211–220 of 386 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is kind of insane. It's especially insane because Polish law is not a superset of every other country's law. If a web site is forced to remove content because it violates a law specific to the country the site is based in -- boom, now they've broken the law in Poland.
You're right, there's no way this could reasonably enforced.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment misrepresents the situation by failing to indicate that the 'Constitutional Crisis' started before the current Law and Justice government took power by the previous governments anti-constitutional actions of trying to appoint Constitutional Court judges ahead of the end of their terms. For a summary of events: [1] Imagine if Barack Obama / George Bush decided to go ahead and punt some SCOTUS members ahea…
> This comment misrepresents the situation by failing to indicate that the 'Constitutional Crisis' started before the current Law and Justice government took power by the previous governments flagrant anti-constitutional actions of trying to appoint Supreme Court Judges ahead of the end of their terms. It was the Constitutional Court, not Supreme Court. Also, no, not really - that didn't start the crisis in any reaso…
The problem is that previous government broke the law in more than one way:
1. They appointed more judges that they were allowed to.
2. They did appoint all those judges by means of single parliamentary resolution, despite the fact that Polish Constitution clearly requires voting for each judge separately.
Given those two points NONE of the judges was appointed lawfully, and there was no other way forward than repeal the whole resolution, therefore removing all 5 unlawfully appointed judges.
The actual rationale behind this is to protect bigots from getting kicked off social media for hate speech against LGBT people. Article 256 of the Polish criminal code makes it illegal to incite hatred based on religion, race or nationality but not sexual orientation.
LGBT is not mentioned in article 256 because this article is about Spreading fascism and other totalitarian systems.
Your comment is a lie.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup, under this law a post mentioning true facts about nazi collaboration in poland during ww2 would be illegal.
Mentioning true facts (mostly falsehoods, but also some true facts) about WW2 is already illegal in Germany.
> Under its provisions, social media services will not be allowed to remove content or block accounts if the content on them does not break Polish law. This is kind of insane. So if I offer a free website- a private company operating as I like- I would be forbidden from removing content from my own website that I don't like because the person who wrote it- again, not a paying customer- wants it to be there. Not only…
Like they sing in Poland, Jebać PiS. Note that PiS is actually pronounced piss, which must be some kind of divine providence.
no it isn't. It's pronounced peace
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://time.com/5128341/poland-holocaust-law/ > The bill was proposed by the country’s ruling Law and Justice party (PiS) and calls for up to three years in prison or a fine for accusing the Polish state or people of involvement or responsibility for the Nazi occupation during World War II The law has since passed, tho it was later amended to remove the prison time portion. Now I am not a lawyer, nor am I polish, so…
No one sensible is accusing "the Polish state" or "the Polish people" of being involved with the Holocaust, and the Wikipedia page itself doesn't state anything like that. The law is aimed at hateful idiocy like talking about the supposed "Polish death camps", as opposed to the tragically real Nazi death camps in Nazi-occupied Poland.
> Under its provisions, social media services will not be allowed to remove content or block accounts if the content on them does not break Polish law. This is kind of insane. So if I offer a free website- a private company operating as I like- I would be forbidden from removing content from my own website that I don't like because the person who wrote it- again, not a paying customer- wants it to be there. Not only…
Yup, under this law a post mentioning true facts about nazi collaboration in poland during ww2 would be illegal.
That might be the wrong way to go about it, but I sympathize with the sentiment. If you pretend to be a public square you must act like a public square. As it happens the US Supreme Court is also sympathetic - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama Now many here already raised an obvious objection - someone tending to a small blog should be able to police it. That is sensible. So I suppose we need to find a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But he doesn't own Twitter. He's a representative of the shareholders. And TWTR is down 6.5% today on the news. So clearly this decision wasn't in the interest of Twitter's actual owners.
We don’t get to see the world where he didn’t do that. For example, let’s pretend his lawyers warned him that TWTR as a company and himself as an individual could be held liable for any future riot organised on Twitter. That would be worse than 6.5%, surely?
- unsolicited ads = spam
- what you post on the Internet will be copyrighted (owned by you). So Facebook/Twitter will require a license to use your data. Whether they will share profits is up to the license agreement.
- procedure to sue when aforementioned data is used without a license.
- global rules regarding deletion of accounts (suspend period, downloadable user owned data)