"In addition to disinformation surrounding the conflict in Israel, Breton wrote that the EU had received reports of manipulated content and deepfakes on Meta's platforms ahead of the recent election in Slovakia. He said that misinformation about elections is taken "extremely seriously" under the DSA."
The recent Slovak elections are indeed a good example of things to come.
>misinformation about elections is taken "extremely seriously" under the DSA
Speaking as a card carrying DSA member who primaried many folks...
well actually my wallet was stolen but you get the idea...
Speaking as someone who joined the DSA post Trump... people tend to get really pissy if you accuse them of being a Russian robot one too many times :-)
You can vote however you want, it was a small joke.
I was drawing attention to the fact that "disinformation" is at it's core, someone who has no right to vote in an election trying to influence those who do, and how we often paint lawful, protected speech as disinformation, either by direct retorts "Russian bot!" or... downvoting.
Vote however you want friends, I play by "Whose Line" rules -- it's all made up and the points don't matter... hence accounting for the multi year GAP in my posts.
> I was drawing attention to the fact that "disinformation" is at it's core, someone who has no right to vote in an election trying to influence those who do
While the terminology is still awful, I think this was an insightful attempt toward trying to frame the issue as exported propaganda by foreign actors.
>while the terminology is still awful, I think this was an insightful attempt toward trying to frame the issue as exported propaganda by foreign actors
thank you. i need to be more diplomatic, but i don't like having my patriotism questioned when i haven't left the country since the obama administration and i have to admit, i went to a dark place after feeling like my advice was repeatedly ignored in parallel with my integrity being questioned.
Please don't; I thought it was funny once I understood what you meant by DSA. By awful terminology, I referred to the whole concept of disinformation (and misinformation and whatnot).
the DSA is no joke -- we went from the irish mafia handing out fifty cent pieces to children at the halloween parade in my home township to libraries and grocery stores where they were neither before all across the county and we did it without firing a single shot.
there are those of us who began to form memories as the USSR fell, who came of voting age during the not-so-great recession who have always been out of sync with this... timeline,,, even if we were born in a supposedly auspicious year's numerology.
sorry for being too flippant if i was in contravention of the site guidelines, but so often i meet people who never read orwell beyond "1984" and it pains me to have sound, evidence based policy conflated with stalinism.
(jospeh was a very bad man, and it scared me when people trundled up to me to tell me i look like young stalin as some sort of compliment or flirtation. real life is not a usa television series -- to do violence, to even think of it, changes you in terrible ways that those who cannot name me any other nabokov than lolita will never understand, for once you cross that line you can never go back, your innocence is gone and your world forever darkened, even if you don't actually pull the trigger but just think of how to place the shot.)
I can share some, for Twitter/X at any rate. Employees of Rebel Media (far-right Canadian media org with an agenda) have been caught organizing the posting of old footage of IDF incursions in the West Bank and Gaza dubbed over (poorly) with soundtracks of Arab men laughing to make it look like Palestinian militants were caging Israeli children, knocking down doors, and otherwise being inhumane.
This tweet calls them out on it and has screenshots of the posts in question:
Their Wikipedia page has other misinformation they’ve done in the past, but my edit to include this bout of disinformation was just rolled back, apparently because this behavior was documented and called out by an independent journalist and not published by mainstream media:
>I can share some, for Twitter/X at any rate. Employees of Rebel Media (far-right Canadian media org with an agenda) have been caught organizing the posting of old footage of IDF incursions in the West Bank and Gaza dubbed over (poorly) with soundtracks of Arab men laughing to make it look like Palestinian militants were caging Israeli children, knocking down doors, and otherwise being inhumane.
The core issue is the type of person who's viewing snuff films and the like, to the point they're in the muck when folks like me are waiting a few days for an editor to decide how much we need to see.
I remember walking into Phar Mor after the Oklahoma City Federal Building was bombed, the dead baby on the cover.
People were angry -- said it was obscene.
But it made things change.
Not the bombing -- but seeing the aftermath.
Then folks pointed out worse had happned in the gulf but... I don't know how to escape these cycles when in the time from when you form memories to the time you can vote, so many conflicts have been started and no one ever wants to stand down when they're on the side with more resources and weapons.
Someone gave me a book to read about the early days of Israel, and they talk about how when they were going back and forth, the rabbi told the settlers do not go out tonight, do not relatiate, do not continue this cycle.
Flash forward, and people would talk about concern about mosques near ground zero but never the churches who do minor terrors so many more times over that do not make the news.
In fact, the main reason I abandoned one of my boyhood dreams is someone from the FBI straight up told me they'd never investigate the white nationalists, and that by the time I'd finished handing fake TNT to Tunisians, my IT skills would be as atrophied as my personal relationships.
And then they came and groped my girlfriends and rolled a tank through little Italy and expected not so much as a peep the next Easter Egg painting?
Entitled violent fascists, horrible in body, mind and soul.
Life is not black and white but... let's not lose sight that there are people consuming this media the way they consume a horror film.
Generally, social media companies have agreed there is some responsibility to remove false content and coordinated misinformation. That certainly seems to be happening, and linking to particular misinformation just spreads it further, feeding the trolls.
Attention is scarce. The Attention Economy is about allocation of scarce Attention.
It's not happening right now because Americans confuse Free Speech with Free Broadcast.
When everyone broadcasts what happens to Attention?
You get to choose what to pay attention to, as you always have. Currently, you have more choices than in the past. The people seeing this stuff are generally seeking it out.
I agree, only people approved by a central committee should get a chance to speak their mind. This is the only way to build a healthy society like China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea.
Very few countries have freedom of speech enshrined quite as forcefully as it is in the United States. One really has to wonder where this is going to go? I understand why they want to do it, but once a censorship regime is established it will be very difficult to dislodge. What happens when the next set of elections puts in somebody who uses that power for less than ideal purposes?
I'm not sure this "freedom of speech" absolutism is such a good idea. A society needs to put limits on behavior of its individuals to be sane. I support that people can express whatever opinion they have, but not in any way they want.
I think one issue is that on the internet it's becoming impossible to know anything. You can't know that those thousands of accounts are trolls or neighbors. Does freedom of speech grant you the right to use a troll/bot army to spread misinformation? I suppose if each troll/bot were labeled I would be fine with it but they aren't, they pollute these online spaces. Whose speech is being protected?
Also there’s less accountability at the same time that the costs have never been lower. A lot of free speech assumptions are based on relative ratios and implicit social pressure to discourage abuse. There just aren’t that many people who are going to stand around screaming insults or lies in a public space, and there’s no equivalent for one guy pretending to be hundreds of people or, especially, for 10 people in a different country to pretend to be part of an entire political movement on another continent.
Probably both and neither - for example, rather than outright banning things requiring them to be linked to a verified owner would potentially allow some speech without the negatives. A historic comparison might be the way Americans making political donations are required to affirm that they are using their own money without reimbursement to add a legal risk to paying people to flood public debate.
I don’t claim to have the answers, but was just pointing out that the world has changed and we will need different policies.
Media has always been filled with lies and propaganda. That isn't new. The folk traveling from out of town brought slanted news and biased stories to the watering hole. Songs manipulate your feelings on various topics. Broadsheets brought you the vile things the bad guys are doing, whether accurate or not. The newspapers, radio, and tv media have been filled with propaganda since their inceptions. I'm not sure that anything has changed except there is now another medium people need to learn to filter through. It's coming at us from more directions at once, but we have to open the door for those voices to come in.
So, since it was always in principle possible that the streets of every city, town, and village could be flooded by millions of newsies, all hocking editions of a variety of newspapers that had all just began publishing that day, we should do nothing now that it is actually possible in practice?
