wasn't there a specific lobbying group pushing for this kind of legislation in some places (connected to the makers of software for this type of scanning)?
Ashton Kutcher and his Thorn organisation?
EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow
211–220 of 360 posts
Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
>they'll also defend laws like the ones passed earlier in the year by the US House about codifying the IHRA's definition of anti-Semitism. Anyone who defended that isn't even close to a free-speech absolutist. >I don't believe anyone truly has a Free Speech Absolutist position I do. It's what makes America great. Erosions like that jewish law are slowly weakening that. You should be allowed to say whatever you want a…
Should I be able to make wild claims about my product to trick you into buying it? False claims about my buisness performance to pump the stock? Lies about your character? Your kids? made up stuff that whips up entire segments of your city to commit violence or vandalism against you? Because absolute free speech is allowing all that without consequence
Yes. The free market would solve the first two, the next two aren't even crimes currently, and with the last the crime is the violence/vandalism not someone telling a fib.
Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
>they'll also defend laws like the ones passed earlier in the year by the US House about codifying the IHRA's definition of anti-Semitism. Anyone who defended that isn't even close to a free-speech absolutist. >I don't believe anyone truly has a Free Speech Absolutist position I do. It's what makes America great. Erosions like that jewish law are slowly weakening that. You should be allowed to say whatever you want a…
> Anyone who defended that isn't even close to a free-speech absolutist. No True Scotsman. > You just don't want to acknowledge such a stance is possible because the people you agree with are in power, allow the speech you agree with, and censor the speech you don't disagree with, so you stand with nothing to gain by supporting free speech. That's a personal choice to have no integrity. ... I am not American, neither…
>No True Scotsman.
Nope. If you support laws that censor criticism of israel you are not a free speech supporter, let alone an absolutist. The term has a very clear definition and it's the opposite of what the antisemitism law entails.
>... I am not American, neither do I have anyone in power who supports the speech I agree with.
Did I say you were American? All of Europe and many parts of Asia are way worse when it comes to free speech.
>Do you support Free Speech of the person screaming obscenities at your young child? False claims about you? Whipping up entire communities to attack you physically?
Yes. If it's just words and not a direct threat it's fine.
Direct threats are a fine exception because they promise crossing over from words into physical action, at that point the NAP is violated if you want to look at it that way. No need to wait and see if they're actually going to follow through.
Aside from that I really don't see any need for further exceptions.
Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
> military security Wasn't that NATO (aka mostly the US)?
There's also the point that countries with close economic ties have more to lose by going to war with each other.
It's a necessary component of this sort of idea, but clearly it's not sufficient. I mean, we have had Russia in war with Ukraine for about a decade now, beginning at the annexation of Crimea, even though they had fairly good trade relations, even if they were hurt once Maidan happened.
I think that one needs strong economic ties, but it seems to only truly work with democratic societies.
Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We need some sort of human right for digital privacy to make this sort of thing illegal. That's how you get another level of super-government, i.e. one more tyrant in the chain Historically the circle breaks only with revolution and violence . Maybe checks and balances would work as a system, but the EU has neither
> Historically the circle breaks only with revolution and violence . This sort of rhetoric is dangerous. > Maybe checks and balances would work as a system It does seem to be working well in America.
[deleted]
Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Since you unflagged it and appear to be suddenly as befuddled as I am about why it was flagged in the first place it seems that you agree with me that it shouldn't have been. I'd be pretty concerned about these mysterious false flags. P.S. - Mr Slater immediately jumped to your defense with the usual party line. Possibly a bit too quickly this time, your overwhelming fairness is showing guys. I'm touched. I'm more pa…
I don't actually agree. I just wanted to see how you'd respond.
Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
>they'll also defend laws like the ones passed earlier in the year by the US House about codifying the IHRA's definition of anti-Semitism. Anyone who defended that isn't even close to a free-speech absolutist. >I don't believe anyone truly has a Free Speech Absolutist position I do. It's what makes America great. Erosions like that jewish law are slowly weakening that. You should be allowed to say whatever you want a…
Should I be able to make wild claims about my product to trick you into buying it? False claims about my buisness performance to pump the stock? Lies about your character? Your kids? made up stuff that whips up entire segments of your city to commit violence or vandalism against you? Because absolute free speech is allowing all that without consequence
It seems to me that a truly free speech absolutist reply would be “yes” to all of the above.
But I submit that given our current state of affairs as a species, I don’t think we could handle that “yes”.
That “yes” coexisting in a harmonious world that is safe and sound would require that speech that incites violence or vandalism isn’t acted upon, for example. That the market could and would reliably be able to detect and counter deceitful manipulation. That somehow the market would be able to do the same with lies about a product or service.
It also suggests abdicating accountability for when such a seemingly perfect system would fail and result in harm.
These things seem implausible in our current reality. A lack of accountability seems undesirable generally and is already something that we suffer enough.
Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
It hasn't, apart from this Chat Control.
Covid restrictions were significantly worse in the EU than USA, your government locked you all down and made it clear that they decide who works and who doesn’t. To be clear, the USA has some awful cities with those types of ideas too but it was far more rare. EU, Canada, and Australia showed they are teetering towards authoritarian surveillance states more than they are democracy. The more people put their head in t…
Sweden is in the EU and didn't really lock down?
Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
> will happen is that unwitting Signal users will end up being targeted by law enforcement Seems like a good thing. If nothing else works at least that might bring some attention to this nonsense..
"Signal, unwilling to implement easy to build software to comply with EU regulations, likely due to fiscal concerns, has shown itself placing profit far above the care and concerns of our next generation, our children, and the pedophiles that prey upon them, such heinous creators of child porn." signed EU press release. And so, 96% of people now think Signal is evil.
Which makes no sense as it does not make any profit as a non profit and relies on donations…
Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should I be able to make wild claims about my product to trick you into buying it? False claims about my buisness performance to pump the stock? Lies about your character? Your kids? made up stuff that whips up entire segments of your city to commit violence or vandalism against you? Because absolute free speech is allowing all that without consequence
Yes. The free market would solve the first two, the next two aren't even crimes currently, and with the last the crime is the violence/vandalism not someone telling a fib.
Firstly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
Secondly, you're okay with someone inciting violence/vandalism/crimes, and people acting explicitly on that person's direction, as long as only the actual violence/vandalism/crime is punished?