Live data from Hacker News

EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

patrick-breyer.de

141–150 of 360 posts

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Government spending is an order of magnitude bigger than the largest private companies in the world... WalMart is the largest private spender in the world at around ~$400B per year. The US Federal Government alone spends >$400B per month... That doesn't even include state and local governments which basically doubles that.

That and I can choose not to directly do business with a company without having to upend my entire life. Also none of them have armies. Not that I'm a libertarian or something, just gotta remember that the big nations are very clearly more powerful than corporations.

>That and I can choose not to directly do business with a company without having to upend my entire life.

I could easily see a self-employed Google user who decided to cut all ties with Google basically having to build a new life from scratch.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#142

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

Free Speech as a political principle is about relations between a state, and citizens, not a website, and its users. There are some gray-zone cases (e.g. formally private press/platforms can be heavily influenced by a ruling party using economic means, or for whatever reason some press/platform conglomerate controls market share so big it can influence gov't to legislate conditions harmful to potential competition), but it's definitely not about this site.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#143
post #139
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 menti…

If we're being (constructively) provocative, let's not pretend that the implication is all that intangible. Is it an endorsement? No. Is it an explicit statement that violence is the only way forward? No. But simply pointing it out, without expanding on it with, as you say, constructive alternative viewpoints, is very clearly implying that it's the only solution. If it's not, I ask GP: What is their point in what they said?

As for my position being dangerous... I don't see how that's the case. Again, as I've clarified, I do not find it dangerous to acknowledge history (of course that would be dangerous itself) just using history to imply dangerous things.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#144
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-hate speech got you? What were you trying to say exactly? One can go on X right now and spew any hate speech that one wants. How about just political opinions? How quickly we forgot "free speech zones." This is the government actually limiting public speech in the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone BTW, I am not for this regulation in any way. I just don't see the connection to hate speech.

Free Speech Absolutism was/is connected with hate speech because sites that hold up such an ideal end up being the landing pad for the very worst people who were banned everywhere else. There aren't enough normal people who vote with their money/time/engagement to reach critical mass on those platforms. And turns out very few people want actually free speech. We're in a forum with strong moderation and the discussion…

I broadly agree but present two caveats.

Firstly, that Germany's descent into fascism and anti-semitism were both helped by the lack of free speech. Blasphemy laws prevented the anti-semitism preached from the pulpits to be challenged, and hate speech laws actually helped the Nazis publicise their movement[1].

> Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer [Streicher's newspaper] was either confiscated or editors taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters. The courts became an important platform for Streicher's campaign against the Jews.

As to norms, they can be self-enforced because free speech allows such a choice, otherwise it would be the case that those norms were imposed or not even available. Most likely, they'd be someone else's norms.

[1] https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-v... Interview with Fleming Rose about his book.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#145
post #71
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We learnt the value of free speech the hard way, and very slowly Did we though? Unfortunately outside the US and a handful of other places free speech doesn't seem to be valued that much, often it's even viewed as a threat (and I'm not talking about authoritarian regimes). It's a double-edged sword to be fair, enabling misinformation and chaos.

> Unfortunately outside the US and a handful of other places free speech doesn't seem to be valued that much, often it's even viewed as a threat Can you convince me of this? Because it's not my impression.

>> Unfortunately outside the US and a handful of other places free speech doesn't seem to be valued that much, often it's even viewed as a threat

>Can you convince me of this? Because it's not my impression.

In my country (Macedonia), our then-Prime Minister a few years ago during the height of the pandemic, spoke (broken) English and funnily pronounced vaccines, something like "vac-signs" (or "vaksajns" in Macedonian). A guy made a website called vaksajns.com or .mk (can't remember the exact details) and if you visited it, it automatically redirected you to the Ministry of Health covid watch page. Police showed up at his door and he was taken to the police station to be questioned. This would never happen in a true free speech country like the United States.

Free speech in principle is enshrined in the Macedonian constitution as a fundamental right (I studied law), but there are many hate speech laws (we have a complex ethnic structure and wars based on ethnic sides), making it so that free speech isn't a thing (I studies law, if I need to clarify once more.)