I'm not saying I know what the solution actually is, but denying that there even is a problem, or that the existing guidelines were designed with the above scenario in mind, is just preposterous to me.
Again, think of scale and cost. Newspapers needed to be written, printed, and required a distribution network – all of which require money, time, and infrastructure. That doesn’t mean that they were perfect but they developed reputations and because they needed to pay those bills there was some moderating influence for not scaring off readers or advertisers — that’s not perfect but it’s why you had stories which only ran in tabloids because the owners of the bigger papers didn’t want to lose business or get sued (physical presence means assets at risk!) by someone they slandered. Governments often had rules about foreign ownership of media outlets, registration or permitting requirements for journalists, etc.
Again, I’m not saying that everything was perfect before but that the rules and norms from the past need to be adjusted for the present. The way we handled hundreds of television stations can’t scale to millions of websites or social media accounts, especially since you no longer have anchors like geographic proximity or business identities.
The goal of much disinfo is exactly this, to remove the idea of objective reality, facts, or truth. It is common and useful to do this in authoritarian regimes. It goes along with depoliticization where the population comes to believe that they have no control and should desire no control over politics or government.
The idea of automated bot armies manipulating public discourse is largely a fantasy. The claims about such bots (usually on Twitter) never hold up to close inspection. Go do your own research (the thing that anti-free speech people often hate the most) and you'll discover many of the accounts labelled as bots by media and academia are humans.
European Commission fits here. Head of commission is approved by parliament as far I know, but commissars are not elected, just suggested by each state governments. Also, all EU laws can only be proposed by European Commission. Others can suggest them, but only they can bring them to parliament. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Are the EU state governments not elected? Last I checked they were.
Lots of bureaucratic and political positions are appointed by other elected representatives. We can't elect everybody, that would be too much. So is that really a problem here?
I am not that up to speed on the intricacies of EU governance at this level so I really don't know if this is a real problem or not.
This is more like the way we used to elect Senators in the US. The state legislatures used to select Senators until we amended the Constitution to require direct election by the people. Personally, I would prefer direct accountability of top government officials like the European Commission to the public.
> European Commission fits here. Head of commission is approved by parliament as far I know, but commissars are not elected, just suggested by each state governments.
The commissioners are appointed by the EC president in consultation with the member governments, and then the commission as a whole needs to secure approval of parliament. This is similar to the process by which parliamentary governments usually form a cabinet, but with the European Council (representatives of all member-state governments) serving in the role of head of state.
One typically talks about the government in a parliamentary system as being elected, so...
The EU Parliament isn't really a parliament, so that argument doesn't work. If it was really a parliament the Commission would work for the MEPs and they'd be the ones deciding the law. In the EU it's the other way around.
The way they play games with words doesn't make it a democratic system, it is however a very effective tool for the EU to muddy the water and confuse people into thinking it has greater legitimacy than it really does.
So which part do you see as undemocratic? The parliament is directly elected by the EU populace. The council is the heads of state, which are elected by the respective national electorate. The commission is appointed by those same elected national governments.
Is that appointment process not democratic because its one layer of indirection? It's the same thing that happens for pretty much any minister/secretary in pretty much every democracy. Is the US government not a democratic system because the secretary of state is appointed? Is the UK not democratic because the Cabinet is appointed? Are there any democracies by that narrow definition?
See my other reply. You are confused about the nature of the EU and are repeating how the treaties say they are supposed to work, not what processes are actually followed.
I don't think anywhere is actually absolutist. Even America has restrictions they just are primarily things like shouting fire in a theatre to use the common example. I wonder, aside from offending good taste though, what harm is actually caused by the American approach that the Europeans can say they don't have to deal with. Unlike comparing gun violence, where I can easily just point out there's fewer civilians shooting civilians in Europe, I can't say that I've seen Europe's more restrictive speech laws to have much of an impact on the peace of the people there. Usually when I see critics in any country arguing for censorship it's primarily because "the other team" was being persuasive in some shady manner and that gets presented as the end all be all reason for why the other group is compelling at all.
Absolutism isn't the point. We all know that there are limits - the classic example of yelling fire in a crowed theater. And as somebody below pointed out, no country has full freedom of speech and while that is true the US does have freedom of speech enshrined in its founding documents as the first amendment. For most other countries, it's not a clear "right" except by common practice and legislation that could be easily revised.
But, the point is, we should always have the presumption of freedom of speech. As a matter of course that means we also must have certain responsibilities for the consequences of exercising that freedom. This last point often gets overlooked.
But when you take an illegal action (or, grey area, compel someone else to take an action) then you lose free speech protections.
"Fire" in a movie theater is the classic example of the court deciding what sort of speech consitutes compelling action.
This in contrast to other many other countries, where there is no guarantee that speech-that-does-not-compel-action will always be free.
To me, speech vs action is a critical distinction, because it prevents anyone in power from monopolizing the marketplace of ideas by banning an idea itself. While simultaneously preventing the worst societal consequences from actions.
Or, in other words... neo Nazis should be allowed to march peacefully... but so should everyone else. And the latter should massively outweigh the former. (That said, nothing prevents keeping a much closer eye on violence-espousing neo Nazis)
Aren’t the limits in the US you mention more accurately described as the consequences of an action rather than the action itself? For example if you suggest a person to commit suicide and they actually do it, you could be held responsible for murder/manslaughter, but if that person didn’t do anything then it’s a much less severe crime. Similarly, at what point does saying fire in a theater become illegal? Do I have to yell? How loudly do I have to yell? What if the room is empty? What if I only said it loudly enough for the people adjacent to me can hear it? Or is it not the consequence of people panicking, possibly trampling over each other is what makes it illegal rather than the speech itself?
In the case of yelling fire, the illegal action would be commiting assault and murder against another person.
When yelling fire without a compelling reason, a reasonable person would anticipate everyone else's standard reaction, and that in the course of that action injury and/or death might occur.
Which is why culpability in the US depends on the speaker's intent. What if I believed I smelled smoke and yelled "Fire" because of that? But was simply wrong?
Unfortunately, intent is impossible to prove definitively, without actually peering into someone else's mind. Thus, can of worms.
> "Fire" in a movie theater is the classic example of the court deciding what sort of speech consitutes compelling action.
"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is an analogy that was used to justify banning antidraft activism in the first world war. It is very much allowed under current precedent.
"Directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action" is the current standard.
"Officials had spent three days raiding the spaces following the country’s ban on a BBC documentary that was critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s alleged role in deadly riots more than 20 years ago. "
"Now ranked between Turkey and Sudan, India dropped eight places to 150 out of 180 nations in last year’s World Press Freedom Index published by the Paris-based group, Reporters Without Borders. "
Retroactively applying laws to target your political enemies has nothing to do with censorship laws (except using them as an excuse) and everything to do with corruption and authoritarianism.
Donald Trump promised to prosecute everyone he holds a grudge against if he was elected president again, and the USA has constitutionally enshrined free speech laws.
Donald Trump talked about "locking her up". Joe Biden is actually "locking him up" and is using lawfare as an alternative to campaigning as a way to win
There's obviously differential enforcement if you compare how Classified documents and Hunter Biden are handled.
We could talk about the great national conspiracy that Donald Trump lead in collusion with Russia that made him an illegitimate president, or so said the Media until the Mueller report could not find Donald Trump conspiring with Russians
Was the recording of Barack Obama telling Medvedev that he would give Russia "flexibility" so long as Putin limited aggression until after he was re-elected a deep fake?
Was the Subsequent 2014 invasion of Crimea and lack of response by Obama's administration a deep fake or just Obama repaying his half of the Bargain?
