EU proposing new AV rules: More European streaming content, stricter Anti-Hate rules

[JoseGuya]

Free speech is like Tor, either everyone get to use it, or no-one. The good will be always come with some bad. There is no grey area in this kind of things. Once you start regulating speech, anonymity and privacy, you WILL get an authoritarian, repressive government. 

[MadyTehWolfie]

Thank God I'm in the good ol USA where people can miss pronoun me without having consequences. An people want to say they have personal freedom? Think not. Economic freedom? Sure if you think paying over 30% taxes so the mc Donald's fry cook has full benefits is economic freedom.

 

Edit: Yes I'm advocating for people to be critical of everything in the lgbtq and to come up with their own opinions and ideas about it, and that bringing up biology is not "hate speech" FREEDOM! (Insert American joke here)

[Dylanc1500]

1 hour ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Thank God I'm in the good ol USA where people can miss pronoun me without having consequences. An people want to say they have personal freedom? Think not. Economic freedom? Sure if you think paying over 30% taxes so the mc Donald's fry cook has full benefits is economic freedom.

 

Edit: Yes I'm advocating for people to be critical of everything in the lgbtq and to come up with their own opinions and ideas about it, and that bringing up biology is not "hate speech" FREEDOM! (Insert American joke here)

All I can think of is the song from Team America. 

[MadyTehWolfie]

Wonder where all the people are who said the EU had free speech. Maybe they realised that was wrong. 

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

On 5/25/2017 at 6:15 AM, mr moose said:

I'm only in favor banning speech that has a provable physical outcome of harm.  I.E vaxxed and people claiming to be health professionals that market demonstrably false health advice like Pete evans telling Australians not to use sunscreen. 

The only problem with that is that we're dealing with humans. We lie, make up statistics, etc. to suit our cause. We also hate authority and have a natural tendency to say things that are seen as taboo and/or are banned. Banning things like that just seems to prove their credence (i.e. "the government is colluding with x industry" "those damned corrupt politicians are in the pocket of x person/company/industry"). 

[Sauron]

On 25/5/2017 at 9:58 AM, mr moose said:

Not really.  we already have laws about inciting a riot.  I am simply in favor of extendeding those laws to people whose speech has a
real and damaging effect on peoples health.

You don't like that someone else has a different opinion so you try to insinuate there is a problem with their view.  Maybe you should talk to the kids with measles becasue Andrew wakefield's freedom to preach means that their vulnerable mothers avoided the vaccine fearing their kids would become autistic.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/08/health/measles-minnesota-somali-anti-vaccine-bn/

 

I think most people won't have an issue when it comes to spreading medical misinformation (which can be proven to be false) but it will inevitably come down to what the definition of "hate speech" is, which is very unlikely to be objective. As much as, say, neo-nazi groups make my skin crawl, silencing them on the internet seems like a slippery slope that leads to censoring any political view that disagrees with the current ruling force. Of course any acts of harassment or cyber-bullying don't fit into political opinion and should be prosecuted in my opinion.

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

The only problem with that is that we're dealing with humans. We lie, make up statistics, etc. to suit our cause. We also hate authority and have a natural tendency to say things that are seen as taboo and/or are banned. Banning things like that just seems to prove their credence (i.e. "the government is colluding with x industry" "those damned corrupt politicians are in the pocket of x person/company/industry"). 

The issue is kids are actually dying because medical misinformation is spreading like wildfire.  And it is actually quite demonstrable which information is wrong.  We have hundreds of thousands of studies supporting in each of today's health strategies.   I am not proposing a blanket ban on people having opinions about the health system or talking about their personal experiences (even though we know they are meaningless).  Just the ones making money from it, people who run websites and blogs with affiliate links.   Nearly all the vaccine preventable deaths can be traced back to the same rhetoric.  

 

Hell, in most countries it is illegal for me to give financial advice when I profit from it (I.E recommending shares in a company I want to sell or own).  So why is it legal to give health advice when you profit the same.  How is giving false medical advice for profit (selling vitamins or affiliate links from a blog site) protected under free speech while giving financial advice isn't?

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

I think most people won't have an issue when it comes to spreading medical misinformation (which can be proven to be false) but it will inevitably come down to what the definition of "hate speech" is, which is very unlikely to be objective. As much as, say, neo-nazi groups make my skin crawl, silencing them on the internet seems like a slippery slope that leads to censoring any political view that disagrees with the current ruling force. Of course any acts of harassment or cyber-bullying don't fit into political opinion and should be prosecuted in my opinion.

