Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Does the EU's ban on RT also ban Tor?

yanmaani.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 244 posts

Re: Does the EU's ban on RT also ban Tor?

#201

Post by detaro »

nybble41 wrote: post #198
detaro wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Freedom of speech is freedom from government censorship, not private censorship. That's not a universal definition, no. E.g. in the EU Facebook and Twitter have lost cases where they blocked posts for "ToS violations" and were ordered to restore them on free speech grounds. (whereas apparently in the US the perspective is more that banning corporations from banning people is violating the corps free speech rights,…

It is a universal definition, as natural rights are universal. What it is not is a legal definition, but you are attempting to make a legal argument.

And the restriction the comment I replied to made is not part of the universal definition, but based on legal interpretation in parts of the world.

Re: Does the EU's ban on RT also ban Tor?

#202

Post by krapp »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #155
causi wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because your rights end where other peoples' begins, and controlling what a company allows or doesn't allow on its platform is compelled speech, which is unconstitutional in the US. For example, a baker has the right to censor you by not allowing you to order a cake that says "Heil Hitler" on it.

> "Because your rights end where other peoples' begins" Understandable, but what happens when rights conflict in the other direction? Why doesn't my ISP's right to block access to parts of the Web end where my right to consume information begins? Why do we place more importance on the 'rights' of an abstract non-living corporation above the rights of actual citizens? > "what a company allows or doesn't allow on its p…

>Why doesn't my ISP's right to block access to parts of the Web end where my right to consume information begins?

For the same reason that a restaurant refusing service to you is not a violation of your right to food. You can still consume information without a contract under a specific ISP.

>Why do we place more importance on the 'rights' of an abstract non-living corporation above the rights of actual citizens?

We don't. The rights that protect corporations are actually protecting the people involved with and interacting with that corporation. Rights don't only exist exclusively for individuals, they can be expressed by groups and protect people in aggregate. The freedom of religion, for instance, would be meaningless if it only applied to the "abstract, non-living" concept of "religion," or could only be exercised by individuals, and not religious organizations.

Re: Does the EU's ban on RT also ban Tor?

#203

Post by ceejayoz »

nybble41 wrote: post #200
ceejayoz wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're describing two systems with the same end result - rights, but with exceptions and limits. One of the systems is simply more honest about having such a setup, and it's not the American one.

I'm saying both systems have the wrong end result—the EU one by design, and the American one due to defects in the courts. Being wrong by design is worse than having some implementation issues.

"Rights, with no wiggle room for edge cases or accounting for conflicts between rights" is "wrong by design". So's a giant, ever-expanding defined list of edge cases; I've run a popular web forum and that one leads to "ah but I didn't do exactly the thing listed in Article 73 section 48 part ZY" nonsense.

Our legal systems permit the resolution of conflicting rights and responsibilities. I'm glad that exists, but I'm also glad the Europeans took the American Constitution's failings and made it clearer that it should exist.

Re: Does the EU's ban on RT also ban Tor?

#204

Post by nybble41 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #203
nybble41 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying both systems have the wrong end result—the EU one by design, and the American one due to defects in the courts. Being wrong by design is worse than having some implementation issues.

"Rights, with no wiggle room for edge cases or accounting for conflicts between rights" is "wrong by design". So's a giant, ever-expanding defined list of edge cases; I've run a popular web forum and that one leads to "ah but I didn't do exactly the thing listed in Article 73 section 48 part ZY" nonsense. Our legal systems permit the resolution of conflicting rights and responsibilities. I'm glad that exists, but I'm…

"Rights with wiggle room" are not rights. When someone else gets to decide that your "right" will be curtailed because of some "edge case", that's known as a privilege, not a right. Likewise, your concept of "rights" is flawed if it includes any possibility of conflicts. Real rights—negative rights—do not conflict with each other. If an action would infringe on someone else's natural rights then it's out-of-bounds without their consent. If not, it's permitted. Simple and entirely conflict-free.

There are flaws in the American Constitution but this is not one of them. The failing lies in the courts, for making up exceptions contrary to the law and to natural rights, and in the EU for codifying those flaws into its own legal system.