Trump was repeatedly asked to turn over documents and he didn’t.
And “Hunter Biden” I was never an elected government officials.
You keep focusing on one or two national things and not the 91 indictments including the ones on the state level.
And Obama never had to call public officials to try to “find votes” or to try to convince his VP to not certify the election - he actually won twice.
Again are you accusing Biden who wasn’t an elected official while Trump was in office of having anything to do with the investigations? Are you accusing him of coordinating state prosecutions that even the Republican governor of GA is saying is legitimate?
> I support that people can express whatever opinion they have, but not in any way they want.
This is a contradiction and makes no sense.
> A society needs to put limits on behavior of its individuals to be sane
But lack of free speech and free politics drives societies insane. Look at all the crazy stuff the USSR and PRC have done in their histories, relative to the free speech and very much not insane USA.
Is that supposed to be a joke or does it just reflect your extreme bias?
You had a failed coup attempt in January 2021; your speaker of the house was just toppled by a few right-wing extremists in congress; government is on the edge of a default every few months; lots of important leaders (Biden, Trump, Pelosi, McConnell, to name a few, not to mention ones that straight up died of old age in office like RBG and Feinstein) are old to the point where one questions their mental acuity, a gerontocracy reminiscent of the last decades of the Soviet Union.
What's this "you" business. I'm not American and don't live there.
Get back to this thread when the USA has killed millions of its own citizens through enforcing insane policies on them in defiance of basic common sense e.g. the Great Leap Forward or Holomodor. That's what counts as insanity here, not politicians being outside your preferred age range.
It was a bit earlier, so scale is somewhat smaller in absolute (but not necessarily in relative) terms, but there's obviously this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_removal
Your concerns about the potential pitfalls of establishing a censorship regime are 100% warranted. However the paradox of tolerance, as described by Karl Popper, is quite relevant here. Popper posited that for a society to remain tolerant, it must have the right to be intolerant of intolerance. This seems contradictory, but the essence is that unchecked tolerance can eventually be exploited by the intolerant, jeopardising the very foundation of a tolerant society. Popper emphasised that the intolerance which shouldn't be tolerated is that which refuses to engage in "rational argument". It's crucial to strike a balance to ensure the preservation of free speech while preventing its misuse.
One of the better "solutions" I've seen to the paradox of tolerance is to stop viewing tolerance as a unilateral act, but rather as social contract: You agree to calmly, respectfully, and rationally engage with my ideas, and I agree to do the same for your ideas. But if either of us refuses, then the other is not obliged to maintain the tolerance.
I think whenever a bad actor tries to talk about tolerance re: being "muzzled", this different formulation of tolerance should be brought up.
What I theorized 10 years ago - balkanization of the internet - a GFW for each country/jurisdiction, and large entities like FAAMG forced to either play ball (and allow country censors), split up their operations, or leave markets.
This might be an opportunity to really push back if all the companies join forces. What would happen to these bureaucrats if Reddit, HN, Meta, Twitter, Goole etc. all join forces and block the EU as a form of protest(while clearly explaining why).
The people/businesses there would be quite pissed off and finally pay attention to who is making these decisions. Thats the worst thing a politician can want: a spotlight on them.
Recall the anti-SOPA movement? They changed their tune real quick after that. Frankly the EU is playing the same game as China. They are exploiting capitalism's weakness in an effort to force their will on these companies.
The Digital Services Act is about enforcing rules that are already in place. For example, traditional media has always been bound to certain rules.
> These are dissemination of illegal content, negative effects on certain fundamental rights (privacy, freedom of expression, prohibition on discrimination and the rights of a child), and intentional manipulation of the services […]
If enough countries in the EU shift their moral compass and then elect enough officials in the EU parliament and then change the laws and regulations you could say that it's a democratic decision to change the rules.
> If enough countries in the EU shift their moral compass and then elect enough officials in the EU parliament and then change the laws and regulations you could say that it's a democratic decision to change the rules.
But that is impossible because the European Parliament constitutionally is not allowed to change the law. You literally cannot change EU law via elections in any way in Europe, which is why it's not a democratic system, short of electing a national party that will simultaneously leave the EU and revert to its own currency in one step, something that is widely regarded as logistically difficult to impossible.
This is a really, really common point of confusion. It's well past time to consider the way the EU names its institutions to be propaganda. The EU Parliament is not a Parliament. Write it out 100 times on a blackboard. EU policy does not reflect the will of Europeans, who aren't even close to being culturally homogenous enough to have such a will anyway.
> You literally cannot change EU law via elections in any way in Europe, which is why it's not a democratic system
You can. EU law is written by commissioners, which are appointed by national governments. You can change the commissioners by changing the national governments, which happens through elections.
1. Each commissioner has their own dedicated area and portfolio, so if the problematic law is in some other commissioner's area then your vote is worth nothing.
2. Commissioners are appointed by governments only in theory. In practice the President reserves the right to veto any commissioner they don't like, and give or take their responsibilities them at will. This ability doesn't exist in the treaties but Juncker has admitted he did it all the time [1] and explicitly stated that it renders worthless "populism" and "insubordination" (what people like him call actual democracy).
3. Commissioners are required to take an oath of loyalty to the EU and explicitly promise to ignore any instructions from their governments of citizenship [2], so being able to appoint them - even if it actually worked - would grant national governments no real power.
4. Many of the key policies of the EU are decided by people who aren't appointed by countries anyway, e.g. the ECJ or ECB.
So in practice there are no examples of countries meaningfully impacting EU policy by changing their commissioner, and national parties do not campaign on this basis. Again and again this point must be repeated. The EU is not honest about how it actually works. It is not a democracy. It has never been and never will be. Any mechanism or system that looks superficially democratic will turn out to be subtly broken or unusable on close inspection.
[1] “Nobody knows this, but last time I rejected the candidacies of six of the Commissioners presented to me by national governments. Do remember that governments merely propose commissioners. It is the president of the Commission who accepts them and allocates their responsibilities. Whilst certain countries [sometimes]allow themselves a degree of insubordination, depending on who happens to be in power and the stage of the political cycle they are in”, he was “confident that in a few years’ time, these issues won’t be troubling us anymore” (Juncker)
[2] "I do solemnly undertake: to be completely independent in the performance of my duties, in the general interest of the Communities; in the performance of these duties, neither to seek nor to take instructions from any government or from any other body"
> 1. Each commissioner has their own dedicated area and portfolio, so if the problematic law is in some other commissioner's area then your vote is worth nothing.
Of course your vote is worth something. It changes another commissioner with another portfolio. Just because every subset of the demos votes for a different official doesn't make it any less democratic.
Similarly, in the US, a senator can be on a committee with a dedicated area and portfolio and you might not be able to influence their election if you live in the wrong state.
> In practice the President reserves the right to veto any commissioner they don't like, and give or take their responsibilities them at will.
This is common in presidential systems. I know for a fact it works that way in the US, but I'm pretty certain it does so in other systems as well.
> This ability doesn't exist in the treaties.
That's not the scandal you make it out to be. Plenty of democratic systems function more by convention than by written down law. Prime example is the UK, where a lot of constitutional law is nothing more than unwritten convention. The very existence of the office of the UK Prime Minister itself is not written down in law anywhere! [0]
> 3. Commissioners are required to take an oath of loyalty to the EU and explicitly promise to ignore any instructions from their governments of citizenship [2]
Of course they are, they're EU commissioners after all. US government officials take an oath to the US, too, and not the state they're from.
> so being able to appoint them - even if it actually worked - would grant national governments no real power.
Who said anything about granting national governments any power? That's not a prerequisite for a democratic system at the level above.
