E.U. Prepares Major Penalties Against X

Vague and ambiguous laws like these against disinformation enable selective enforcement for the governments to make sure their PoVs go though the media and everything they deem inappropriate or a threat to their authority gets shut down.

Those in power in Brussels are afraid of communication channels they can't control as people become more and more dissatisfied and irate with their leaders, policies and QoL reductions, so they push laws like these plus the ones trying to backdoor encrypted communications in order to gain control over the narrative, monitor and crush any potential uprisings before they even occur.

There is no silver bullet solution since we're not in an utopia. On the one hand all private media is controlled by biased oligarchs each with their own interests. On the other hand, governments in power want to control the narrative towards their own interests hence why in many EU countries we have state media. This is how it's always been and how it's always gonna be, a constant tug of war between interest groups, but I don't want any one side to have complete control of the media as that would be even worse.

>The free marketplace of ideas has obviously not worked.

Why do you think it hasn't worked? To me it seems like it's working, that's why those in power fear it and want to control it all for themselves.

My parents lived under communism. The speech control the EU is pushing resembles very well what communism had but with a better PR spin on it. Communism got defeated in part by total freedom of speech winning in the free market place of ideas versus government controlled speech. The Arab Spring revolutions could not have happened without the free media circulating on the internet. So to see the EU trying to lock down on free speech the same way totalitarian regime did, is incredibly suspicious to me like their afraid of their own people revolting against them.

I don't want unelected elites in Brussels deciding for me what content and opinions I should be allowed to view. If you want to win in the free marketplace of ideas, then come up with arguments for the people on why you consider each piece of information to be misinformation and debate it in public, not just ban it outright.

If you're unhappy with the current situation then do something positive by working to improve critical thinking education in your own country's schools.

That is a symptom, not a cause. That means education system is bad and has failed people, OR, that people are so desperate with their living standards that they're not disinformed but they just want to take revenge on the establishment that has failed them by voting extremes.

Either way, those are symptoms, not the cause so I don't believe government enforced censorship is the solution because that's exactly what totalitarian regimes did when people were unhappy. The solution is for the establishment to accept they have failed the people and start to do good for the people or step down.

This means the democratic system IS working as intended, as if you were to censor speech and take away peoples' only legal way of protesting (voting), then their next alternatives is violence and uprising.

What if the education system can't fix this? Not just the current one - any education system.

> that people are so desperate with their living standards

What if people's propensity to believe utter bullshit is independent of their financial situation?

> Either way, those are symptoms, not the cause

What if the tendency to believe bullshit is the cause? You have failed to prove it isn't, so your proposed solutions probably won't work and indeed may make matters much worse.

> I don't believe [X] is the solution because that's exactly what totalitarian regimes did

Hitler also ate sugar. Ban sugar!

> The solution is for the establishment to accept they have failed the people and start to do good for the people or step down.

This contradicts your stated position, because preventing disinformation is good for the people, but you don't think the establishment should do it.

> This means the democratic system IS working as intended, as if you were to censor speech and take away peoples' only legal way of protesting (voting)

Very obvious non-sequitur. What do penalties against the app formerly known as Twitter have to do with taking away voting rights?

If your nation's education is so bad that 51% of the population buys into disinformation with no way of convincing them otherwise, then you'll have to accept you're doomed as a country and deserve that fate. Might as well give up on democracy and anoint an emperor or king to rule over you, because there's no point in cosplaying as a democracy if you're not planning to respect the will of the majority at the elections.

>Not just the current one - any education system.

Switzerland and nordic countries like Denmark seem to be quite well educated, highly transparent, low corruption and a decent democracy. So it is possible.

>What if people's propensity to believe utter bullshit is independent of their financial situation?

People's political biases are ALWAYS tied to their wealth, education and social class. Just compare a map with wealth/income distribution with a map with blue/red voters.

>What if the tendency to believe bullshit is the cause?

Look in the mirror.

Why? What did I miss?

>your comparisons between EU clampdown on disinformation and hate speech (however effective or justified it is) to communism propaganda and to persecutions against its opponents - it is pretty offensive

That's how boiling the frog works. Where do you think you'll end up if you give the government authority to decide what information is right or wrong for you to have access to?

What happens when Ursula v.d Leyen decides that her scandal involving the deleted email is "disinformation" and has a friendly judge call for it to be scrubbed from media and search engines?

You can't and should never blindly trust governments with them having your well being at heart. The main goal of a government is to stay in power, by any mean necessary in order to help those who finance their careers and campaigns.

If you can't see the slope between this speech police path and becoming an USSR-Light minus the gulags and executions, then maybe you're the offensive one.

Or, you know, you try to limit the spreading of disinfo, simply to protect the weak. We could for example have a talk about how the people most prone to fall for disinfo are the old and farthest removed from the reach of the education system.

> if you're not planning to respect the will of the majority

You are the one who is not respecting the will of the majority. The government is formed by majority coalition coming from the elections, and the government is doing this. The will of the majority is respected by fighting the disinformation.

> Switzerland and nordic countries seem to be quite well educated and a decent democracy. So it is possible.

Nordic countries are part of the EU and on board with these policies, so no idea what are you on about here.

> People's political biases are always tied to their wealth and social class. Just compare a map with wealth/income distribution with a map with blue/red voter.

It would be nice if you tried to engage with what I wrote and not something completely different.

Ah yes.

that's also how the slippery slope fallacy works

Any extreme powers you give the government to "keep you safe", they will eventually be abused, first against foreigners, political dissidents and whistleblowers, then against you.

History doesn't necessarily repat itself, but it definitely rhymes.

Communist revolution always precedes communist control of speech.

Since giving up on democracy in this situation is a good thing, according to you, will you finally stop complaining about it?