←back to thread

139 points dotcoma | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
twalkz ◴[] No.43603601[source]
I guess at some point the EU has to do something if they want companies to keep implementing these regulations under the calculus of “cost of implementation vs. cost of fines that arise from non-compliance”.

I would love to believe that some companies would follow these regulations even without severe threat, because they’re the right thing to do for users, but I know in a lot of cases it can take significant time, effort, and money to keep up with every regulation coming out of the EU

replies(4): >>43603619 #>>43603776 #>>43603778 #>>43604442 #
jahewson ◴[] No.43603778[source]
Censorship is not the “right thing to do” though. Just look at how it’s been abused in recent years.
replies(1): >>43604121 #
FirmwareBurner ◴[] No.43604121[source]
Indeed. I'm European and I also see the EU's "banning of disinformation" as a form of censorship in gift wrapping. What about the government disinformation during covid? Did they punish anyone for that?

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.

replies(1): >>43604147 #
immibis ◴[] No.43604147[source]
I'd love to hear your better idea to deal with disinformation. The free marketplace of ideas has obviously not worked. Maybe even better public education could work, and then they wouldn't need to censor it because nobody would believe it anyway?
replies(2): >>43604164 #>>43604274 #
FirmwareBurner ◴[] No.43604164[source]
>I'd love to hear your better idea to deal with disinformation.

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.

replies(2): >>43604897 #>>43608945 #
bgarbiak ◴[] No.43604897[source]
I remember the communism. Boy, you have no idea. And, frankly, 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.
replies(1): >>43610821 #
FirmwareBurner ◴[] No.43610821[source]
>Boy, you have no idea.

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.

replies(1): >>43612010 #
tpm ◴[] No.43612010[source]
> That's how boiling the frog works.

that's also how the slippery slope fallacy works

replies(2): >>43613087 #>>43614977 #
1. mike_hearn ◴[] No.43614977[source]
Technically, "slippery slope" isn't a fallacy. It's just a name for the idea that one thing leads inevitably to another. It's not fallacious to extrapolate from past experience, even if that extrapolation turns out to be wrong.
replies(1): >>43615033 #
2. tpm ◴[] No.43615033[source]
I wrote "slippery slope fallacy", not just "slippery slope", for a reason.
replies(1): >>43619361 #
3. mike_hearn ◴[] No.43619361[source]
Arguing A->B is only a fallacy if no argument for the sequence is provided. A plausible argument was provided here based on prior experience of other governments. There's no fallacy if you just disagree on the probability.
replies(1): >>43619450 #
4. tpm ◴[] No.43619450{3}[source]
No argument (not plausible, not probable, none) for the sequence was provided.

Communist revolution always precedes communist control of speech.