 

I consider hate speech as anything that is demonstrable false and leads to physical human suffering,  if it doesn't lead to suffering then it is just being an arsehole.  I don't propose a ban on people from saying what they want, just a consequence for when it is proven to have a physical outcome.  (I.E if you publicly promote bleach enemas and fool parents into giving them to their kids you should be then be punished for that. 

[Monkey Dust]

On 26/05/2017 at 1:45 AM, Centurius said:

Stuff simply doesn't come free, that's how the world works. As for the Brexit talks, the funny thing there is that the most painful form of Brexit would be the EU outright saying that they are no longer members of the bloc and will receive 0 of the benefits. What the Brits are trying to achieve is keeping the benefits of EU membership without dealing with any of the downsides. Just like you can't have your cake and eat it too, a country can't either. 

I fear you give British politicians too much credit. Our Brexit goals are to further the careers of the politicians carrying out the negotiations. What may, or may not, be good for the UK is very much a secondary concern. God I'm getting cynical in my old age.

 

As regards censoring hate speech; How the hell do they expect to do it? Facebook can't even keep child porn off it's site (Citation), I believe twitter may have a similar issue. And then there are You Tube comments... In the face of aggressive fines these platforms may simple have to pull out of the EU. The amount of content that is uploaded everyday, the amount of manpower it would take to moderate these platforms could make them financially unviable.

 

Then there is the thorny issue of religious freedom vs freedom from hate speech. Many religions are quick to condemn and pour scorn upon the LGBT community and those that have abortions for example. Either there would have to be a one rule for the non-religious and another, laxer law, for the religious, or it will upset the many of the still very religious countries in the EU.

 

I do note though that they only mention the big platforms, not the whole internet, not the small forums. It is possibly just pitched at the sites that you might be on anyway and may accidentally stumble across objectionable content in-between the endless selfies and pictures of food. If you want to associate online with people who hold similar intolerant views to yourself you will still be able to, but you will have to purposefully search for it. Think of it like TV, broadcasters have strict rules on what they are and are not allowed to show, if that doesn't tickle your fancy you have to search out something else that does.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, Monkey Dust said:

As regards censoring hate speech; How the hell do they expect to do it?

They don't care, they just expect big websites to enforce the law or face a fine. Nobody will give a damn if a diy blog run from some dude's garage contains isis propaganda, this is about the big players.

[dexT]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

I consider hate speech as anything that is demonstrable false and leads to physical human suffering,  if it doesn't lead to suffering then it is just being an arsehole.  I don't propose a ban on people from saying what they want, just a consequence for when it is proven to have a physical outcome.  (I.E if you publicly promote bleach enemas and fool parents into giving them to their kids you should be then be punished for that. 

Let's say someone states that McDonald's is nasty. The maker of the speech ban or enforcer loves McDonalds with a passion and becomes triggered AKA has suffering over it and it is demonstrable as false (because they love McDonald's). The result is that someone is led off and jailed or worse all within the boundaries of what you want as the law.

 

Any banning of speech will grow to cover more and more topics including benign criticism.

[Shakaza]

34 minutes ago, dexT said:

Let's say someone states that McDonald's is nasty. The maker of the speech ban or enforcer loves McDonalds with a passion and becomes triggered AKA has suffering over it and it is demonstrable as false (because they love McDonald's). The result is that someone is led off and jailed or worse all within the boundaries of what you want as the law.

 

Any banning of speech will grow to cover more and more topics including benign criticism.

I think you're misunderstanding the first part of his reasoning about hate speech: "Demonstrably false." What you just stated is an opinion, which by their very definition cannot be true or false, and therefore would not be covered by his proposed solution, and would be fine to say. The distinction might be difficult for people to notice for a while, however, and would probably cause a whole kerfuffle regarding laws and would need a couple court cases to establish precedent. Though, now that I think about it, there could also be an issue regarding misinformation. If someone were to say, "McDonald's food causes cancer in 100% of cases (which is a fact that is demonstrably false)" based on a source from a shady website, and that happened to severely offend someone, would they have to go through a whole process to prove their statement was a result of misinformation and not an intent to hurt? Misinformation is a problem, yes, but I don't think it requires a punishment by law.

