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

European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 407 posts

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#391

Post by T-N-T »

magduf wrote: post #362
T-N-T wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest guarantor of Germany not invading France again is that France has nuclear bombs and no one ever invaded a country that has the nuclear bomb, which is why people are panicking at the idea of NK having it because it would be impossible to topple their dictatorship and interfere if they had the threat of the bomb. > Some point to NATO as far more significant a guarantor of peace than the EU NATO has never be…

>no one ever invaded a country that has the nuclear bomb, which is why people are panicking at the idea of NK having it because it would be impossible to topple their dictatorship and interfere if they had the threat of the bomb. It's not impossible, you just can't do it with an invasion, which is likely to have bad side-effects anyways. Just look at the USSR: they had tons of bombs, and their government was toppled,…

>Just look at the USSR: they had tons of bombs, and their government was toppled, from within.

I wouldn't use the word "toppled" in the case of the fall of the USSR. Nobody actively contributed to its fall with the desire of making it fall. The factors that caused its fall aren't even comparable to anything that would affect dictatorships like NK.

In fact it is far more comparable to empires of old. Like Napoleon's empire, the roman empire and so on. The USSR held territories which hated the guts of the people and culture that governed them, Russia. When Gorbachev led reforms to give more freedoms to the people, that allowed the expression of nationalism throughout the occupied territories of the USSR "empire". Once all those territories started using their freedom of speech to rally around ideas like being different from Russians and needing to form their own nation, the USSR was bound to cease to exist. Russia, the main core of the USSR, is still more of a dictatorship than a democracy, by the way. It is arguable that the idea of a dictatorship was never really toppled in the mainland of the USSR. The fall of the USSR as a system of governance was merely the loss of colonized land.

North Korea doesn't have any factor of the kind. The government will only change if its rulers want it to change. It's doubtful a starving peasant revolt could do anything.

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#392

Post by Sammi »

vsl wrote: post #386
Sammi wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, so careful you don't set up a false dichotomy. And the EU as since it inception always been about making European nations interdependent, so that they cannot wage war against each other. As the original proposal for precursor to the EU said: "The solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but m…

Agreed. It definitely plays a role. So does NATO. So Internet. But you all too often hear the false claim that EU made Europe peaceful, so the above jab should be seen in the same lights: equally inaccurate explanation meant to iLlustrate the fallacy.

The EU had from the beginning a stated goal of making peace in Europe, and it had an effective method of achieving this by making European states interdependent - you can't attack those you depend on. And Europe has been largely peaceful ever since. So of course the EU had a huge effect on making Europe peaceful.

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#393

Post by CloudNetworking »

manfredo wrote: post #350
CloudNetworking wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you fund the lawsuits they'll get?

If the link shortener is operated by an entity outside the EU is it still subject to EU law?

You'll get the lawsuit, not the link shortener.

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#394

Post by sebst »

espadrine wrote: post #388
HumanDrivenDev wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Restricting so-called "hate speech" is censorship. Perhaps it's censorship you agree with, but then at least have the integrity to forthrightly say you agree with censorship.

The definition of censorship only applies to government decisions. A non-governmental entity can only, by definition, censor something if mandated by the government.

True. But this mandate is what these anti hate speech laws are about.

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#395

Post by tripzilch »

manfredo wrote: post #313
srah763 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes this happens to not be one of those cases, espousing the virtues of selfishness isn’t up for debate anymore. It’s wrong, and has been shown to be so time and time again. To have to rehash such foolishness is pointless.

Proclaiming that something is not up for debate and refusing to engage meaningfully is an extremely easy way to lose the debate.

Actually, it's stratagem no.32 for winning a debate. http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/erist32.htm

Of course it's fine for you to dismiss their entire point with derailment even further into meta-arguments because, after all, they started it /s

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#396

Post by Accacin »

nailer wrote: post #376
Accacin wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's completely false. We'll still be abiding by EU laws long after we leave. By 'most people', I'm assuming you mean the 30% who actually voted to leave?

