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

US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe and elsewhere

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

971–980 of 1001 posts

Re: US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe and elsewhere

#971

Post by dmix »

hsuduebc2 wrote: post #896
dmix wrote: post #888

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe should just create their own social media companies where the government can act as a moderator of content then.

"Europe" is a continent made up of independent nation states. Each of those nations has chosen to have its own rules about what is and is not legal, which is the right of every country. Those nation states want companies operating within their territory to follow their rules. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, it is up to each individual country. At the same time, I do not understand how what you wrote is i…

EU gives out tons of grants for tech and the W project was already being spun as a European social network (despite not yet being funded) https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1qiauhd/bye_x_europ...

Re: US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe and elsewhere

#972

Post by frumplestlatz »

jjtwixman wrote: post #959
frumplestlatz wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany is free to exit NATO and close Ramstein. I believe it only requires a 1-2 year notice period. The defense budget required to operate without US assistance is another matter entirely; you’re looking at doubling existing spending, plus hundreds of billions in one-off procurement costs — and that assumes ongoing access to US weapons systems. The US subsidizes the massive weapons development programs you currentl…

We have no real aspirations for global hegemon status. Ramstein is for your benefit, really. That is the key difference.

You might not, but military deterrence is what keeps those with auch aspirations at bay. If you prefer to be a Russian vassal state, that is a choice.

Re: US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe and elsewhere

#973

Post by snowpid »

realo wrote: post #840
snowpid wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

see it this way. Yelzin's reaction was very surprising. You can see how other communist burocrats reacted to facts. Even in democratic societies politicians don't change their beliefs so fast (maybe most human?). But luckily we can vote them out so this is not a big problem.

Somehow I feel "we can vote them out" is going to be thoroughly tested in the next US elections. Good luck, Earthlings ...

I dont live in the US, next election I can vote them out

Re: US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe and elsewhere

#974

Post by rdm_blackhole »

codethief wrote: post #169
mlh496 wrote: post #64

Sad that western Europe is pushing so hard for limits to free speech & privacy. I'm not surprised given their history, but it's sad nonetheless.

> Sad that western Europe is pushing so hard for limits to […] privacy Uh what? :-)

The EU is pushing to intercept and scan all private chat messages and all emails to "protect" the children and give all this information to Europol to keep in perpetuity so they can build a profile on you but sure everything is peachy.

Then you have the German chancellor saying that we should all have our real names attached to all our online accounts but rest assured, nothing nefarious going on here.

France arrested the Telegram founder a few months ago for no apparent reason and the French Justice minister also not long ago wanted to ban EtoE because it makes their job harder so wouldn't it be nice if everyone could just simply share their private life with the government voluntarily?

The UK is looking into getting rid of VPNs to, you guessed it, "protect the children" and Denmark has re-introduced blasphemy laws.

Finally there is the DMA that has been approved the EU which outlaws hate speech on online platforms except that hate speech is never defined in the text so you can pretty much use this law to ban any content you want without due process and without consulting the population.

The US has many flaws, nobody is denying that but to assume that the EU has better privacy is a mirage from a bygone era. The EU politicians are now looking at what China is doing and use that as playbook.

Re: US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe and elsewhere

#975

Post by Gareth321 »

joe463369 wrote: post #817
Gareth321 wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am European and I would like to challenge you a little. Both the US and Europe have major issues with press and freedom of expression. To give you some examples from the European side. Specifically, the UK: * Police in England and Wales recorded 12,183 arrests in 2023 for online speech. This number is growing fast, but the government isn't releasing the data anymore. A few years ago this man retweeted a meme (prett…

> This has led to outrageous examples such as this man who is facing a longer sentence for burning a Quran than the man who stabbed him (for burning said Quran): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8xr12yx5l4o This is a more than a bit misleading. The Quran-burner received a £240 fine, his assailant got 20 weeks suspended. Also, though he went for him with a knife, he wasn't successful - nobody was stabbed.

> This is a more than a bit misleading. The Quran-burner received a £240 fine, his assailant got 20 weeks suspended. Also, though he went for him with a knife, he wasn't successful - nobody was stabbed.

You haven't kept up with the news. The Crown Prosecution Service has lodged an appeal: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3v7w1yw771o

You are correct on one count: Hamit Coskun was not stabbed. He was "knocked down, spat at, and kicked." I'm not sure that's the gotcha you were hoping it would be.

Re: US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe and elsewhere

#976

Post by reliabilityguy »

grayhatter wrote: post #892
reliabilityguy wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are saying that basically we do not have to hold anyone to any standard because (1) it’s hard, and (2) it’s enough to use prior behavior and common sense to deduce the conclusion. Great! If the US government explicitly stated their goal of promoting racist ideology, then it should not be hard to find a video clip of a video conference, a published policy memo, or anything of the sorts, that states this. Not an in…

> You are saying that basically we do not have to hold anyone to any standard No, you have completely misunderstood. > it’s enough to use prior behavior and common sense to deduce the conclusion. Yes? It's not a difficult concept that you can use pattern recognition to predict how someone, or something will behave. It works especially well the more moving parts there are. The more moving parts, the more likely you ar…

> No, you have completely misunderstood.

No, I understood you quite well. You said that I am just argumentative for the sake of it, and that we can use deduction based on the incomplete evidence because it makes sense.

> Yes? It's not a difficult concept that you can use pattern recognition to predict how someone, or something will behave. It works especially well the more moving parts there are. The more moving parts, the more likely you are to find conflicting bits. So in that case, if you want to predict or explain the root cause of the behavior, you're going to need to use heuristics.