Re: Does the EU's ban on RT also ban Tor?

#205

Post by ceejayoz »

nybble41 wrote: post #204
ceejayoz wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Rights, with no wiggle room for edge cases or accounting for conflicts between rights" is "wrong by design". So's a giant, ever-expanding defined list of edge cases; I've run a popular web forum and that one leads to "ah but I didn't do exactly the thing listed in Article 73 section 48 part ZY" nonsense. Our legal systems permit the resolution of conflicting rights and responsibilities. I'm glad that exists, but I'm…

"Rights with wiggle room" are not rights. When someone else gets to decide that your "right" will be curtailed because of some "edge case", that's known as a privilege , not a right. Likewise, your concept of "rights" is flawed if it includes any possibility of conflicts. Real rights— negative rights—do not conflict with each other. If an action would infringe on someone else's natural rights then it's out-of-bounds…

> "Rights with wiggle room" are not rights.

Sure they are.

I have the right to free speech, but your rights mean I can't exercise it by shouting at 3am in your living room.

I have the right to free exercise of religion, but I'm not allowed to exercise the Sacrament of Nuking Chicago as part of my services.

Deciding which rights win out in these scenarios are where the courts come in. Europe acknowledges that; the US kinda had to "discover" it as an option and invent space in the Constitution for it in spots.

Re: Does the EU's ban on RT also ban Tor?

#206

Post by GiorgioG »

shkkmo wrote: post #139
GiorgioG wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the stories they tell line up (generally) with non-government controlled news media.

You know that goverents frequently distribute their propaganda through media outlets that are not state owned, right?

You know these media outlets aren't legally required to do so, right?

Re: Does the EU's ban on RT also ban Tor?

#207

Post by asveikau »

kmlx wrote: post #182
asveikau wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is rather like blaming the host for the spread of a virus.

why is the host not wearing a mask?

Sure, we do all kinds of things to prevent viral infections. We wash hands. We wear masks. We vaccinate. For sexually transmitted things there are condoms.

We also have immune systems.

But at a lower level, when the virus makes it to the cell and hijacks its machinery to spread... That's the part i was thinking of. The cell isn't to blame for being hijacked.

Re: Does the EU's ban on RT also ban Tor?

#208

Post by MandieD »

simongray wrote: post #171
yanmaani wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. They are not at war "in all but name". War is a brutal thing, involving the deaths of thousands of young men. The EU is not by any stretch at war with Russia, nominally or otherwise. The entire point of a free country is that people can handle the information. If not, why even bother?

Just guessing, but maybe you're in the US so it feels a little bit different to you...? This is what's it's like now in Denmark: - We literally have 1 hour and 30 minutes of war updates before the half hour evening news every night. - We've just delivered a huge batch of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine. - We've basically sanctioned 90% of what is possible to sanction from Russia with more sanctions coming every day, plu…

Germany’s center-left government just committed to massively upping defense spending, and Germany’s neighbors are apparently fine with it.

Never thought I’d live to see that happen.

Re: Does the EU's ban on RT also ban Tor?

#209

Post by Markoff »

kmlx wrote: post #186
dncornholio wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is actually concerning you? I don't think we actually need all the information at all right now. Ukraine is fighting an uphill battle and they are holding longer then anyone expected. If that's the price of the truth, im happy to pay it. The truth will get out eventually anyway.

> The truth will get out eventually anyway. same thing can be said about so-called "news" from RT, no?

sure, nobody says all Western news are lies, same goes for RT, but only one side is being censored here for me as third party getting information from all sources and making my own mind

Re: Does the EU's ban on RT also ban Tor?

#210

Post by sudosysgen »

Tajnymag wrote: post #192
sudosysgen wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we want to be charitable, they are not referring to Ukraine at large but to groups like Azov, Right Sector, C14, etc..., That are indeed Nazis and that have been armed and trained by Western forces in full understanding of who they were and enthusiastically.

Still not a reason to bombard Kyiv.

Of course not. There isn't any good reason to invade a country outside of self-defence or genocide.
Post reply on HN