It's completely true. While we're moving law to the UK, we then get to remove anything we don't like. And yes, the majority of people who voted wanted that.

>While we're moving law to the UK, we then get to remove anything we don't like.

Fancy naming a few laws that 'we' don't like?

If we want to trade and have anything to do with the EU, we're going to have to follow their laws and regulations whether we're in the EU or not.

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#397

Post by tripzilch »

TooBrokeToBeg wrote: post #309
srah763 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes this happens to not be one of those cases, espousing the virtues of selfishness isn’t up for debate anymore. It’s wrong, and has been shown to be so time and time again. To have to rehash such foolishness is pointless.

> It’s wrong ...and natural and efficient. ie Not wrong or right. I'm not sure where you get your ideas from.

Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it can't be ethically wrong. We have another word for things like that--they're called "amoral" and it literally means there is no ethical choice being made. The concept of "natural" is orthogonal to this.

Lots of things we consider "natural", we also pride ourselves on the ability to choose not to give in to.

Vice versa, there could be things that are "not natural" which--oh wait, no there aren't. To be "natural" is one of those really stretchy concepts that can include anything if you argue it the right way back.

For instance, this discussion is about a copyright bill. Is that natural? Is copyright natural? Is economics? Politics? Rationality?

We also have a word for such terms in an debate: inconsequential.

Not to speak of the idea that anything that is "efficient" must be amoral. In my opinion exactly the opposite is true. Most things which are "efficient" read pretty damn strong on my right/wrong moral compass--either I think they're pretty cool, or I think they're pretty terrible. There's really very few efficient things that make me feel "yeaaaahhh, it's efficient sure, but meh. you do you".

Things that are efficient you need to consider extra carefully exactly because the efficiency can swing the needle on the moral compass rather dramatically!

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#398

Post by tripzilch »

ubernostrum wrote: post #382
rocketraman wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is profoundly ignorant. You're dismissing her philosophy because of two descriptive words (and not even the best two, which would probably be "rational selfishness"), which you have decided are the "opposite of good" simply because history says they are? That's just an appeal to tradition: plenty of people have been wrong about plenty of things throughout history, especially in the areas of morality and…

I find Ayn Rand to be quite similar to Karl Marx. Both use cherry-picking and unfalsifiable approaches to history and sociology to construct a narrative in which there are two classes: the noble, heroic people who produce all the value; and the awful, leeching parasites who attempt to co-opt that value for their own use. The differences between them are rooted entirely in which class each views as noble and value-pro…

Waaaaaaaitaminute--aren't parasites "natural", too?

Problem solved. Shall we talk about the copyright bill, now? :)

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#399

Post by tripzilch »

gameswithgo wrote: post #359
trisiak wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libertarianism is orthogonal to left-right split. https://www.politicalcompass.org/

libertarianism is whatever it needs to be to win the argument at hand. it means about as much as "scripting language" or "strongly typed"

... did you just call libertarians weakly typed??

Also, now I want to write a framework called "libtarianism" that includes a pseudo rand generator.

Re: European parliament committee approves vote on ‘disastrous’ copyright bill

#400

Post by tripzilch »

HumanDrivenDev wrote: post #380
sebst wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don’t forget compliance with GDPR probably means it’s not possible to comply with this new copyright laws. Fun times for EU startups. GDPR is a good example of another law which is potentially dangerous. However, I do see that it's hard to comply with both, but I don't see how they interact with other. > P.S.: Taking some risks quoting Ayn Rand on HN. :) Why?

Why? Look at all the mentions of "nazi", "fascist" and "hate-speech" in this thread. You can tell when a place leans left because this is a common left-wing conspiracy theory - that the world is full of fascists/nazis, but they're all trying to hide it. They call it 'cryptofascism'.

But cryptofascists will put you on a blocktrain.
Post reply on HN