European Commission, U.K. Government Warn Musk that Twitter "Must Protect Users"

[Secret Chief]

I never said that hate speech was OK.
Only that making it illegal is a cure worse than the disease.

Staying on topic, I prefer it to be illegal. The disease, combined with intimidation and violence enables the flourishing of fascism.

 

[Stevicus]

There is a very effective censorship machine on the internet. It is indisputable.
I have figured that out when I had to substantiate the last years of Bonaldo Stringher's life, the governor of Bankitalia.
It turns out he was thrown out of the window...and died, apparently.
But since his murder has terrifying political implications (as for the Banking Seigniorage), this information was completely erased from any website in Italian (only in English something was left here and there).

And when I tried to bring it up on Twitter, they literally devoured me.

It could be. I had never even heard of this person. I found a short bio on Wikipedia (Bonaldo Stringher - Wikipedia), but nothing about how he died. It says he died in 1930, though. How would a death from nearly 100 years ago have political implications today?

 

[Stevicus]

This means you would have been OK with Goebbels to carry on doing his stuff then.

A key difference under Goebbels is that there wasn't any other kind of speech allowed. The Nazis used violence and repression to silence any speech that would oppose them.

One thing I've noticed about the debate regarding hate speech is that much of it seems justified based on the (in my opinion) erroneous historical notion that the Nazis came to power solely through the power of speech.

As if the fact that people had to carry wheelbarrows full of money to the market to buy a loaf of bread had nothing to do with it. It was all due to speech, or so the argument implies. The powerful charisma of Hitler and his magical oratory - it's a common trope in modern historical perspectives of that era.

That position suggests that if hate speech had been banned in 1920s Germany, Hitler could never have captivated the German people and rose to power, which might have saved countless tens of millions of lives.

Based on that perception, the idea of banning hate speech seems like a no-brainer.

But it would be far more effective if they'd simply ban high prices and other forms of economic privation. When times are good and the people are happy, hate speech has very little effect.

It's not the speech. It's the conditions surrounding the speech. Make the conditions better, and you won't have to worry about the speech. Refuse to make the conditions better, and you might have to worry about speech.

 

[Secret Chief]

A key difference under Goebbels is that there wasn't any other kind of speech allowed. The Nazis used violence and repression to silence any speech that would oppose them.

One thing I've noticed about the debate regarding hate speech is that much of it seems justified based on the (in my opinion) erroneous historical notion that the Nazis came to power solely through the power of speech.

As if the fact that people had to carry wheelbarrows full of money to the market to buy a loaf of bread had nothing to do with it. It was all due to speech, or so the argument implies. The powerful charisma of Hitler and his magical oratory - it's a common trope in modern historical perspectives of that era.

That position suggests that if hate speech had been banned in 1920s Germany, Hitler could never have captivated the German people and rose to power, which might have saved countless tens of millions of lives.

Based on that perception, the idea of banning hate speech seems like a no-brainer.

But it would be far more effective if they'd simply ban high prices and other forms of economic privation. When times are good and the people are happy, hate speech has very little effect.

It's not the speech. It's the conditions surrounding the speech. Make the conditions better, and you won't have to worry about the speech. Refuse to make the conditions better, and you might have to worry about speech.

Yes, I subsequently posted about the accompanying intimidation and violence.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, I subsequently posted about the accompanying intimidation and violence.

True, although I would also say that even intimidation and violence would be ineffective if people had the means and support to withstand it. When people are made vulnerable and dependent, they become easier prey to violence and intimidation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Staying on topic, I prefer it to be illegal. The disease, combined with intimidation and violence enables the flourishing of fascism.

Giving government the ability to criminalize hate
speech could also be used for fascist purposes.

 

[Estro Felino]

It could be. I had never even heard of this person. I found a short bio on Wikipedia (Bonaldo Stringher - Wikipedia), but nothing about how he died. It says he died in 1930, though. How would a death from nearly 100 years ago have political implications today?

Well...let me just say that a century is nothing, considering that what Jefferson said to Hamilton is still relevant today, as for this matter.

Back to the topic, I do agree with you. If certain pieces of information need to go, they will vanish

 

[Fallen Prophet]

My response to this is the same as my response to the idea that Europe is generally "less free" than the U.S. (well, except for eastern Europe, at least, which has a few far-right governments):

No one is more critical or biased against the United States than Americans - particularly those that work for the Federal government.

These are they that are always calling that everything about the U.S. be changed for any and all reasons.

People in Europe have been fined and jailed for speech - that means they don't have "freedom of speech".

End of story.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The European Commission and a spokesman for Boris Johnson have warned Elon Musk that Twitter must comply with European laws regardless of who owns it:



Elon Musk warned he must protect Twitter users

It makes me happy to see that the EU and U.K. are strict about their regulations despite Musk's peddling of (in my opinion) toxic and overly idealistic mantras of "free speech" taken straight out of American politics.

Good for Europe.

Bizzare. Protect people from a screen with words on it?

Even more bizzare. Boris sounding like a leftist schmuck.