> It is not a democracy. It has never been and never will be. Any mechanism or system that looks superficially democratic will turn out to be subtly broken or unusable on close inspection.
None of your points are indicative of a lack of democracy. It might not be your preferred mode of democracy, but none of your complaints are unique to the EU, they're all features of other democratic systems as well.
Reading between the lines, it seems like your main gripe is the weakening of the nation state in favor of a larger block. I understand that might make you unhappy, but it is not per se undemocratic as long as the larger block is democratic. I also happen to believe it's the right thing to do, Europe has been held back by petty national squabbles for way too long, it's time we finally unify to the superpower we're meant to be.
> You literally cannot change EU law via elections in any way in Europe
Your claim: you can vote for someone who will vote for someone who will suggest someone who can be rejected and who will then swear to ignore the wishes of the original voters anyway, and this is fine.
No it isn't. The EU is a dictatorship that like all dictatorships plays pretend and has meaningless votes for people who don't matter. Your attempts to obfuscate this core truth are impressively high effort, but mixing and matching different aspects of different democracies from around the world whilst ignoring all the ways the EU is different doesn't actually yield a winning argument.
> it is not per se undemocratic as long as the larger block is democratic
In fact placing a same-sized parliament under the control of a much larger number of people would be less democratic, as each individual has less influence over the results. But the EU isn't democratic anyway, so this point is moot.
> it's time we finally unify to the superpower we're meant to be.
And there it is, revealed in the final sentence. We didn't have to scratch deep to find it this time: the power hungry authoritarianism that motivates EU ideology. And you're in Austria no less. Every other attempt to unify Europe under a single government has led to dystopian disaster, but this time it'll be totally different!
> No it isn't. The EU is a dictatorship that like all dictatorships plays pretend and has meaningless votes for people who don't matter. Your attempts to obfuscate this core truth are impressively high effort, but mixing and matching different aspects of different democracies from around the world whilst ignoring all the ways the EU is different doesn't actually yield a winning argument.
Note how you haven't addressed any of my arguments.
> And there it is, revealed in the final sentence. We didn't have to scratch deep to find it this time: the power hungry authoritarianism that motivates EU ideology. And you're in Austria no less. Every other attempt to unify Europe under a single government has led to dystopian disaster, but this time it'll be totally different!
What exactly is authoritarian? You can't just use bad words against arguments you don't like, you have to actually back up your points.
All you have done is make wild claims, which I've refuted, as a result of which you've then called me an authoritarian and the EU a dictatorship without any substance to back it up.
You haven't made any arguments to address, just taken each dictatorial aspect, agreed it's real and then proclaimed it to actually be democracy.
You can't vote for anyone who has actual power: not a problem, that's democracy. The people you try to indirectly appoint to the Commission are rejected on ideological grounds: not a problem, that's democracy. The people who end up with power literally take an oath to ignore your vote: not a problem, that's democracy.
As for what is authoritarian? This whole thread is literally about the EU establishing a China style censorship regime.
You aren't engaging with the substance of the objections, just playing silly word games in an attempt to deny what you're supporting. You want a unitary superpower because it makes you feel strong, you feel you're "meant" to have power and feel the EU is staffed by people just like yourself. You will continue to throw dust around to try and obscure what this system really is until the day it turns on you, by which time, my friend, it will be far too late.
>Very few countries have freedom of speech enshrined quite as forcefully as it is in the United States. One really has to wonder where this is going to go?
It leads to an oligarchy as the rich are able to use their money as speech to buy control of the government. Oh wait, you meant the US's free speech laws are a good thing.
Maybe the Americans reading this should think about how their opinion on this issue might have been impacted by their American education and American upbringing. People outside the US aren't all stupid. There are reasons other countries have different speech laws and not all of those reasons are bad.
Remember the context in which this conversation is occurring. The article is about European law. Most people reading this live in the USA (yes, I also wish there was a better demonym for people from the US than "Americans", but there isn't).
Kind of a case in point. Your last sentence is arguably anti-American hate speech (pejorative) under the UN’s broad definition [1]:
> any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor
which they note is broader than the typical American definition:
> While the above is not a legal definition and is broader than “incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”
I’m sorry, but no one who wrote that definition would agree with your interpretation. You are being intentionally misleading in an attempt to make a point.
My point is that different people groups might have good reasons for doing things particular ways, but that doesn't mean there aren't better ways of doing things.
Well, we disagree. Our ancestors came here to escape your laws. Your way of looking at government and law led you to two continent wide wars which us free speech and gun loving people had to go clean up for you. And it looks like you're working on your third. The results speak for themselves, your reasons for authoritarianism aren't good enough as far as we are concerned, you're so happy with being told what to say, great, I don't see why you're so concerned about how we conduct our business over here. We have our reasons too, and ours are better justified.
Your ancestors were religious nuts who wanted more constraints on society, not less.
It's not until you get to Enlightenment-influenced thinkers like Jefferson and Hamilton that the whole "liberty" thing really gets a purchase. It's just a shame you didn't have a little more Hamilton and a little less Jefferson in the mix. Then you'd realise freedom is a means, not an end.
Your ancestors were religious lemmings following the lies of debaucherous authoritarian religious figures claiming to be representative of god. So what? We didn't want to live how you think we ought to. And you still think we should, no surprise to any of us here. Some things never change.
Most of our ancestors came after independence, again, for the freedom, to escape your laws. Very few Americans can trace their lineage back to the Puritans.
We believe we are right about this and you're wrong. It's engrained deeply in our culture. Why can't you just respect other cultures? Why does everyone have to think like you do?
I, for one, don’t want to see/read holocaust deniers, aggressive hate speech, or fascist propaganda.
This stuff is not okay in any way. People being allowed to megaphone this FUD for cheap attention/clicks/manipulation always find idiots who actually believe this shit, and move the Overton window towards even more destructive speech being tolerated.
While I do value free speech in general, there is a red line. Like, I can tolerate a lot of weird people talking nonsense, but when you spread hate I‘d confront you right on the street in reallife. „But it’s my opinion“ is NO excuse for being an asshole.
My concern is that any pro-Palestinian content gets axed (US/EU are very pro-Israel) Like the story about the HAMAS rapes/baby beheadings were completely uncorroborated - will any questioning of that be censored?
Right now in Germany we have real problems with the large amount of Muslims entering the country, the single reason why rightwing parties are coming to power. It’s a very delicate topic and polarized.
Now people spread propaganda garbage that _looks_ credible but is actually fake or several years old. This is adding kerosene into the fire and might ultimately lead to additional problems _ontop of_ the current suffering in the Middle East. I‘d prefer to not pile up additional issues instead of worrying about media underrepresentation of a side.
Huge opportunity here to censor your disfavored groups by calling them fascist, which has, in recent times, evolved from being a political science term, to being a very broad type of insult/accusation usable against almost anyone you don’t like.
As a German, I have a really good idea what actual fascism looks like, thank you. We have also laws that specify what types of content are illegal, and for very good (historical) reasons.
Define "fascist propaganda" without using the words "fascist" or "propaganda". Then consider whether your new spoken definition actually matches the set of things you want restricted. I'm very confident it will not.
You also have a good idea of how you should go about censoring people and eliminating dissent l guess, if you want to use the "we were nazis" argument lol.
> I, for one, don’t want to see/read holocaust deniers, aggressive hate speech, or fascist propaganda.
The solution to this is to let people use filters.
Trying to have something like this as a rule ends up with existential conflict[1] over what the definitions and set of things allowed should be.
[1] For instance, my personal red line is about people being allowed to express their political views and I will happily physically fight you over this.
It’s not my personal feelings, we have actual laws over here for this. Some things like that have serious consequences. Why should we allow this hate on the internet suddenly?