[dexT]

9 minutes ago, Shakaza said:

I think you're misunderstanding the first part of his reasoning about hate speech: "Demonstrably false." What you just stated is an opinion, which by their very definition cannot be true or false, and therefore would not be covered by his proposed solution, and would be fine to say. The distinction might be difficult for people to notice for a while, however, and would probably cause a whole kerfuffle regarding laws and would need a couple court cases to establish precedent. Though, now that I think about it, there could also be an issue regarding misinformation. If someone were to say, "McDonald's food causes cancer in 100% of cases (which is a fact that is demonstrably false)" based on a source from a shady website, and that happened to severely offend someone, would they have to go through a whole process to prove their statement was a result of misinformation and not an intent to hurt? Misinformation is a problem, yes, but I don't think it requires a punishment by law.

It's up to the enforcers what is "Demonstrably false" though and what "Suffering" is. It's also up to who's calling the shots and their beliefs/agenda.

[Shakaza]

2 minutes ago, dexT said:

It's up to the enforcers what is "Demonstrably false" though and what "Suffering" is. It's also up to who's calling the shots and their beliefs/agenda.

So your problem is more with the implementation and not the theory? I suppose that's fair. It would take a lot of work to restrict people to only enforce it when it's facts that are involved. As for the suffering part, I'm really not certain what @mr moose has in mind and I'm not sure myself what the best way to implement THAT is. Maybe he can elaborate further.

[dexT]

1 hour ago, Shakaza said:

So your problem is more with the implementation and not the theory? I suppose that's fair. It would take a lot of work to restrict people to only enforce it when it's facts that are involved. As for the suffering part, I'm really not certain what @mr moose has in mind and I'm not sure myself what the best way to implement THAT is. Maybe he can elaborate further.

Im against any censorship or banning any kind of speech.

 

Opposing politics/religion/sexual orientation/etc can easily be twisted to fit any definition.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, dexT said:

It's up to the enforcers what is "Demonstrably false" though and what "Suffering" is. It's also up to who's calling the shots and their beliefs/agenda.

The people who enforce said laws would have to rely on indisputable evidence that either proves the claims correct, incorrect or open for debate. I don't for one minute think anyone should have the power to prevent speech if the evidence up for debate.

 

Demonstrably false is a position that can only be held with scientific evidence.  If a claim can be proven wrong (like some of the examples I have given are) then the person making that speech can be given a warning, this would circumvent a lot,  if not all, misunderstanding. Then if that person chooses to ignore that warning and continue making false claims that lead people astray then they can be punished.   To give you an idea just how objective this is, it is like arguing whether the earth is flat,  this is demonstrable wrong,  arguing that vaccines cause autism is demonstrably wrong.  Claiming pharmaceutical companies do some shifty work to make a profit is an opinion (can't be 100% demonstrated as wrong).  Doctors taking payments from pharmaceutical companies en mass to prescribe unnecessary scripts can also be proven wrong should someone take the time to audit the entire system.  I tend to centre my examples around the health system because that is the where I see the best scientific evidence and the worst of health advice being served out under current freedom of speech laws. 

 

I think where people come unstuck in debates like this is that we suffer a thing called the third person effect, this is where we see media, or external environmental factors (like laws, movies, ideologies) having a greater impact on others than they do ourselves. The natural response is to fight it to complete eradication.   The reality is that this whole thing is not black and white, and like many laws of the land, people in general are quite capable of determining what is acceptable and what isn't.  We don't need to give everyone free speech for fear that we will lose all of it. 

[dexT]

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The people who enforce said laws would have to rely on indisputable evidence that either proves the claims correct, incorrect or open for debate. I don't for one minute think anyone should have the power to prevent speech if the evidence up for debate.

 

Demonstrably false is a position that can only be held with scientific evidence.  If a claim can be proven wrong (like some of the examples I have given are) then the person making that speech can be given a warning, this would circumvent a lot,  if not all, misunderstanding. Then if that person chooses to ignore that warning and continue making false claims that lead people astray then they can be punished.   To give you an idea just how objective this is, it is like arguing whether the earth is flat,  this is demonstrable wrong,  arguing that vaccines cause autism is demonstrably wrong.  Claiming pharmaceutical companies do some shifty work to make a profit is an opinion (can't be 100% demonstrated as wrong).  Doctors taking payments from pharmaceutical companies en mass to prescribe unnecessary scripts can also be proven wrong should someone take the time to audit the entire system.  I tend to centre my examples around the health system because that is the where I see the best scientific evidence and the worst of health advice being served out under current freedom of speech laws. 

