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

101–110 of 166 posts

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

#101

Post by logicalmonster »

rcarr wrote: post #62
mozman wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safe harbor must be protected. If you start policing users it’s a super slippery slope.

I don't think governments should be allowed to silence people which is what will likely happen if something like this happens, but I also don't think people should have the right to do or say whatever they want online with no repercussions either. I think the sweet point would probably be allowing anyone to have their own personal or news website whilst banning any social media or comment section from being unverifie…

> I also don't think people should have the right to do or say whatever they want online with no repercussions either

Are there not circumstances where relative anonymity is desirable and reasonable?

What if I'm a refugee facing roundup by the death squads? What if I'm a person of color in a racist environment? What if I'm trans and fear hatred and genocide for my gender expression? What if I'm a political dissident in an authoritarian regime? What if I want to help give women the right to choose and I fear violence? What I believe in X God in a country where believing in Y God is the law of the land? What if I'm a medical professional who wants to give gender affirming care in a location where that's resisted? What if I'm a woman who wants to speak up? What if I'm a whistleblower against corporate malfeasance and am afraid? What if I'm speaking out about the cops in a corrupt town and fear reprisal?

Is it just that under your system, my choices are either silence or violence?

> You don't get to be anonymous in real life

Don't you? Pen names to publish political statements that could harm have been a thing for a long time.

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

#102

Post by littlestymaar »

f1shy wrote: post #87
blitzar wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You stick the CEO in jail.

You can only do that if he is doing something listed in the penal law, not the commercial law.

Given that this is related to terrorism[1] I'm pretty sure a creative government could find a way to attempt penal prosecution here if they really wanted though (After the terror attacks in France in 2015-2016, French law made “terrorism apologism” a crime for instance, which is a scary law tbh, especially when we've seen how it was applied).

[1] I personally don't like to talk about the Hama's massacre as “terrorism”, as an organized military crossing a border to systematically eradicate civilian population is much more than terrorism: it is genocidal in essence.

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

#103

Post by concordDance »

slg wrote: post #74
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.

Honor killings are outlawed in Europe and also occur in the US, so I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.

My point is that different people groups might have good reasons for doing things particular ways, but that doesn't mean there aren't better ways of doing things.

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

#104

Post by Gud »

threatofrain wrote: post #47
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.

No nation has pure freedom of speech anyway; we're all just shades of gray with Europe opting for a little more color over the US.

With more censorship it would be less color, I guess?

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

#105

Post by bdzr »

bwanab wrote: post #94
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.

Absolutism isn't the point. We all know that there are limits - the classic example of yelling fire in a crowed theater. And as somebody below pointed out, no country has full freedom of speech and while that is true the US does have freedom of speech enshrined in its founding documents as the first amendment. For most other countries, it's not a clear "right" except by common practice and legislation that could be e…

FWIW, fire in a crowded theater usually is legal. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/shouting-f...

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

#106

Post by bdzr »

2356234562537 wrote: post #52
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 don't think anywhere is actually absolutist. Even America has restrictions they just are primarily things like shouting fire in a theatre to use the common example. I wonder, aside from offending good taste though, what harm is actually caused by the American approach that the Europeans can say they don't have to deal with. Unlike comparing gun violence, where I can easily just point out there's fewer civilians sho…

Fire in a theater usually is legal, see https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/shouting-f....

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

#107

Post by hj6c »

gretch wrote: post #26
ros8 wrote: post #8

Mindlessness. There is a reason spectrum is regulated. Broadcast being free for all, has Never made any sense. Social media is an abnormality.

> There is a reason spectrum is regulated Yeah because it's scarce and if overuse leads to pollution and interference. It's not because [x] group of people are too dumb and shouldn't have ideas voiced.

Attention is scarce. The Attention Economy is about allocation of scarce Attention. It's not happening right now because Americans confuse Free Speech with Free Broadcast.

When everyone broadcasts what happens to Attention?

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

#108

Post by [deleted] »

bwanab wrote: post #94
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.

Absolutism isn't the point. We all know that there are limits - the classic example of yelling fire in a crowed theater. And as somebody below pointed out, no country has full freedom of speech and while that is true the US does have freedom of speech enshrined in its founding documents as the first amendment. For most other countries, it's not a clear "right" except by common practice and legislation that could be e…

[deleted]

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

#109

Post by bmurphy1976 »

perceptronas wrote: post #70
malermeister wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who exactly is unelected?

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.

Are the EU state governments not elected? Last I checked they were.

Lots of bureaucratic and political positions are appointed by other elected representatives. We can't elect everybody, that would be too much. So is that really a problem here?

I am not that up to speed on the intricacies of EU governance at this level so I really don't know if this is a real problem or not.

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

#110

Post by ethbr1 »

bwanab wrote: post #94
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.

Absolutism isn't the point. We all know that there are limits - the classic example of yelling fire in a crowed theater. And as somebody below pointed out, no country has full freedom of speech and while that is true the US does have freedom of speech enshrined in its founding documents as the first amendment. For most other countries, it's not a clear "right" except by common practice and legislation that could be e…

The limits in the US are essentially action.

You can say whatever you want.

But when you take an illegal action (or, grey area, compel someone else to take an action) then you lose free speech protections.

"Fire" in a movie theater is the classic example of the court deciding what sort of speech consitutes compelling action.

This in contrast to other many other countries, where there is no guarantee that speech-that-does-not-compel-action will always be free.

To me, speech vs action is a critical distinction, because it prevents anyone in power from monopolizing the marketplace of ideas by banning an idea itself. While simultaneously preventing the worst societal consequences from actions.

Or, in other words... neo Nazis should be allowed to march peacefully... but so should everyone else. And the latter should massively outweigh the former. (That said, nothing prevents keeping a much closer eye on violence-espousing neo Nazis)

Post reply on HN