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

Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Israel-Hamas conflict

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 166 posts

Re: Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Israel-Hamas conflict

#61

Post by Animats »

bwanab wrote: post #9

Very few countries have freedom of speech enshrined quite as forcefully as it is in the United States. One really has to wonder where this is going to go? I understand why they want to do it, but once a censorship regime is established it will be very difficult to dislodge. What happens when the next set of elections puts in somebody who uses that power for less than ideal purposes?

> Very few countries have freedom of speech enshrined quite as forcefully as it is in the United States.

The US now seems to have a censorship regime, but it's privatized. "Harvard student groups issued an anti-Israel statement. CEOs want them blacklisted."[1]

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/11/business/harvard-israel-hamas...

Re: Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Israel-Hamas conflict

#62

Post by rcarr »

mozman wrote: post #31
rcarr wrote: post #24

How is anyone meant to be able to confirm or deny posts on a suprise war that is going on in real time? Surely this would mean that Facebook and X would have to have better intelligence than the actual military intelligence agencies? Even the letter accusing them of posting says they have "indications" not "we have evidence". I'm no Zuckerberg or Musk fan but I just don't see how it's humanly possible to meet these r…

Safe harbor must be protected. If you start policing users it’s a super slippery slope.

I don't think governments should be allowed to silence people which is what will likely happen if something like this happens, but I also don't think people should have the right to do or say whatever they want online with no repercussions either. I think the sweet point would probably be allowing anyone to have their own personal or news website whilst banning any social media or comment section from being unverified. At least this way you can say everyone is entitled to their soapbox but they've got to stand by their words. This seems to be closest we can get to the real world to me. You don't get to be anonymous in real life - you can move to a new town and take on a new identity but if you're consistently an arsehole then you will soon be labelled and treated as such and get run out of town.

Re: Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Israel-Hamas conflict

#63

Post by r00fus »

gambiting wrote: post #44
clubm8 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>misinformation about elections is taken "extremely seriously" under the DSA Speaking as a card carrying DSA member who primaried many folks... well actually my wallet was stolen but you get the idea... Speaking as someone who joined the DSA post Trump... people tend to get really pissy if you accuse them of being a Russian robot one too many times :-)

What's DSA?

DSA = Digital Services Act (original context) replied to by someone using DSA = Democratic Socialist of America (as a joke).

Re: Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Israel-Hamas conflict

#64

Post by acdha »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #29
bestouff wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure this "freedom of speech" absolutism is such a good idea. A society needs to put limits on behavior of its individuals to be sane. I support that people can express whatever opinion they have, but not in any way they want.

I think one issue is that on the internet it's becoming impossible to know anything. You can't know that those thousands of accounts are trolls or neighbors. Does freedom of speech grant you the right to use a troll/bot army to spread misinformation? I suppose if each troll/bot were labeled I would be fine with it but they aren't, they pollute these online spaces. Whose speech is being protected?

Also there’s less accountability at the same time that the costs have never been lower. A lot of free speech assumptions are based on relative ratios and implicit social pressure to discourage abuse. There just aren’t that many people who are going to stand around screaming insults or lies in a public space, and there’s no equivalent for one guy pretending to be hundreds of people or, especially, for 10 people in a different country to pretend to be part of an entire political movement on another continent.

Re: Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Israel-Hamas conflict

#65

Post by kurthr »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #29
bestouff wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure this "freedom of speech" absolutism is such a good idea. A society needs to put limits on behavior of its individuals to be sane. I support that people can express whatever opinion they have, but not in any way they want.

I think one issue is that on the internet it's becoming impossible to know anything. You can't know that those thousands of accounts are trolls or neighbors. Does freedom of speech grant you the right to use a troll/bot army to spread misinformation? I suppose if each troll/bot were labeled I would be fine with it but they aren't, they pollute these online spaces. Whose speech is being protected?

