561–570 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why diversity of sources is the only way to escape censorship: you get one half truth from one source, another half truth from another source, then two halves make whole truth.
That's also trivial to manipulate; control the narrative, and you control the Overton window. People picking the middle of two fake options are still under the influence of whoever chose those options — just ask any stage magician.
I just chaired a session at the FOCI conference earlier today, where people were talking about Internet censorship circumvention technologies and how to prevent governments from blocking them. I'd like to remind everyone that the U.S. government has been one the largest funders of that research for decades. Some of it is under USAGM (formerly BBG, the parent of RFE/RL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm confused about your principles. Do you want censorship (of porn, of "hate speech") or not? Because it seems you don't want censorship of porn but do want censorship of speech. "hate speech" is a made up thing that politicians use to jail people who complain about government. If you're an American you should cherish 1st amendment. You should cherish the fact that founding fathers recognized that the greatest threa…
Freedom of speech is not absolute anywhere, not even under the 1st amendment in the USA. Death threats are illegal whether they happen offline or online. Yelling "I HAVE A BOMB!" in an airport comes with consequences. I believe we can agree on these two examples.
But that's not what "hate speech" is code word for.
At this point in time any opinion to the right of extreme leftist ideology is considered by said leftist to be "hate speech".
Examples of "hate speech": criticism of muslims (but jews are ok), or minorities, or men playing in women's sport or breast amputation of 15yr olds, or immigration.
Nick investigating Somali fraud is racist and hateful.
The "hate speech" box is big enough that you can put a lot in it.
So yeah, we agree that there are limits to free speech. We agree that death threats cross the line.
But you tell me if we agree where that line is.
If you think there's such think as "hate speech" and it crosses the line, then we do not agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone living in an EU state who has to regularly turn my VPN on and off to have full internet access, I can't agree with you that it's a "hoax". It's inconvenient enough for me that I'm looking into having a custom router that will switch between VPN destinations depending on what site I'm accessing. Also "EU countries have higher press freedom than the US" is a strawman argument. We're not talking about press f…
What content are you missing? Off the top of my head, the type of content most likely to ve missing in Europe would be: - geofenced media - commercial sites intentionally removing eu access because of gdpr. That's it. Those are the only cases where I could not access sites from tbe EU. At least the ones I encountered. And do notice, both of them are not filtered by the EU or anything like this. They are enforced at t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
American free speech laws are the exception, not the rule. All European free speech laws have always been balanced and weighed up against other laws. This is hardly anything new. If anything, the internet has brought forth a short time period where everything goes and the status quo is now recovering. The legal definition of hate speech (or rather, its local equivalents) is not just "any ideas counter to beliefs I ho…
12 thousand people arrested per year for social media posts is "balanced"? https://archive.ph/bdEqK at this point it's the #1 principle of the UK government, everything else comes second after putting people in jail for saying the wrong things
Has nothing to do with propaganda or with just reading all the traffic for the cia/fbi/whatever snowden told us.
USA became so fast an enemy, its crazy :(
They should start again funding services like https://nsidc.org/ice-sheets-today instead of 'freedom'.gov
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's also trivial to manipulate; control the narrative, and you control the Overton window. People picking the middle of two fake options are still under the influence of whoever chose those options — just ask any stage magician.
Narrative is controlled by censorship.
Everyone can feel censorship, everyone can learn what they're punished for saying.
Propaganda, though, that can feel like learning, like personal growth and development.
If censorship comes with a stick, propaganda is a carrot.
And today, we have as much of a problem with metaphorical obesity as with literal obesity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Americans is land of the free until someone shows a nipple. Or copies a floppy. Or refuses to partake in flag shagging. Or says something critical of the president. Basically America is very good at protecting hate speech, not so good at the rest.
I principled stance would be against government censoring nipples AND speech of any kind, including what you call "hate speech". My educated guess is that your definition of "hate speech" doesn't include people openly calling for assassinating federal employees (i.e. ICE). BTW: properly applied 1st amendment is what led to un-banning censorship of nipples (see. Flynt v. United States, Miller v. California) as well as…
Which is fine, and also why crying about “freedom of speech” is disingenuous. Everyone has different views on what’s allowed and what’s not, but everyone agrees there must be restrictions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US's low press freedom index is precisely because people are being legally intimidated for wrongthink. It is not limited to the press, either. Mahmoud Khalil (the Palestinian activist detained by ICE on fake immigration charges for his political speech) is a famous example, but there are many. The US's "commitment to free speech" is nowadays not very much more noble than Russia's principled stand against economic…
If this is a real take you need to rethink your view on the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
12 thousand people arrested per year for social media posts is "balanced"? https://archive.ph/bdEqK at this point it's the #1 principle of the UK government, everything else comes second after putting people in jail for saying the wrong things
What the law says and what law enforcement does are two different things. 90% of those arrests don't lead to conviction. The law isn't the problem here.