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

EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

patrick-breyer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 360 posts

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#321

Post by Wytwwww »

t0bia_s wrote: post #231
squigz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately outside the US and a handful of other places free speech doesn't seem to be valued that much, often it's even viewed as a threat Can you convince me of this? Because it's not my impression.

Shutting down so called Russian-propaganda sites on DNS level, hate speech regulations, mantra about disinformation regulations, even though nobody can define disinformation legislatively, remove access to bank accounts because of supporting protest against goverment, unavailable books to buy that are too extreme even though few years ago they were fine... It's all driven by politics.

> Shutting down so called Russian-propaganda sites

That's a significant disadvantage democracies that embrace freedom of speech have, though. China/Russia/other authoritarian shitholes have a very easy time shaping, blocking or severely limiting information spread from the outside world. Trying to play nice against a side which is cheating and playing dirty isn't exactly a winning strategy...

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#322

Post by Spivak »

tonynator wrote: post #189
Spivak wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free Speech Absolutism was/is connected with hate speech because sites that hold up such an ideal end up being the landing pad for the very worst people who were banned everywhere else. There aren't enough normal people who vote with their money/time/engagement to reach critical mass on those platforms. And turns out very few people want actually free speech. We're in a forum with strong moderation and the discussion…

When your ideas are so bad that you need to censor any discussion of opposing ideas lest they immediately win, it's time to change your ideas.

This is such a naive take that I'm honesty not sure how to respond. Like I mean this with zero judgement in the world, are you 14? Because this is word for word what I would have said at that age. And dgmr, I was certain and steadfast that I was correct and everyone else were just idiots.

It's difficult to explain why this is wrong because the very premise that ideas are even in competition in the manner you're suggesting just isn't true. There isn't some arena where scribes record victories and losses. And even on the individual level it doesn't work, that someone when presented with the truth will change their opinion. People won't even change their opinion even when it stands to benefit them personally.

I think folks get this idea of "marketplace of ideas" in their head and assume that "fitness" for an idea correlates with correctness. That better ideas spread and survive. No — entertaining ideas, ideas that conform to our existing biases, ideas that we were conditioned to think, ideas that get repeated over and over by someone with a big enough megaphone, ideas that sound plausibly correct, ideas that make people feel clever for thinking them, ideas that fit a particular narrative you believe, propaganda that is spread far and wide.

Being right has never and will never be enough. No one, not you, not me, not anyone is immune to taking on bad ideas. It took 40 years of the entire god damn western world organizing itself around a single message to get a critical mass people to believe that homosexuals were regular people and it still hasn't fully worked. Women have the rights we do because of the feminist movement in the 1970s. Slavery was abolished in 1865 and folks still think black people are inferior.

You're taking on the fallacy that progress just happens and isn't the result of a fuckton of work and sacrifice by people who consciously made it happen and who are out in the fields weeding constantly.

"When your crops are so bad you need to use herbicides to kill weeds lest they immediately take over your farm, it's time to change your crops."

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#323

Post by Wytwwww »

anal_reactor wrote: post #320
Wytwwww wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this some sort of sarcasm?

"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from being punished for saying things" I'm sorry but there's no universe in which this makes any sense. Either we say that people are free to express their opinions, or we punish people for saying things we don't like. Can't have both at the same time. The other guy used the argument "but the US constitution guarantees freedom of speech" yeah so does North Korean, argument inva…

What do you mean by "punished"? You have the right to say whatever you want just like I have the right to not listen to what you're saying, not to employ you, not buy goods/services from you and to encourage my friends to do the same (we're both exercising our right to the freedom of speech).

> but the US constitution guarantees freedom of speech" yeah so does North Korean, argument invalid.

Well courts in the US are somewhat independent and generally tend to usually adhere to that part of the US constitution when making decisions. North Korean courts? Not so much... Obviously it's a spectrum since the world is not black and white but I really don't quite understand what are you trying to say.

Are you seriously claiming that you don't see a fundamental difference between the US and North Korea in this case? Or do you just want someone to spend their time compiling a list of Supreme Court decisions relating to freedom of speech?

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#324

Post by gpvos »

sunaookami wrote: post #276
gpvos wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It hasn't, apart from this Chat Control.

Have you looked at the DSA? The EU can just say "we have an emergency" and gets to directly control the narrative on major online plattforms. https://dsa-observatory.eu/2023/02/21/the-dsas-crisis-approa... Not to mention that under the DSA plattforms have to delete "misinformation" in a short time span, whatever that is.

