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

EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

patrick-breyer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 360 posts

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#131

Post by nox101 »

fallingsquirrel wrote: post #115
StrLght wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: why would a free speech absolutist start a discussion here, on this site? I have a feeling that plenty of rules here [0] wouldn't be accepted by such a crowd. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Free speech doesn't mean you can force anyone to listen. The government should not make any speech illegal on a federal level, but individual private businesses or websites (like HN) can still decide what's tolerated on their property. And the corollary -- I believe in free speech but there are some people I'll never listen to, even though I believe in their right to speak.

Listened to an interesting debate on this topic

https://opentodebate.org/debate/mock-trial-murthy-v-missouri...

The first debater said it was okay because the companies complied voluntarily. I found myself at first nodding along.

Then, at least for me, after hearing more arguments I was like, "okay, she's basically saying if President Trump calls Musk and says (please censor anything pro-Biden)" that's fine as long as there's no "or else". To me it seemed wrong for that to be ok.

The other debater also pointed out that even if there was no explicit "or else" the twitter files made it clear the people there thought there was an implicit "or else".

It's a hard problem.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#132

Post by realce »

hot_gril wrote: post #126
realce wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It states that historically government oppression has resulted in revolution and violence. It doesn't imply its the only way, but it's certainly a human trope repeated countless times in history, and it will occur again. Could provide an constructive alternative viewpoint instead of calling plain facts of history "dangerous" or "rhetoric" as if acknowledgement of history is dangerous?

The comment above literally says "only."

And conditions it as "historically".

It does not state "revolution and violence is the only way forward"

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#133

Post by School-Cotton »

consumer451 wrote: post #110
Dig1t wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP specified “culturally”, ie people who stand up for free speech regardless of its content are painted as alt-right bigots, even if they only care about preserving the right to speak freely. I’m also in this camp and have been down-voted into oblivion many times for just saying something like “I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. It’s not fun to be a defender of truly fr…

I don't believe that anyone is truly for absolute free speech, it's just some theoretical utopia which sounds great, until you actually dive into details. Would you defend my right to call your little brother or sister terrible disgusting names? Threaten you or your family's lives? Say that your entire ethnicity doesn't deserve to exist? Because that would be absolute free speech. I don't think anybody should have th…

The U.S. might not be a free speech utopia but it’s pretty close.

> Would you defend my right to call your little brother or sister terrible disgusting names? Threaten you or your family's lives? Say that your entire ethnicity doesn't deserve to exist?

Out of these three examples, the first and third are totally legal in the U.S.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#134

Post by idiotsecant »

StrLght wrote: post #109
cjbgkagh wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech absolutists like myself got run over culturally with hate speech laws so for anyone continuing on the fight I wish you the best of luck.

Honest question: why would a free speech absolutist start a discussion here, on this site? I have a feeling that plenty of rules here [0] wouldn't be accepted by such a crowd. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Do you only participate in forums with which you are 100% ideologically aligned?

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#135

Post by School-Cotton »

chgs wrote: post #66
FredPret wrote: post #4

This is why the roles of the major players in society (government, monopolies) need to be circumscribed. Large organizations will always try to grow in size and power. We need some sort of human right for digital privacy to make this sort of thing illegal.

The largest organisations are the trillion dollar ones we interact with every day, not the eu or even the German or us governments .

The German government can put you in prison. The US government can do that, and additionally can even kill you.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#136

Post by mellosouls »

Headline is clickbait nonsense. Nothing is being greenlighted.

Here's the only relevant section, which links to an article [1] that says only that discussion will continue on the 19th June:

According to documents leaked by netzpolitik.org, the COREPER 2 meeting in which they will put it [compromise proposal] to a vote will already take place on Wednesday, 19 June.

[1] https://netzpolitik.org/2024/anlasslose-massenueberwachung-f...

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#137

Post by consumer451 »

School-Cotton wrote: post #133
consumer451 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe that anyone is truly for absolute free speech, it's just some theoretical utopia which sounds great, until you actually dive into details. Would you defend my right to call your little brother or sister terrible disgusting names? Threaten you or your family's lives? Say that your entire ethnicity doesn't deserve to exist? Because that would be absolute free speech. I don't think anybody should have th…

The U.S. might not be a free speech utopia but it’s pretty close. > Would you defend my right to call your little brother or sister terrible disgusting names? Threaten you or your family's lives? Say that your entire ethnicity doesn't deserve to exist? Out of these three examples, the first and third are totally legal in the U.S.

Legal yes, IRL not very good for one's health though.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#138

Post by slater »

ziggy_star wrote: post #94
squigz wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why it matters who you're quoting. Feel free to make a more substantive point. I vouched for it myself, by the way.

[flagged]

To quote dang from the last time:

"you're posting too many low quality comments, especially unsubstantive comments and/or flamebait"

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#139

Post by realce »

squigz wrote: post #129
realce wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It states that historically government oppression has resulted in revolution and violence. It doesn't imply its the only way, but it's certainly a human trope repeated countless times in history, and it will occur again. Could provide an constructive alternative viewpoint instead of calling plain facts of history "dangerous" or "rhetoric" as if acknowledgement of history is dangerous?

> Could provide an constructive alternative viewpoint instead of calling plain facts of history "dangerous" or "rhetoric" as if acknowledgement of history is dangerous? This is a really unfair reading of my stance, and I'm fairly confident you knew what I meant - especially since I spelled it out in my last comment. Acknowledgement of history is fine. Implications that the way things have always went is the only way…

> Implications that the way things have always went is the only way it can go is silly at best and dangerous at worst.

I apologize if I was unfair, I'm just trying to have a provocative conversation, no offense intended.

Calling an acknowledgement of history either dangerous, rhetoric, or weighed with the burden of intangible implication seems like a way to shame the observer for observing what is obvious. Just mentioning historical violence is not an endorsement of it or a suggestion that it's the only tool available to the slighted. I find that reaction itself to be the actual danger.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#140

Post by seoulmetro »

consumer451 wrote: post #72
dauertewigkeit wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate speech accusations are a bit like being accused of rape. Once it happens you automatically get tainted and it is very hard to defend yourself in the public sphere, even if the accusations are totally unfounded. This is of course abused by evil people. Moreover, what counts as hate speech can very suddenly alter depending on whoever is in charge, and even if the public don't go along with it, it can still be used…

I am not directing this at you, or anyone here, truly. However, this XKCD always come to mind whenever I hear the topics of hate speech and free speech mentioned within proximity of each other: https://xkcd.com/1357/

This is poorly done. If you're banned from doing something for a long time for unfair reasons, then the unfair reasons are rectified and you can actually do it, people will still feel brainwashed to treat you as before even though they never actually wanted to.

To just think that a bunch of people not liking something means that something is inherently bad is missing the context for why those people think something is bad, and who told them to think that.

If a billion people think you're an asshole for no objective reason, then you are just doing something they are emotional about.

Post reply on HN