> Very few countries have freedom of speech enshrined quite as forcefully as it is in the United States.
The US now seems to have a censorship regime, but it's privatized. "Harvard student groups issued an anti-Israel statement. CEOs want them blacklisted."[1]
yes harvard students can say what they want, and CEO's asking to blacklist ALSO have freedom of speech - freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from consequences.
What use is the freedom of speech if it results in you getting canceled or barred from jobs/contracts with the government because you did something like boycott a country they like?
This whole Israel-Hamas saga has really shown how little the general population knows about how many freedoms they have lost.
> What happens when the next set of elections puts in somebody who uses that power for less than ideal purposes?
But a related question is whether the current status quo increases the probability that such an authoritarian will get elected in the first place.
On the one hand, yes, it's bad to give tools like this to a would-be authoritarian. But on the other hand, a lack of such tools may increase the chances that such an authoritarian will rise. They use the freedoms you gave them to get in, then strip those freedoms from you. A liberal and democratic society can't survive without some level of involuntary force applied against those who don't care for such ideals.
While I won’t defend strict objectivism, I’m not ready to give into this degree of relativism. For most purposes, objective truth is still discernible and worth pursuing. Yes, sure, there are a bunch of examples where it’s a really tough call, but giving up isn’t the answer.
Sorry if this is a silly question: The article states that if the companies fail to comply then they can be issued with fines worth 6% of the company’s annual revenue. What would happen in the even where one of the companies just said "Nope. We're not paying it."?
In that case I assume the offending company would be dragged into lengthy and expensive legal battles against the EU. But is it likely that the EU could or would also block access to the services offered by these companies?
No need for that; EU can essentially poison EU markets for FB (sanctions/fines/blocks). Most shareholders will act accordingly and tank the stock. Even if Mark can ignore because he holds most of the voting interest, this directly impacts all vested workers, so becomes an HR nightmare.
Why not do both? It would be so much fun - Facebook execs too scared to got to fly the jet to Europe for fear of being cuffed when they land.
The reality is facebook would happily pay the fine and the real loser would be the US taxman - in response the US would drum up some more "fines" against some European companies as payback. All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again.
Given that this is related to terrorism[1] I'm pretty sure a creative government could find a way to attempt penal prosecution here if they really wanted though (After the terror attacks in France in 2015-2016, French law made “terrorism apologism” a crime for instance, which is a scary law tbh, especially when we've seen how it was applied).
[1] I personally don't like to talk about the Hama's massacre as “terrorism”, as an organized military crossing a border to systematically eradicate civilian population is much more than terrorism: it is genocidal in essence.
Yes it is. So far every offender ultimately complied, so there was no need to go the last mile in reality.
But I guess having suddenly zero access to one of the worlds biggest markets (europe) would make wall street a bit nervous about the companies‘ revenue targets. Not to mention customers immediately jumping to some competitors, which might hurt a bit in the long run.
> In that case I assume the offending company would be dragged into lengthy and expensive legal battles against the EU. But is it likely that the EU could or would also block access to the services offered by these companies?
If they didn't pay then eventually the government would probably seize assets to cover the debt, and they would face increasingly more severe legal action until they paid.
It shouldn't really an option to just ignore the law.
You can make it illegal to do business with FB in EU (sanction it basically). You can seize whatever assets (buildings) or bank accounts they might have here.
Facebook should just block Europe. 'For your safety from your government which can imprison you for participating in this popular global website, we have blocked you from viewing this page'.
Given the chance that Facebook is a net positive on the world seems pretty low I suspect this would be a good thing for Europeans. WhatsApp would be problematic though since everyone uses it.
From the 2022 data I could find about Facebook's financials, it seems pulling out of the EU would cost Facebook 25% of it's revenue... Good luck to anyone attempting to justify that decision to shareholders.
Over here, the only people still using facebook is the rock bottom of society, from anti-vaxxers over right-wingers to climate change deniers - surprisingly these groups have big overlaps.
Blocking FB would be an instant net-positive for our societies by eliminating an echo chamber and reduce FUD spread quite a bit.
How is anyone meant to be able to confirm or deny posts on a suprise war that is going on in real time? Surely this would mean that Facebook and X would have to have better intelligence than the actual military intelligence agencies? Even the letter accusing them of posting says they have "indications" not "we have evidence". I'm no Zuckerberg or Musk fan but I just don't see how it's humanly possible to meet these requirements.
And in this case at least, wouldn't it have had the opposite effect of what they wanted? By letting the terrorists post all these horrific videos the entire West is unified in damning Hamas. If these videos hadn't come to light, would the reaction be so strong?
What worries me, is that soon enough AI is going to be at the point where anyone with an agenda can generate clips like this and feed them to the populace and then we're going to see fighting break out in contested regions everywhere across the globe. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle, but I don't see anyway where this doesn't end up with the major social media giants being forced to tie user identity to national identitifiers like passports, with the end result being that each national intelligence agency passes on lists of who they consider to be terrorists, which are then either filtered out entirely (this will be preferred by the governments) or flagged with a warning by the social media company (this will be preferred by the companies). Either way, we're heading towards a fucking scary world.
What's then interesting, is whether governments will try to ban out of existence any websites that don't comply with the verify scheme, or if they'll force them, browsers or internet providers to display some sort of "unverified content" warning, like when you get a chrome warning page saying they can't verify the page and you might be vulnerable to attack.
I don't think governments should be allowed to silence people which is what will likely happen if something like this happens, but I also don't think people should have the right to do or say whatever they want online with no repercussions either. I think the sweet point would probably be allowing anyone to have their own personal or news website whilst banning any social media or comment section from being unverified. At least this way you can say everyone is entitled to their soapbox but they've got to stand by their words. This seems to be closest we can get to the real world to me. You don't get to be anonymous in real life - you can move to a new town and take on a new identity but if you're consistently an arsehole then you will soon be labelled and treated as such and get run out of town.
> I also don't think people should have the right to do or say whatever they want online with no repercussions either
Are there not circumstances where relative anonymity is desirable and reasonable?
What if I'm a refugee facing roundup by the death squads? What if I'm a person of color in a racist environment? What if I'm trans and fear hatred and genocide for my gender expression? What if I'm a political dissident in an authoritarian regime? What if I want to help give women the right to choose and I fear violence? What I believe in X God in a country where believing in Y God is the law of the land? What if I'm a medical professional who wants to give gender affirming care in a location where that's resisted? What if I'm a woman who wants to speak up? What if I'm a whistleblower against corporate malfeasance and am afraid? What if I'm speaking out about the cops in a corrupt town and fear reprisal?
Is it just that under your system, my choices are either silence or violence?
> You don't get to be anonymous in real life
Don't you? Pen names to publish political statements that could harm have been a thing for a long time.
CNN: "Schools in Israel, the UK and the US are advising parents to delete their children’s social media apps over concerns that Hamas militants will broadcast or disseminate disturbing videos of hostages who have been seized in recent days."[1]
Unclear if this is a trend, or merely an action taken by staff at two unnamed schools.
165 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 283 ms ] threadThe recent Slovak elections are indeed a good example of things to come.
Speaking as a card carrying DSA member who primaried many folks...
well actually my wallet was stolen but you get the idea...
Speaking as someone who joined the DSA post Trump... people tend to get really pissy if you accuse them of being a Russian robot one too many times :-)
I was drawing attention to the fact that "disinformation" is at it's core, someone who has no right to vote in an election trying to influence those who do, and how we often paint lawful, protected speech as disinformation, either by direct retorts "Russian bot!" or... downvoting.
