171–180 of 349 posts
You can’t fix censorship with tech. The only solution is booting the facists out.
The only successful revolutions are piloted by a small elite with further interests that may not coincide with the people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>2023: ~12,183 arrests These numbers are for _all_ arrests under the Malicious Communications Act in that year. So while that category includes arrests for tweets, it also includes all arrests for any offensive communications via an internet-enabled device. So it'd include arrests for domestic abuse where at least one component of the abuse was through WhatsApp. Similarly, it can include just about any arrest where t…
The point is, communications should not be surveilled at all by the state. It shouldn't matter that the Internet is sometimes used to commit crimes, the bigger issue is that the vast majority of non-criminal traffic is subject to snooping.
Could be that some guy threatened to kill someone over FB, someone saw that, and reported it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that it is really difficult to define what hate speech is, and more often than not it's used as a cudgel to silence the opposition. For Iran and Russia, it is what Khamenei and Putin don't want to hear, in the UK it's what Starmer doesn't want to hear.
> The problem is that it is really difficult to define what hate speech is It can be, but free speech types like to pretend it's nigh impossible. The UK has had modern hate-speech laws (for want of a better term) since the Public Order Act 1986, which made it an offence to stir up or incite racial hatred. Amendments in 2006 and 2008 expanded that to religious and homophobic hatred respectively. This exists in stark c…
Do you not think that trying to malign your opposition by putting a comical misspelling in their mouths is a bit infantile as a rhetorical tactic? The same thing being done to you would look something like an insinuation that what is being banned is "hurting someone's widdle fee-fees"; surely the discussion here would not benefit if everyone stooped down to that level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What you cannot do is calling for violence against them. This is blatantly disingenuous. The Public Order Act 1986, Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 all criminalize "insulting" and "abusive" words, or any public display of literature that is "insulting" or "abusive" -- much more than calls for violence: > A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words…
>> What you cannot do is calling for violence against them. > This is blatantly disingenuous. The Public Order Act 1986 ... ... criminalize "insulting" and "abusive" words ... Do you know what i find disingenuous here, you hooked me with the words i quoted above so i went to the legislation: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64 And the thing to stand out was the change of meaning when the full quote is provid…
Grandparent is quoting Part III 18 Use of words or behaviour or display of written material.
You are quoting Part I 4 Fear or provocation of violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>2023: ~12,183 arrests These numbers are for _all_ arrests under the Malicious Communications Act in that year. So while that category includes arrests for tweets, it also includes all arrests for any offensive communications via an internet-enabled device. So it'd include arrests for domestic abuse where at least one component of the abuse was through WhatsApp. Similarly, it can include just about any arrest where t…
The point is, communications should not be surveilled at all by the state. It shouldn't matter that the Internet is sometimes used to commit crimes, the bigger issue is that the vast majority of non-criminal traffic is subject to snooping.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was also surprised the post focusses on Rus/Iran when Australia, UK, and many more countries (Malaysia, Thailand) have/are introducing laws to prevent large swaths of free speech (banning mediums by age, banning conversation by topic, or by making speaking one's mind online too risky, as almost anything now can be interpreted as 'offensive' or 'hate speech').
Tor is primarily funded by the US State department, that's why.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are people saying that gets them arrested? This important but as-yet-unanswered question is crucial to evaluating the severity of the UK's censorship regime.
Probably the most high-profile case was the Lucy Connolly one, where she posted: > "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care, while you’re at it take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist so be it” For additional context (which was relevant during the…
The mass-murder was a consequence of the asylum system. Given what is publicly known, parents of Axel Rudakubana were overwhelmingly likely to have been asylum seekers.
Does anybody know what the situation is like in China these days? What's the most commonly used tool for proxying now? Does basically all network leaving China still get ratelimited at a few megabytes per second?
Currently in China (as a visitor). Wireguard literally just works (to a VPS). Mullvad works as a commercial provider, just slower. Xray-core (vless, Trojan) if you're paranoid. I have my own proxy over syncthing relays https://github.com/acheong08/syndicate which I use to proxy to my home in the UK (residential IP) without exposing any ports. I get rate limited to around 10mbps in Chongqing. Was slightly higher in Be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there no online source at all?
Plenty of sources, it is not being suppressed. We even had a journalist shot and killed. Look up Robert Bas, Bart Mos, Joost de Haas, Bas van Hout, Koen Voskuil, Peter R de Vries. Yet The Netherlands is in third place for World Press Freedom Index. How is that even possible.