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

131–140 of 166 posts

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

#131

Post by mardifoufs »

anonyfox wrote: post #75
jl6 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

As a German, I have a really good idea what actual fascism looks like, thank you. We have also laws that specify what types of content are illegal, and for very good (historical) reasons.

You also have a good idea of how you should go about censoring people and eliminating dissent l guess, if you want to use the "we were nazis" argument lol.

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

#132

Post by hackerlight »

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?

> What happens when the next set of elections puts in somebody who uses that power for less than ideal purposes?

But a related question is whether the current status quo increases the probability that such an authoritarian will get elected in the first place.

On the one hand, yes, it's bad to give tools like this to a would-be authoritarian. But on the other hand, a lack of such tools may increase the chances that such an authoritarian will rise. They use the freedoms you gave them to get in, then strip those freedoms from you. A liberal and democratic society can't survive without some level of involuntary force applied against those who don't care for such ideals.

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

#133

Post by hackerlight »

concordDance wrote: post #60
slg wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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? It leads to an oligarchy as the rich are able to use their money as speech to buy control of the government. Oh wait, you meant the US's free speech laws are a good thing. Maybe the Americans reading this should think about how their opinion on this issue might ha…

> People outside the US aren't all stupid. There are reasons other countries have different speech laws and not all of those reasons are bad. This is flawed logic. Consider: There are reasons other countries have honor killings and not all of those reasons are bad.

But the countries that are being compared to the US are actually good places to live, so the analogy is flawed.

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

#134

Post by junofan »

slg wrote: post #86
f1shy wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the world is USA (I suppose that is what you mean with America/Americans) and Europe. You have a big big world my friend!

Remember the context in which this conversation is occurring. The article is about European law. Most people reading this live in the USA (yes, I also wish there was a better demonym for people from the US than "Americans", but there isn't).

Kind of a case in point. Your last sentence is arguably anti-American hate speech (pejorative) under the UN’s broad definition [1]:

> any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor

which they note is broader than the typical American definition:

> While the above is not a legal definition and is broader than “incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”

[1]: https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/...

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

#135

Post by slg »

junofan wrote: post #134
slg wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember the context in which this conversation is occurring. The article is about European law. Most people reading this live in the USA (yes, I also wish there was a better demonym for people from the US than "Americans", but there isn't).

Kind of a case in point. Your last sentence is arguably anti-American hate speech (pejorative) under the UN’s broad definition [1]: > any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or ot…

I’m sorry, but no one who wrote that definition would agree with your interpretation. You are being intentionally misleading in an attempt to make a point.

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

#136

Post by friend_and_foe »

slg wrote: post #46
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. One really has to wonder where this is going to go? It leads to an oligarchy as the rich are able to use their money as speech to buy control of the government. Oh wait, you meant the US's free speech laws are a good thing. Maybe the Americans reading this should think about how their opinion on this issue might ha…

Well, we disagree. Our ancestors came here to escape your laws. Your way of looking at government and law led you to two continent wide wars which us free speech and gun loving people had to go clean up for you. And it looks like you're working on your third. The results speak for themselves, your reasons for authoritarianism aren't good enough as far as we are concerned, you're so happy with being told what to say, great, I don't see why you're so concerned about how we conduct our business over here. We have our reasons too, and ours are better justified.

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

#137

Post by concordDance »

hackerlight wrote: post #133
concordDance wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People outside the US aren't all stupid. There are reasons other countries have different speech laws and not all of those reasons are bad. This is flawed logic. Consider: There are reasons other countries have honor killings and not all of those reasons are bad.

But the countries that are being compared to the US are actually good places to live, so the analogy is flawed.

They are worse places to live because of the speech restrictions. I live in the UK.

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

#138

Post by nvm0n2 »

bestouff wrote: post #14
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'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 support that people can express whatever opinion they have, but not in any way they want.

This is a contradiction and makes no sense.

> A society needs to put limits on behavior of its individuals to be sane

But lack of free speech and free politics drives societies insane. Look at all the crazy stuff the USSR and PRC have done in their histories, relative to the free speech and very much not insane USA.

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

#139

Post by nvm0n2 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #121
perceptronas wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. The commissioners are appointed by the EC president in consultation with the member governments, and then the commission as a whole needs to secure approval of parliament. This is similar to the process by which parliamentary governments usually form a…

The EU Parliament isn't really a parliament, so that argument doesn't work. If it was really a parliament the Commission would work for the MEPs and they'd be the ones deciding the law. In the EU it's the other way around.

The way they play games with words doesn't make it a democratic system, it is however a very effective tool for the EU to muddy the water and confuse people into thinking it has greater legitimacy than it really does.

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

#140

Post by nvm0n2 »

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 idea of automated bot armies manipulating public discourse is largely a fantasy. The claims about such bots (usually on Twitter) never hold up to close inspection. Go do your own research (the thing that anti-free speech people often hate the most) and you'll discover many of the accounts labelled as bots by media and academia are humans.
Post reply on HN