Vote however you want friends, I play by "Whose Line" rules -- it's all made up and the points don't matter... hence accounting for the multi year GAP in my posts.
While the terminology is still awful, I think this was an insightful attempt toward trying to frame the issue as exported propaganda by foreign actors.
thank you. i need to be more diplomatic, but i don't like having my patriotism questioned when i haven't left the country since the obama administration and i have to admit, i went to a dark place after feeling like my advice was repeatedly ignored in parallel with my integrity being questioned.
but... yeah... i DO need to joke less.
Please don't; I thought it was funny once I understood what you meant by DSA. By awful terminology, I referred to the whole concept of disinformation (and misinformation and whatnot).
there are those of us who began to form memories as the USSR fell, who came of voting age during the not-so-great recession who have always been out of sync with this... timeline,,, even if we were born in a supposedly auspicious year's numerology.
sorry for being too flippant if i was in contravention of the site guidelines, but so often i meet people who never read orwell beyond "1984" and it pains me to have sound, evidence based policy conflated with stalinism.
(jospeh was a very bad man, and it scared me when people trundled up to me to tell me i look like young stalin as some sort of compliment or flirtation. real life is not a usa television series -- to do violence, to even think of it, changes you in terrible ways that those who cannot name me any other nabokov than lolita will never understand, for once you cross that line you can never go back, your innocence is gone and your world forever darkened, even if you don't actually pull the trigger but just think of how to place the shot.)
Hard to disagree with a blanket “avoid misinformation”. But I guess that's the point.
This tweet calls them out on it and has screenshots of the posts in question:
https://x.com/KeithWoodsYT/status/1711364819863888227
Their Wikipedia page has other misinformation they’ve done in the past, but my edit to include this bout of disinformation was just rolled back, apparently because this behavior was documented and called out by an independent journalist and not published by mainstream media:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_News
The core issue is the type of person who's viewing snuff films and the like, to the point they're in the muck when folks like me are waiting a few days for an editor to decide how much we need to see.
I remember walking into Phar Mor after the Oklahoma City Federal Building was bombed, the dead baby on the cover.
People were angry -- said it was obscene.
But it made things change.
Not the bombing -- but seeing the aftermath.
Then folks pointed out worse had happned in the gulf but... I don't know how to escape these cycles when in the time from when you form memories to the time you can vote, so many conflicts have been started and no one ever wants to stand down when they're on the side with more resources and weapons.
Someone gave me a book to read about the early days of Israel, and they talk about how when they were going back and forth, the rabbi told the settlers do not go out tonight, do not relatiate, do not continue this cycle.
Flash forward, and people would talk about concern about mosques near ground zero but never the churches who do minor terrors so many more times over that do not make the news.
In fact, the main reason I abandoned one of my boyhood dreams is someone from the FBI straight up told me they'd never investigate the white nationalists, and that by the time I'd finished handing fake TNT to Tunisians, my IT skills would be as atrophied as my personal relationships.
And then they came and groped my girlfriends and rolled a tank through little Italy and expected not so much as a peep the next Easter Egg painting?
Entitled violent fascists, horrible in body, mind and soul.
Life is not black and white but... let's not lose sight that there are people consuming this media the way they consume a horror film.
https://www.mediaite.com/tech/a-coordinated-propaganda-campa...
There is a reason spectrum is regulated. Broadcast being free for all, has Never made any sense. Social media is an abnormality.
Yeah because it's scarce and if overuse leads to pollution and interference.
It's not because [x] group of people are too dumb and shouldn't have ideas voiced.
When everyone broadcasts what happens to Attention?
I don’t claim to have the answers, but was just pointing out that the world has changed and we will need different policies.
I'm not saying I know what the solution actually is, but denying that there even is a problem, or that the existing guidelines were designed with the above scenario in mind, is just preposterous to me.
Again, I’m not saying that everything was perfect before but that the rules and norms from the past need to be adjusted for the present. The way we handled hundreds of television stations can’t scale to millions of websites or social media accounts, especially since you no longer have anchors like geographic proximity or business identities.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html
Lots of bureaucratic and political positions are appointed by other elected representatives. We can't elect everybody, that would be too much. So is that really a problem here?
I am not that up to speed on the intricacies of EU governance at this level so I really don't know if this is a real problem or not.
The commissioners are appointed by the EC president in consultation with the member governments, and then the commission as a whole needs to secure approval of parliament. This is similar to the process by which parliamentary governments usually form a cabinet, but with the European Council (representatives of all member-state governments) serving in the role of head of state.
One typically talks about the government in a parliamentary system as being elected, so...
The way they play games with words doesn't make it a democratic system, it is however a very effective tool for the EU to muddy the water and confuse people into thinking it has greater legitimacy than it really does.
Is that appointment process not democratic because its one layer of indirection? It's the same thing that happens for pretty much any minister/secretary in pretty much every democracy. Is the US government not a democratic system because the secretary of state is appointed? Is the UK not democratic because the Cabinet is appointed? Are there any democracies by that narrow definition?
Yes, I know the shit show that “states rights” were in the US
But, the point is, we should always have the presumption of freedom of speech. As a matter of course that means we also must have certain responsibilities for the consequences of exercising that freedom. This last point often gets overlooked.
You can say whatever you want.
But when you take an illegal action (or, grey area, compel someone else to take an action) then you lose free speech protections.
"Fire" in a movie theater is the classic example of the court deciding what sort of speech consitutes compelling action.
This in contrast to other many other countries, where there is no guarantee that speech-that-does-not-compel-action will always be free.
To me, speech vs action is a critical distinction, because it prevents anyone in power from monopolizing the marketplace of ideas by banning an idea itself. While simultaneously preventing the worst societal consequences from actions.
Or, in other words... neo Nazis should be allowed to march peacefully... but so should everyone else. And the latter should massively outweigh the former. (That said, nothing prevents keeping a much closer eye on violence-espousing neo Nazis)
When yelling fire without a compelling reason, a reasonable person would anticipate everyone else's standard reaction, and that in the course of that action injury and/or death might occur.
Which is why culpability in the US depends on the speaker's intent. What if I believed I smelled smoke and yelled "Fire" because of that? But was simply wrong?
Unfortunately, intent is impossible to prove definitively, without actually peering into someone else's mind. Thus, can of worms.
"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is an analogy that was used to justify banning antidraft activism in the first world war. It is very much allowed under current precedent.
"Directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action" is the current standard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
Just look at how Indian politicians abuse hate speech laws. A classic example: https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/16/media/india-bbc-office-raid-t...
"Officials had spent three days raiding the spaces following the country’s ban on a BBC documentary that was critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s alleged role in deadly riots more than 20 years ago. "
"Now ranked between Turkey and Sudan, India dropped eight places to 150 out of 180 nations in last year’s World Press Freedom Index published by the Paris-based group, Reporters Without Borders. "
Retroactively applying laws to target your political enemies has nothing to do with censorship laws (except using them as an excuse) and everything to do with corruption and authoritarianism.
Donald Trump promised to prosecute everyone he holds a grudge against if he was elected president again, and the USA has constitutionally enshrined free speech laws.
The GA Republican governor is not denouncing the Atlanta DA
Was the recording of Trump asking a Republican governor to “find votes” to help him win a deep fake?
We could talk about the great national conspiracy that Donald Trump lead in collusion with Russia that made him an illegitimate president, or so said the Media until the Mueller report could not find Donald Trump conspiring with Russians
Was the recording of Barack Obama telling Medvedev that he would give Russia "flexibility" so long as Putin limited aggression until after he was re-elected a deep fake? Was the Subsequent 2014 invasion of Crimea and lack of response by Obama's administration a deep fake or just Obama repaying his half of the Bargain?