What does it even mean? How can you explain root cause of something with heuristics?

> The point is, your demand for magical proof is a red herring, you can predict correctly without it. Thus it's useful to describe them by the way they behave.

Sure, lol. So, what do you do with other "evidence" that does not fit the prediction you are trying to make? You just discard it as "error"?

> Technically, I guess you don't need to, you're arguments are a perfect counter example, about how you can just ignore the parts that make you feel icky, or conflict with what you assume you understand. Most people you talk to will not be able to perfectly explain the ideas they hold so if you want to learn what they might have to teach, you need to make some kind of attempt to engage with them, even if in the end you find you still disagree, you're very likely to learn something. But given how transparently you don't want to, I thought it might be nice to point out how obvious it is to anyone who might have something useful to explain, that you're just looking to get off on the one sided argument.

So, it's on me then that when people are making outlandish claims without evidence that they fail to produce such evidence?

> I personally don't care what you accept. My reply wasn't attempting to convince you of anything. Just wanted to point out how obvious it is you're not even trying, just for the slim chance that you actually might want to.

I do. I am open minded. Show me the evidence of your claim, and let's discuss it on its merits. Not "heuristics" and "predictions".

Re: US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe and elsewhere

#977

Post by bastawhiz »

ImJamal wrote: post #882
bastawhiz wrote: post #285

As someone who lives in North Carolina and can't even open most mainstream porn sites, I too am waiting for the freedom

North Carolina hasn't banned porn. The EU has banned RT and other sites.

North Carolina has effectively banned porn by requiring porn sites to collect IDs.

Re: US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe and elsewhere

#978

Post by hsuduebc2 »

dmix wrote: post #971
hsuduebc2 wrote: post #896

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Europe" is a continent made up of independent nation states. Each of those nations has chosen to have its own rules about what is and is not legal, which is the right of every country. Those nation states want companies operating within their territory to follow their rules. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, it is up to each individual country. At the same time, I do not understand how what you wrote is i…

EU gives out tons of grants for tech and the W project was already being spun as a European social network (despite not yet being funded) https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1qiauhd/bye_x_europ...

Sorry, I clearly misunderstood the intent of your comment. I thought you were saying they should just build their own platform if they want to moderate it. My mistake.

In any case, you’re right. The only concern is that projects like this that start in Europe often end up being acquired by American companies, so I’m worried it could end up the same way.

Re: US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe and elsewhere

#979

Post by grayhatter »

reliabilityguy wrote: post #976
grayhatter wrote: post #892

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are saying that basically we do not have to hold anyone to any standard No, you have completely misunderstood. > it’s enough to use prior behavior and common sense to deduce the conclusion. Yes? It's not a difficult concept that you can use pattern recognition to predict how someone, or something will behave. It works especially well the more moving parts there are. The more moving parts, the more likely you ar…

> No, you have completely misunderstood. No, I understood you quite well. You said that I am just argumentative for the sake of it, and that we can use deduction based on the incomplete evidence because it makes sense. > Yes? It's not a difficult concept that you can use pattern recognition to predict how someone, or something will behave. It works especially well the more moving parts there are. The more moving part…

> So, it's on me then that when people are making outlandish claims without evidence that they fail to produce such evidence?

Yes, but that yes depends on your goals. Your name is reliabilityguy so I'm going to assume you've read the 500Mile email lore already. A responsible person will dig in and engage and try to figure out why emails only work for 500 miles. Even though that's clearly absurd, and they don't have any concrete evidence that's what's going on.

Which is exactly what you're doing. "Your evidence doesn't fit into my context or check my boxes so you obviously don't know anything!"

That's that's the behavior of children, and people who care more about proving their ego over learning something new. You could choose to ask open questions, or ignore people who aren't trying equall...

> Sure, lol. So, what do you do with other "evidence" that does not fit the prediction you are trying to make? You just discard it as "error"?

> No, I understood you quite well. You said that I am just argumentative for the sake of it,

> I do. I open minded. Show me the evidence of your claim, and let's discuss it on its merits. Not "heuristics" and "predictions".

then from higher in the thread

> Show me the tweet please this is all I am asking

> So, basically, you are saying that they are openly racist?

> I didn’t make my mind. I’m very much against racism, and any other form of discrimination. I’m also against intellectually lazy forms of debate.

but mostly, you respond like an argumentive asshole. None of these are open or exploratory comments. They all seek to win the debate, not to learn anything.

I guess the end of it is; the conversation you have with someone is exactly on you as much as you want it to be. You say that you are, but you definitely are not understanding what I'm trying to explain. Right, doesn't matter in this context, so right or wrong, part of that is on me, and part of that is on you. Xkcd has a comic for you already https://xkcd.com/1984/ You're welcome to shout "WRONG" into the microphone before wandering off on a tangent. But you don't learn anything that way.

the 500 Mile email, in case you haven't read this lore already http://web.mit.edu/jemorris/humor/500-miles

Re: US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe and elsewhere

#980

Post by Aerroon »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #904
frumplestlatz wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re advocating for a censorship regime that would put me in jail for words that you happen to think are dangerous. Ergo, your words threaten my safety.

Google the paradox of tolerance. Essentially the only thing that cant be tolerated is intolerance.

>"[...] But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."

The paradox of tolerance is not about censoring others. If anything, censorship lands on the side of the intolerant of this paradox.

Post reply on HN