The goal of much disinfo is exactly this, to remove the idea of objective reality, facts, or truth. It is common and useful to do this in authoritarian regimes. It goes along with depoliticization where the population comes to believe that they have no control and should desire no control over politics or government.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

Re: Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Israel-Hamas conflict

#66

Post by blitzar »

r00fus wrote: post #49
blitzar wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You stick the CEO in jail.

No need for that; EU can essentially poison EU markets for FB (sanctions/fines/blocks). Most shareholders will act accordingly and tank the stock. Even if Mark can ignore because he holds most of the voting interest, this directly impacts all vested workers, so becomes an HR nightmare.

Why not do both? It would be so much fun - Facebook execs too scared to got to fly the jet to Europe for fear of being cuffed when they land.

The reality is facebook would happily pay the fine and the real loser would be the US taxman - in response the US would drum up some more "fines" against some European companies as payback. All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again.

Re: Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Israel-Hamas conflict

#67

Post by majkinetor »

blitzar wrote: post #20
8bithero wrote: post #12

Sorry if this is a silly question: The article states that if the companies fail to comply then they can be issued with fines worth 6% of the company’s annual revenue. What would happen in the even where one of the companies just said "Nope. We're not paying it."? In that case I assume the offending company would be dragged into lengthy and expensive legal battles against the EU. But is it likely that the EU could or…

You stick the CEO in jail.

Why would you? Companies exist for a very reason to separate legal from private entity. CEO is not a company.

Re: Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Israel-Hamas conflict

#68

Post by jl6 »

anonyfox wrote: post #48
bwanab wrote: post #9

Very few countries have freedom of speech enshrined quite as forcefully as it is in the United States. One really has to wonder where this is going to go? I understand why they want to do it, but once a censorship regime is established it will be very difficult to dislodge. What happens when the next set of elections puts in somebody who uses that power for less than ideal purposes?

I, for one, don’t want to see/read holocaust deniers, aggressive hate speech, or fascist propaganda. This stuff is not okay in any way. People being allowed to megaphone this FUD for cheap attention/clicks/manipulation always find idiots who actually believe this shit, and move the Overton window towards even more destructive speech being tolerated. While I do value free speech in general, there is a red line. Like,…

> fascist propaganda

Huge opportunity here to censor your disfavored groups by calling them fascist, which has, in recent times, evolved from being a political science term, to being a very broad type of insult/accusation usable against almost anyone you don’t like.

Re: Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Israel-Hamas conflict

#69

Post by concordDance »

8bithero wrote: post #35
bwanab wrote: post #9

Very few countries have freedom of speech enshrined quite as forcefully as it is in the United States. One really has to wonder where this is going to go? I understand why they want to do it, but once a censorship regime is established it will be very difficult to dislodge. What happens when the next set of elections puts in somebody who uses that power for less than ideal purposes?

Your concerns about the potential pitfalls of establishing a censorship regime are 100% warranted. However the paradox of tolerance, as described by Karl Popper, is quite relevant here. Popper posited that for a society to remain tolerant, it must have the right to be intolerant of intolerance. This seems contradictory, but the essence is that unchecked tolerance can eventually be exploited by the intolerant, jeopard…

> Popper emphasised that the intolerance which shouldn't be tolerated is that which refuses to engage in "rational argument".

This is the key bit most people miss out.

"You should be intolerant of intolerance" is a useless heuristic. You can rephrase most moral statements to be intolerant.

Re: Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Israel-Hamas conflict

#70

Post by perceptronas »

malermeister wrote: post #50
houseatrielah wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say "society", but in practice its a group of unelected bureaucrats engaging in political censorship and regulatory capture.

Who exactly is unelected?

European Commission fits here. Head of commission is approved by parliament as far I know, but commissars are not elected, just suggested by each state governments. Also, all EU laws can only be proposed by European Commission. Others can suggest them, but only they can bring them to parliament. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Post reply on HN