And “Hunter Biden” I was never an elected government officials.
You keep focusing on one or two national things and not the 91 indictments including the ones on the state level.
And Obama never had to call public officials to try to “find votes” or to try to convince his VP to not certify the election - he actually won twice.
Again are you accusing Biden who wasn’t an elected official while Trump was in office of having anything to do with the investigations? Are you accusing him of coordinating state prosecutions that even the Republican governor of GA is saying is legitimate?
As far as Obama
https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/nov/14/obamas-hot-mi...
I’m sure you’re now going to site evidence that the “election was stolen”
This is a contradiction and makes no sense.
> A society needs to put limits on behavior of its individuals to be sane
But lack of free speech and free politics drives societies insane. Look at all the crazy stuff the USSR and PRC have done in their histories, relative to the free speech and very much not insane USA.
Is that supposed to be a joke or does it just reflect your extreme bias?
You had a failed coup attempt in January 2021; your speaker of the house was just toppled by a few right-wing extremists in congress; government is on the edge of a default every few months; lots of important leaders (Biden, Trump, Pelosi, McConnell, to name a few, not to mention ones that straight up died of old age in office like RBG and Feinstein) are old to the point where one questions their mental acuity, a gerontocracy reminiscent of the last decades of the Soviet Union.
Get back to this thread when the USA has killed millions of its own citizens through enforcing insane policies on them in defiance of basic common sense e.g. the Great Leap Forward or Holomodor. That's what counts as insanity here, not politicians being outside your preferred age range.
This is the key bit most people miss out.
"You should be intolerant of intolerance" is a useless heuristic. You can rephrase most moral statements to be intolerant.
I think whenever a bad actor tries to talk about tolerance re: being "muzzled", this different formulation of tolerance should be brought up.
The people/businesses there would be quite pissed off and finally pay attention to who is making these decisions. Thats the worst thing a politician can want: a spotlight on them.
Recall the anti-SOPA movement? They changed their tune real quick after that. Frankly the EU is playing the same game as China. They are exploiting capitalism's weakness in an effort to force their will on these companies.
> These are dissemination of illegal content, negative effects on certain fundamental rights (privacy, freedom of expression, prohibition on discrimination and the rights of a child), and intentional manipulation of the services […]
Source: https://policyreview.info/articles/news/digital-services-act...
If enough countries in the EU shift their moral compass and then elect enough officials in the EU parliament and then change the laws and regulations you could say that it's a democratic decision to change the rules.
But that is impossible because the European Parliament constitutionally is not allowed to change the law. You literally cannot change EU law via elections in any way in Europe, which is why it's not a democratic system, short of electing a national party that will simultaneously leave the EU and revert to its own currency in one step, something that is widely regarded as logistically difficult to impossible.
This is a really, really common point of confusion. It's well past time to consider the way the EU names its institutions to be propaganda. The EU Parliament is not a Parliament. Write it out 100 times on a blackboard. EU policy does not reflect the will of Europeans, who aren't even close to being culturally homogenous enough to have such a will anyway.
You can. EU law is written by commissioners, which are appointed by national governments. You can change the commissioners by changing the national governments, which happens through elections.
1. Each commissioner has their own dedicated area and portfolio, so if the problematic law is in some other commissioner's area then your vote is worth nothing.
2. Commissioners are appointed by governments only in theory. In practice the President reserves the right to veto any commissioner they don't like, and give or take their responsibilities them at will. This ability doesn't exist in the treaties but Juncker has admitted he did it all the time [1] and explicitly stated that it renders worthless "populism" and "insubordination" (what people like him call actual democracy).
3. Commissioners are required to take an oath of loyalty to the EU and explicitly promise to ignore any instructions from their governments of citizenship [2], so being able to appoint them - even if it actually worked - would grant national governments no real power.
4. Many of the key policies of the EU are decided by people who aren't appointed by countries anyway, e.g. the ECJ or ECB.
So in practice there are no examples of countries meaningfully impacting EU policy by changing their commissioner, and national parties do not campaign on this basis. Again and again this point must be repeated. The EU is not honest about how it actually works. It is not a democracy. It has never been and never will be. Any mechanism or system that looks superficially democratic will turn out to be subtly broken or unusable on close inspection.
[1] “Nobody knows this, but last time I rejected the candidacies of six of the Commissioners presented to me by national governments. Do remember that governments merely propose commissioners. It is the president of the Commission who accepts them and allocates their responsibilities. Whilst certain countries [sometimes]allow themselves a degree of insubordination, depending on who happens to be in power and the stage of the political cycle they are in”, he was “confident that in a few years’ time, these issues won’t be troubling us anymore” (Juncker)
https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/eu-president-eurosceptics-blocked...
[2] "I do solemnly undertake: to be completely independent in the performance of my duties, in the general interest of the Communities; in the performance of these duties, neither to seek nor to take instructions from any government or from any other body"
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_10_...
Of course your vote is worth something. It changes another commissioner with another portfolio. Just because every subset of the demos votes for a different official doesn't make it any less democratic.
Similarly, in the US, a senator can be on a committee with a dedicated area and portfolio and you might not be able to influence their election if you live in the wrong state.
> In practice the President reserves the right to veto any commissioner they don't like, and give or take their responsibilities them at will.
This is common in presidential systems. I know for a fact it works that way in the US, but I'm pretty certain it does so in other systems as well.
> This ability doesn't exist in the treaties.
That's not the scandal you make it out to be. Plenty of democratic systems function more by convention than by written down law. Prime example is the UK, where a lot of constitutional law is nothing more than unwritten convention. The very existence of the office of the UK Prime Minister itself is not written down in law anywhere! [0]
> 3. Commissioners are required to take an oath of loyalty to the EU and explicitly promise to ignore any instructions from their governments of citizenship [2]
Of course they are, they're EU commissioners after all. US government officials take an oath to the US, too, and not the state they're from.
> so being able to appoint them - even if it actually worked - would grant national governments no real power.
Who said anything about granting national governments any power? That's not a prerequisite for a democratic system at the level above.
> It is not a democracy. It has never been and never will be. Any mechanism or system that looks superficially democratic will turn out to be subtly broken or unusable on close inspection.
None of your points are indicative of a lack of democracy. It might not be your preferred mode of democracy, but none of your complaints are unique to the EU, they're all features of other democratic systems as well.
Reading between the lines, it seems like your main gripe is the weakening of the nation state in favor of a larger block. I understand that might make you unhappy, but it is not per se undemocratic as long as the larger block is democratic. I also happen to believe it's the right thing to do, Europe has been held back by petty national squabbles for way too long, it's time we finally unify to the superpower we're meant to be.
[0] https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-co...
> You literally cannot change EU law via elections in any way in Europe
Your claim: you can vote for someone who will vote for someone who will suggest someone who can be rejected and who will then swear to ignore the wishes of the original voters anyway, and this is fine.
No it isn't. The EU is a dictatorship that like all dictatorships plays pretend and has meaningless votes for people who don't matter. Your attempts to obfuscate this core truth are impressively high effort, but mixing and matching different aspects of different democracies from around the world whilst ignoring all the ways the EU is different doesn't actually yield a winning argument.
> it is not per se undemocratic as long as the larger block is democratic
In fact placing a same-sized parliament under the control of a much larger number of people would be less democratic, as each individual has less influence over the results. But the EU isn't democratic anyway, so this point is moot.
> it's time we finally unify to the superpower we're meant to be.
And there it is, revealed in the final sentence. We didn't have to scratch deep to find it this time: the power hungry authoritarianism that motivates EU ideology. And you're in Austria no less. Every other attempt to unify Europe under a single government has led to dystopian disaster, but this time it'll be totally different!