If you criticize someone based on their religion, ethnicity, or whatever else that they can't control, you will be fined, or worse (although this does get selectively applied, mainly based on how much political power the group has which the offended member is a part of. Roma people have no political power in this country, so this very rarely happens when they do get offended(I don't think it has ever happened to be honet))- this does not happen in the US where free speech rains supreme (to clarify, i don't think we should go around criticizing people based on things they cant control, *but once you start limiting things the people can and cannot say, you don't have free speech* in your nationstate, Period.)

And what's funny, nobody talks about freedom of speech. Ever. Every political party and politicians of opposing political parties, and even their supporters have seemed to implicitly agree that it's somehow not an issue at all that the all-good state can tell you what's right and what's wrong, and what can be said and what can not be said.

Another funny story. At around the same time when the previous story takes place, the government made an official dictionary of the Macedonian language, supposed to contain all of the known words, BUT excluded all of the offensive words. Talk about state censorship...

What I described, more or less applies to the entire EU. Hate speech laws reign supreme in Europe. Asian countries do not have a good track record of freedom of speech, to say the least, either. I'm not sure about Africa, though I'm sure, that in the countries that do have a stable government, things aren't dissimilar when compared to European and Asian countries.

I've also lived in the US, and I've observed that it's the only place in the world where free speech is, actually, free.

Anybody who disagrees hasn't lived in a country other than the US *and* experienced life there. No, going to a country for 3 months back in '98 when you were in college and only going to parties does not, alas, constitute experiencing life in that country - at best you experienced party life (if you were not blackout drunk), which is a very tiny subset of life.

And to the Europeans and other people except those who live in the US, trust me, you do not know, what free speech feels like, not until you can experience the true freedom to express yourself like you can in the US. If you've done extensive research on this topic, you may actually know what it is, but not the actual indescribable feeling.

Also, have you ever heard of what happened in Tiananmen square, in Hong Kong a few years ago, in Prague a few centuries ago, in Kent State in the US (mind you, one of these was taken much, much, inexplainably much more seriously than the other events.) But I guess you haven't, considering you're asking people to convince you that free speech is not valued that much in countries outside the US.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#146
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We learnt the value of free speech the hard way, and very slowly. Now we need to keep extending such notions to the rapidly increasing frontiers that new tech is exposing. Hopefully with more tech-savvy generations gradually taking power, this will happen without too many painful lessons.

> We learnt the value of free speech the hard way, and very slowly Did we though? Unfortunately outside the US and a handful of other places free speech doesn't seem to be valued that much, often it's even viewed as a threat (and I'm not talking about authoritarian regimes). It's a double-edged sword to be fair, enabling misinformation and chaos.

I think the differences is that it isnt weaponised as it is in the US but it is very much valued and expected.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#147
post #145
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately outside the US and a handful of other places free speech doesn't seem to be valued that much, often it's even viewed as a threat Can you convince me of this? Because it's not my impression.

>> Unfortunately outside the US and a handful of other places free speech doesn't seem to be valued that much, often it's even viewed as a threat >Can you convince me of this? Because it's not my impression. In my country (Macedonia), our then-Prime Minister a few years ago during the height of the pandemic, spoke (broken) English and funnily pronounced vaccines, something like "vac-signs" (or "vaksajns" in Macedonia…

Mmm, yes. America is the only country that has true freedom of speech.

I suppose that's why a silly Canadian like me wouldn't know much about other countries. We just don't have free speech.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That and I can choose not to directly do business with a company without having to upend my entire life. Also none of them have armies. Not that I'm a libertarian or something, just gotta remember that the big nations are very clearly more powerful than corporations.

>That and I can choose not to directly do business with a company without having to upend my entire life. I could easily see a self-employed Google user who decided to cut all ties with Google basically having to build a new life from scratch.

It'd mean directing people to a new email address, downloading stuff out of Drive, and maybe not advertising via Google. That doesn't seem like a lot. If your job is YouTube content creation, you'd need a new job, but you also had to make specific choices to end up there.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#149
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 be fair, I'm the only who we know for certain interpreted your comment in the way I did, and I vouched/unflagged it. Who knows why anyone else would flag it?

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#150

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

[deleted]
Post reply on HN