621–630 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The website rt.com is banned in the whole EU due to a decret by von der Leyen which bypassed parliament. It's trivial to bypass since it's "only" a DNS block but it's still censorship (no matter how you think about the content of RT). Same for Sputnik and the relevant TV channels.
That’s a complete lie. I’m in Germany and can access rt.com perfectly fine
In Italy for example RT website is blocked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Germany there are some examples for the suppression of speech. For example popular examples are: (1) getting your house raided for calling a politician a dick (2) getting your house raided for calling a politician stupid (3) most recent, just in this week, a retiree gets into trouble with the police for asking worried questions about migration (1) https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/hamburg-wohnungsdurch... (2)…
(1) Is also because it's literally vandalism. (2) Also points out that there were posts of holocaust denial, which has been illegal in most of europe for literal decades. (3) Is an article about an investigation into whether or not the cart was protected by freedom of expression or whether there would be grounds for further trial. Nobody is in trouble yet. Isn't it convenient how all posts that say something that rhy…
(2) The corresponding prosecutor made clear that his house was raided for calling the politician stupid and NOT for anything else. You would have known that if you would have read the document I linked to. To quote it:
Wegen des Tatverdachts einer gegen Personen des politischen Lebens gerichteten
Beleidigung gem. §§ 185, 188, 194 StGB erfolgte am vergangenen Dienstag, 12.11.2024, eine
richterlich angeordnete Durchsuchung der Wohnung des Beschuldigten durch Polizeibeamte
der Kriminalpolizei Schweinfurt
Due to suspicion of an offence of insulting persons in political life
pursuant to Sections 185, 188, 194 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), a
judicially ordered search of the accused's apartment was carried out last Tuesday, November 12, 2024, by police officers
from the Schweinfurt Criminal Investigation Department.
So, yes my links support my assertion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would educating people instead and giving them more options for information, not be better than banning access to information?
What if educating people takes decades and lies can be prompted in a few minutes?
And the failure of education was an intentional feature, not a bug, since the government wants obedient tax cattle that will easily accept their propaganda at elections, not freethinkers that question everything because then they might notice your lies and corruption.
It's like building a backdoor into your system thinking you're the only one who gets to use it for the upper hand, but then throw fits when everyone else is using your backdoors to defeat you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which country ?
Italy. Examples of sites I can't access without VPN: torrent sites (including legal uses), betfair.com (which I use as a more accurate political predictor than polls), and various non-EU sites which block access because they've decided it's easier than complying with extra-territorial requirements imposed by the EU (this one isn't direct EU censorship, but it amounts to the same thing indirectly. Sometimes I set my V…
I might have changed my dns in the past
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The datacenter is in Utah, not Virginia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center
It's referring to us-east-1
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am European and I would like to challenge you a little. Both the US and Europe have major issues with press and freedom of expression. To give you some examples from the European side. Specifically, the UK: * Police in England and Wales recorded 12,183 arrests in 2023 for online speech. This number is growing fast, but the government isn't releasing the data anymore. A few years ago this man retweeted a meme (prett…
Thanks for your input on UK society. FWIW, despite the coordinated attacks we are doing just fine. If you live your life through social media it might look like we are one step from North Korea though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we're all aware that EU is trying to become more independent, but as of right now basically everything they do online, or really anything with technology at all, is American in some way. That's a lot of "soft power" and it will take decades, maybe a century, for EU or UK to replace it.
Tarrifs cost US consumers not EU consumers. If the US wants to ban AWS from operating in the EU that's just going to accelerate the shift away, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/14/transgender-... [2] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Scottow-... ”Margaret Dodd of one offence of improper use of a public communications network, contrary to section 127(2)(c) of the Communications Act 2003. This provides that a person commits an offence if “for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another [she]…
[1] is illegal Not sure what [2] is about. [3] doesn't appear relevant either.
Well yes, that’s my point. :)
2. Is a woman being arrested and charged with causing “anxiety” for a series of tweets.
3. Is the same; wrongthink guised as “threats” etc
If you just want to defend the censorship as is your right then just say so instead doing the usual:
“It’s not happening”
“Ok. It’s happening and that’s a good thing”
Rigmarole and wasting my time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
do you think being arrested for social media posts can lead to a chilling effect on those social media posts? why are we pretending that being "arrested but not convicted" is anywhere near acceptable for speech the government doesn't like?
Cops can arrest anyone for any reason. If it wasn't for speech, it'd be for public intoxication or accusations of being a paedophiles or for potentially possessing a weapon. Like the linked article states: the law doesn't permit the police to do what they do. Even if you implement an America-style "you can even yell bomb in an airport" speech law, the cops would still arrest people to intimidate them. Changing the la…
that's not even remotely close to reality, you have zero understanding of what the free speech laws in america are if you believe this is covered by the first amendment