Note how you haven't addressed any of my arguments.
> And there it is, revealed in the final sentence. We didn't have to scratch deep to find it this time: the power hungry authoritarianism that motivates EU ideology. And you're in Austria no less. Every other attempt to unify Europe under a single government has led to dystopian disaster, but this time it'll be totally different!
What exactly is authoritarian? You can't just use bad words against arguments you don't like, you have to actually back up your points.
All you have done is make wild claims, which I've refuted, as a result of which you've then called me an authoritarian and the EU a dictatorship without any substance to back it up.
You can't vote for anyone who has actual power: not a problem, that's democracy. The people you try to indirectly appoint to the Commission are rejected on ideological grounds: not a problem, that's democracy. The people who end up with power literally take an oath to ignore your vote: not a problem, that's democracy.
As for what is authoritarian? This whole thread is literally about the EU establishing a China style censorship regime.
You aren't engaging with the substance of the objections, just playing silly word games in an attempt to deny what you're supporting. You want a unitary superpower because it makes you feel strong, you feel you're "meant" to have power and feel the EU is staffed by people just like yourself. You will continue to throw dust around to try and obscure what this system really is until the day it turns on you, by which time, my friend, it will be far too late.
I have shown that these so-called dictatorial aspects are also features of other democracies. Are the US and the UK dictatorships as well, then?
It leads to an oligarchy as the rich are able to use their money as speech to buy control of the government. Oh wait, you meant the US's free speech laws are a good thing.
Maybe the Americans reading this should think about how their opinion on this issue might have been impacted by their American education and American upbringing. People outside the US aren't all stupid. There are reasons other countries have different speech laws and not all of those reasons are bad.
This is flawed logic. Consider:
There are reasons other countries have honor killings and not all of those reasons are bad.
> any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor
which they note is broader than the typical American definition:
> While the above is not a legal definition and is broader than “incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”
[1]: https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/...
It's not until you get to Enlightenment-influenced thinkers like Jefferson and Hamilton that the whole "liberty" thing really gets a purchase. It's just a shame you didn't have a little more Hamilton and a little less Jefferson in the mix. Then you'd realise freedom is a means, not an end.
Most of our ancestors came after independence, again, for the freedom, to escape your laws. Very few Americans can trace their lineage back to the Puritans.
We believe we are right about this and you're wrong. It's engrained deeply in our culture. Why can't you just respect other cultures? Why does everyone have to think like you do?
Freedom is an end unto itself.
This stuff is not okay in any way. People being allowed to megaphone this FUD for cheap attention/clicks/manipulation always find idiots who actually believe this shit, and move the Overton window towards even more destructive speech being tolerated.
While I do value free speech in general, there is a red line. Like, I can tolerate a lot of weird people talking nonsense, but when you spread hate I‘d confront you right on the street in reallife. „But it’s my opinion“ is NO excuse for being an asshole.
Now people spread propaganda garbage that _looks_ credible but is actually fake or several years old. This is adding kerosene into the fire and might ultimately lead to additional problems _ontop of_ the current suffering in the Middle East. I‘d prefer to not pile up additional issues instead of worrying about media underrepresentation of a side.
Huge opportunity here to censor your disfavored groups by calling them fascist, which has, in recent times, evolved from being a political science term, to being a very broad type of insult/accusation usable against almost anyone you don’t like.
The solution to this is to let people use filters.
Trying to have something like this as a rule ends up with existential conflict[1] over what the definitions and set of things allowed should be.
[1] For instance, my personal red line is about people being allowed to express their political views and I will happily physically fight you over this.
The US now seems to have a censorship regime, but it's privatized. "Harvard student groups issued an anti-Israel statement. CEOs want them blacklisted."[1]
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/11/business/harvard-israel-hamas...
[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws
This whole Israel-Hamas saga has really shown how little the general population knows about how many freedoms they have lost.
[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws
But a related question is whether the current status quo increases the probability that such an authoritarian will get elected in the first place.
On the one hand, yes, it's bad to give tools like this to a would-be authoritarian. But on the other hand, a lack of such tools may increase the chances that such an authoritarian will rise. They use the freedoms you gave them to get in, then strip those freedoms from you. A liberal and democratic society can't survive without some level of involuntary force applied against those who don't care for such ideals.
Or just go the US route and do an extraordinary rendition. They don't seem to have a problem with that.
The reality is facebook would happily pay the fine and the real loser would be the US taxman - in response the US would drum up some more "fines" against some European companies as payback. All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again.
I was acting in my capacity as CEO when I killed that person. It is The Company that is responsible, not me.
[1] I personally don't like to talk about the Hama's massacre as “terrorism”, as an organized military crossing a border to systematically eradicate civilian population is much more than terrorism: it is genocidal in essence.
But I guess having suddenly zero access to one of the worlds biggest markets (europe) would make wall street a bit nervous about the companies‘ revenue targets. Not to mention customers immediately jumping to some competitors, which might hurt a bit in the long run.
If they didn't pay then eventually the government would probably seize assets to cover the debt, and they would face increasingly more severe legal action until they paid.
It shouldn't really an option to just ignore the law.
Blocking FB would be an instant net-positive for our societies by eliminating an echo chamber and reduce FUD spread quite a bit.
And in this case at least, wouldn't it have had the opposite effect of what they wanted? By letting the terrorists post all these horrific videos the entire West is unified in damning Hamas. If these videos hadn't come to light, would the reaction be so strong?
What worries me, is that soon enough AI is going to be at the point where anyone with an agenda can generate clips like this and feed them to the populace and then we're going to see fighting break out in contested regions everywhere across the globe. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle, but I don't see anyway where this doesn't end up with the major social media giants being forced to tie user identity to national identitifiers like passports, with the end result being that each national intelligence agency passes on lists of who they consider to be terrorists, which are then either filtered out entirely (this will be preferred by the governments) or flagged with a warning by the social media company (this will be preferred by the companies). Either way, we're heading towards a fucking scary world.
What's then interesting, is whether governments will try to ban out of existence any websites that don't comply with the verify scheme, or if they'll force them, browsers or internet providers to display some sort of "unverified content" warning, like when you get a chrome warning page saying they can't verify the page and you might be vulnerable to attack.
Are there not circumstances where relative anonymity is desirable and reasonable?
What if I'm a refugee facing roundup by the death squads? What if I'm a person of color in a racist environment? What if I'm trans and fear hatred and genocide for my gender expression? What if I'm a political dissident in an authoritarian regime? What if I want to help give women the right to choose and I fear violence? What I believe in X God in a country where believing in Y God is the law of the land? What if I'm a medical professional who wants to give gender affirming care in a location where that's resisted? What if I'm a woman who wants to speak up? What if I'm a whistleblower against corporate malfeasance and am afraid? What if I'm speaking out about the cops in a corrupt town and fear reprisal?
Is it just that under your system, my choices are either silence or violence?
> You don't get to be anonymous in real life
Don't you? Pen names to publish political statements that could harm have been a thing for a long time.
>"vigilant" about removing disinformation on his company's platforms during the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict and ahead of upcoming elections.
How can there be an objective truth in a conflict that's been happening for such a long time?
He's welcome to self-impose sanctions on his company in one of the world's largest and richest markets.
Something tells me he won't do that though.
1. advertisers pulling out; or
2. armed men threatening to seize equipment.
People have the right to decide for themselves what is misinformation.
I don't like misinformation; I don't use Facebook or Twitter.
Unclear if this is a trend, or merely an action taken by staff at two unnamed schools.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/11/tech/tiktok-social-media-isra...
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/pro-israel-protesters-nyc-demand-ga...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Charter