 

I think where people come unstuck in debates like this is that we suffer a thing called the third person effect, this is where we see media, or external environmental factors (like laws, movies, ideologies) having a greater impact on others than they do ourselves. The natural response is to fight it to complete eradication.   The reality is that this whole thing is not black and white, and like many laws of the land, people in general are quite capable of determining what is acceptable and what isn't.  We don't need to give everyone free speech for fear that we will lose all of it. 

That's not how the world works though. It will always be abused even if it starts small with noble intentions.

 

Look at societies that ban free speech: Nazi Germany, North Korea, many Islamic countries. It's a slippery slope with no way back up.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, dexT said:

That's not how the world works though. It will always be abused even if it starts small with noble intentions.

 

Look at societies that ban free speech: Nazi Germany, North Korea, many Islamic countries. It's a slippery slope with no way back up.

It's exactly how the world works,  you only have to look at laws about giving financial advice.  Misrepresenting the market or a product is illegal. Giving advice without full disclosure is illegal.  Why is health (some would argue human life is more important than money) not the same?  It can be qualified, it can be determined objectively. Much of it is not a matter of opinion but scientific fact.   

 

 

On a separate note, pointing to countries that are essentially under dictatorship/regimes is a little too simplistic.  There are  free speech issues in countries with full democracies and some of the highest standards of living.  Whilst there are some countries with living conditions so abhorrent that freedom of speech is a moot problem. 

[dexT]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

It's exactly how the world works,  you only have to look at laws about giving financial advice.  Misrepresenting the market or a product is illegal. Giving advice without full disclosure is illegal.  Why is health (some would argue human life is more important than money) not the same?  It can be qualified, it can be determined objectively. Much of it is not a matter of opinion but scientific fact.   

That would be in effect to PROTECT people, much like how I can't threaten to kill someone or scream as loud as I can in someone's ear. Simply saying that vaccines will handicap children is definitely not the same and does not deserve a witch hunt. While we're on medicine, watch any advert for medicine and you'll hear a huge list of possible side effects(at least in the US) that include fatal conditions and they are still pushed by Pharma.

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

On a separate note, pointing to countries that are essentially under dictatorship/regimes is a little too simplistic.  There are  free speech issues in countries with full democracies and some of the highest standards of living.  Whilst there are some countries with living conditions so abhorrent that freedom of speech is a moot problem. 

That's what happens though when free speech is banned. A tyrant will abuse and capitalize on it.

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

23 hours ago, mr moose said:

The issue is kids are actually dying because medical misinformation is spreading like wildfire.  And it is actually quite demonstrable which information is wrong.  We have hundreds of thousands of studies supporting in each of today's health strategies.   I am not proposing a blanket ban on people having opinions about the health system or talking about their personal experiences (even though we know they are meaningless).  Just the ones making money from it, people who run websites and blogs with affiliate links.   Nearly all the vaccine preventable deaths can be traced back to the same rhetoric.  

 

Hell, in most countries it is illegal for me to give financial advice when I profit from it (I.E recommending shares in a company I want to sell or own).  So why is it legal to give health advice when you profit the same.  How is giving false medical advice for profit (selling vitamins or affiliate links from a blog site) protected under free speech while giving financial advice isn't?

 

I consider hate speech as anything that is demonstrable false and leads to physical human suffering,  if it doesn't lead to suffering then it is just being an arsehole.  I don't propose a ban on people from saying what they want, just a consequence for when it is proven to have a physical outcome.  (I.E if you publicly promote bleach enemas and fool parents into giving them to their kids you should be then be punished for that. 

 Again, in a perfect world I might agree with you, but we live in the world we do, which is far from perfect. In this world, what you propose would essentially give governments freedom to decide what's truth. Evidence can be faked, and as is abundantly clear by the smear campaign against Trump, if you tell people something loudly and frequently enough, most of them believe it.

 

Well, I actually don't agree with those laws. I like how we do it in the U.S.: 'tis legal as long as you make it clear that you stand to profit on your advice.

