we do is tracked. But... That dat…
One side-effect of that data being collected, though, is that a technologically advanced country like China could quite easily pilfer the data for their own purposes, not to mention the Five Eyes who don't even need to steal it! For actions in public anyway (like protests), that doesn't particularly matter, but it could be disastrous if anonymity is being relied on:
British investigative journalist Joe Bloggs wants to research a country's human rights abuses. Joe visits said country with a strong alibi, and covertly discovers the truth. He returns to Britain, publishing under a pseudonym a critical newspaper report exposing the matter. The British intelligence services note that he did so, not because he's under suspicion for anything but simply because they can. The country that he was researching intercepts that intelligence, learning of the journalist's pseudonym.
What do you think is going to happen to poor Joe when he revisits the country to do some more investigation?
Re: UK version of “Online Harms Bill” wants to prefilter content without due process
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, this will get downvoted, but during covid, A LOT of stuff got censored as "misinformation", that later got proved to be true by the same authorities and scientists (expert groups, etc.), without any apology or even acknowledgement of "the past" and "the current truth". And I'm not talking about the 5g conspiracy theories, we started all this with "masks don't help".
A LOT of stuff got censored as "misinformation", that later got proved to be true What that means is that people were sharing unproven things. Some of the things were later proven, and some weren't. Censoring everything until it's actually proven science is not a bad strategy when people are willing to inject themselves with bleach because they're so desperate for a cure.
> What that means is that people were sharing unproven things. Some of the things were later proven, and some weren't.
For example, early in the pandemic when the surgeon general of the USA and the top doctor of Canada both advised against wearing masks, would you classify that as the authorities "sharing unproven things"? Perhaps they should have censored themselves, instead of shutting out the voices who pointed out that the worldwide evidence was overwhelmingly in favour of masks being effective?
Re: UK version of “Online Harms Bill” wants to prefilter content without due process
#96One question to UK fellas: is it me or the UK is becoming some sort of a surveillance state right in front of us just like china?
Becoming? Laws have been rewritten as to allow the arbitrary detention and charging of anybody since the 2000s. Online, it has got incredibly bad.
A few years ago, it was an arrest every 2 hours over mild internet comments, or 3300 a year. The number is much higher now, but I don't know what it is, specifically. One of the worst parts I can think of is criminally charging teenagers with hate speech for posting rap lyrics.
Re: UK version of “Online Harms Bill” wants to prefilter content without due process
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It is a very good example though.... It's a horrendous site, but freedom of speech doesn't only apply to people I like or accept. Censorship always starts with the weakest and most hated target, then moves onto the less controversial ones.
> freedom of speech doesn't only apply to people I like or accept
That is not the case in large parts of the world. WikiLeaks might be a better example.
Re: UK version of “Online Harms Bill” wants to prefilter content without due process
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen people say this, but I've not actually observed that at all. What got censored exactly? Personally I feel I got to know everything in proper time as knowledge was being formed and refined. I think it might be because I know how to read papers and understand nuances? And the average person take policies as the same as high confidence proven scientific conclusions, as opposed to the best guess of the time by…
Mentioning a lab leak as being worth considering was effectively banned on multiple major platforms for a long period.
Yep, and people are still banned, even when this theory started being discussed by "mainsteam experts" on mainstream media.
Re: UK version of “Online Harms Bill” wants to prefilter content without due process
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Wikileaks perhaps. They got cut off by mastercard but I don't recall hearing them lose their hosting or domain name. Although I wonder if you'd be one to consider them "russian disinformation" and therefore deserving of being shut down. The pirate bay? Lost many domain names at various times and probably hosting too. Are they also deserving of it due the the scale of the copyright infringement they help? Personally I…
Wikileaks had their DNS cut off by Dynect - who lied about it being because of a non-existent DoS attack, when in reality they were getting their nuts squeezed by the State Department to deplatform them.
> Non-controversial sites do not get shut down.
A.k.a "nothing to hide, nothing to fear".
Re: UK version of “Online Harms Bill” wants to prefilter content without due process
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a very good example though.... It's a horrendous site, but freedom of speech doesn't only apply to people I like or accept. Censorship always starts with the weakest and most hated target, then moves onto the less controversial ones.
> freedom of speech doesn't only apply to people I like or accept That is not the case in large parts of the world. WikiLeaks might be a better example.
"That is not the case in large parts of the world" that doesn't mean giving up and accepting it. "Are you defending X?"-type attacks are horrendous and just contribute to polarisation. Everyone deserves free speech, not just people I like.