True, there are some troublesome aspects to that one.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#325

Post by Dalewyn »

anal_reactor wrote: post #320
Wytwwww wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this some sort of sarcasm?

"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from being punished for saying things" I'm sorry but there's no universe in which this makes any sense. Either we say that people are free to express their opinions, or we punish people for saying things we don't like. Can't have both at the same time. The other guy used the argument "but the US constitution guarantees freedom of speech" yeah so does North Korean, argument inva…

>if people can be punished for saying something

You are still failing to understand that nobody is prosecuted for what they say in the US. What is prosecuted is the damages incurred from what is said, such as damage to reputation in the case of defamation or physical/financial harm in the case of false marketing.

If you can't understand that, you need to go back and do your homework before you continuing discussing freedom of speech.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#326

Post by Lightkey »

belter wrote: post #7

EU is, and always was, a compensation job for failed national politicians at their respective national levels. It's the trade horse for allowing your party buddies to take over the government jobs. EU politicians should keep their over inflated salaries, and stick to what they are good at. Meeting with Google and Microsoft lobbyists at the best Brussels luxury restaurants.

First: nothing against a polemic comment against politicians but in this case, the proposal is coming from the council, which is made of national politicians and this news was written by a EU politician (Patrick Breyer of the Pirate Party Germany), so maybe a bit misplaced.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#327

Post by tonynator »

Spivak wrote: post #322
tonynator wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When your ideas are so bad that you need to censor any discussion of opposing ideas lest they immediately win, it's time to change your ideas.

This is such a naive take that I'm honesty not sure how to respond. Like I mean this with zero judgement in the world, are you 14? Because this is word for word what I would have said at that age. And dgmr, I was certain and steadfast that I was correct and everyone else were just idiots. It's difficult to explain why this is wrong because the very premise that ideas are even in competition in the manner you're sugge…

Surely there must be some reasonable explanation for why you are still right and correct even though your ideas constantly lose to others without censorship. It can't be that you're just wrong.

Progress is relative.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#328

Post by tonynator »

squigz wrote: post #252
tonynator wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defamation shouldn't exist (see Alex Jones, that's an insane situation to be told to pay $1.5 BILLION for sharing an opinion) but the standards are generally higher than "someone told lies about my character" at least. Yes. Everyone has agency, if I tell you to commit a crime it's up to you whether to do so.

Well I'm glad the vast majority of people don't agree with you and actually recognize there's nuance here.

The vast majority of people don't like being censored

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#329

Post by tonynator »

katbyte wrote: post #306
Dalewyn wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because absolute free speech is allowing all that without consequence Freedom of speech is absolutely not about freedom from consequences. Where and how did you ever get that idea? Free speech means you can say anything you want, some very specific caveats aside, and you can't be prosecuted simply for saying them. But that doesn't mean you won't have to answer for what happens as a consequence. As an example: You ab…

Literal people on this site arguing that people should be free from consequences. Replies to my comment here saying “defamation shouldn’t exist Alex jones did nothing wrong”

He didn't. Sharing a conspiracy theory should not be illegal just because it makes people upset. Horrifyingly anti-American precedent

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#330

Post by anal_reactor »

Wytwwww wrote: post #323
anal_reactor wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from being punished for saying things" I'm sorry but there's no universe in which this makes any sense. Either we say that people are free to express their opinions, or we punish people for saying things we don't like. Can't have both at the same time. The other guy used the argument "but the US constitution guarantees freedom of speech" yeah so does North Korean, argument inva…

What do you mean by "punished"? You have the right to say whatever you want just like I have the right to not listen to what you're saying, not to employ you, not buy goods/services from you and to encourage my friends to do the same (we're both exercising our right to the freedom of speech). > but the US constitution guarantees freedom of speech" yeah so does North Korean, argument invalid. Well courts in the US are…

> not to employ you

This is the problem because 99% of people are effectively dependent on their employers, and there's huge power imbalance between employers and employees.

In Europe there's a specific list of reasons which can result in work contract termination. This means that the employer cannot fire me just because I posted on Facebook "vote for party X for better future". This means that I feel free to post this because I know nobody will ruin my life over that.

In most US states there's a specific list of reasons why people cannot be fired - which means they can be fired for all other reasons, and "posting on Facebook that you support given party" does not belong to that list, which means that you can be fired for that, which effectively makes you think twice before you say things publicly.

I really don't think that "you don't go to jail but you have your life ruined by being fired and becoming unemployable" is such a fantastic deal and an example of freedom of speech.

Post reply on HN