 

Well, using "hate" to describe that doesn't really fit the word's definition, but I guess you do you. The problem with that is that it can be applied to more than healthcare. Hell, using your definition we could go back to a patriarchy because as women have gotten more and more social equality (and as they have surpassed men's rights, but that's a different discussion), women have become demonstrably more depressed and way more likely to commit suicide. Y'see why your proposed policy would be bad if applied to the real world? It's just like republics, socialism, and most other forms of government: perfect on paper, but when applied to real life, human nature gets in the way and screws it all up.

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

It's exactly how the world works,  you only have to look at laws about giving financial advice.  Misrepresenting the market or a product is illegal. Giving advice without full disclosure is illegal.  Why is health (some would argue human life is more important than money) not the same?  It can be qualified, it can be determined objectively. Much of it is not a matter of opinion but scientific fact.

Ah, no, it's only illegal for the company itself. Joe Schmoe can misrepresent to his heart's content, even if he has a vested interest in the company's well-being. As long as he doesn't suggest that you buy or invest into that company, he doesn't even have to state that he has a stake in the company. Scientific fact is not as solid as you think. New discoveries are constantly made and there will always be opposing studies, no matter how concrete something looks.

[mr moose]

32 minutes ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

Ah, no, it's only illegal for the company itself. Joe Schmoe can misrepresent to his heart's content, even if he has a vested interest in the company's well-being. As long as he doesn't suggest that you buy or invest into that company, he doesn't even have to state that he has a stake in the company. Scientific fact is not as solid as you think. New discoveries are constantly made and there will always be opposing studies, no matter how concrete something looks.

Actually, in Australia joe nobody is subject to the same laws. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is similar in the US.   I have already given several examples of how laws actually oppress civil liberties.    The financial one is just the most analogous to my health proposition  (which by the way evidence can't be faked. As evidence based practice operates  on the scientific consensus. Not the results of one study). 

[eyecantseeover24fps]

The government should keep their hands off the internet. It's one of the greatest developments for creativity and economic development, the government can only stifle innovation to benefit the select few.

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, eyecantseeover24fps said:

The government should keep their hands off the internet. It's one of the greatest developments for creativity and economic development, the government can only stifle innovation to benefit the select few.

All other things aside the government are not going to stifle business by controlling the internet.   Without successful business there are less people earning, less profits and consequently less tax revenue.  

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Actually, in Australia joe nobody is subject to the same laws. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is similar in the US.   I have already given several examples of how laws actually oppress civil liberties.    The financial one is just the most analogous to my health proposition  (which by the way evidence can't be faked. As evidence based practice operates  on the scientific consensus. Not the results of one study). 

Well, on this side of the pond, it's as I described, as long as you have a decent lawyer. I'm confused by this sentence; are you suggesting that the oppression of civil liberties is occasionally good, in some cases (I'm not being a smartass, I really don't understand what you meant by your third sentence)? Evidence is very often faked, and the sciences aren't exempt from corruption, confirmation bias, or anything of the sort. Y'know the Paris climate conference last year or the year before? It was convened because of a particularly alarming study that was later proven to be faked. Also remember that it used to be a consensus among the scientific community that black people were inferior to whites. Have you ever heard of the Cult of Pythagoras? They murdered someone for destroying their world view (https://esoterx.com/2014/12/03/murder-by-math-the-irrational-demise-of-hippasus/). I could go on and on, and I bring up these examples to show that even if the scientific community agrees on something, it's not necessarily true.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

Well, on this side of the pond, it's as I described, as long as you have a decent lawyer. I'm confused by this sentence; are you suggesting that the oppression of civil liberties is occasionally good, in some cases (I'm not being a smartass, I really don't understand what you meant by your third sentence)? Evidence is very often faked, and the sciences aren't exempt from corruption, confirmation bias, or anything of the sort. Y'know the Paris climate conference last year or the year before? It was convened because of a particularly alarming study that was later proven to be faked. Also remember that it used to be a consensus among the scientific community that black people were inferior to whites. Have you ever heard of the Cult of Pythagoras? They murdered someone for destroying their world view (https://esoterx.com/2014/12/03/murder-by-math-the-irrational-demise-of-hippasus/). I could go on and on, and I bring up these examples to show that even if the scientific community agrees on something, it's not necessarily true.

 

I am not in favor of oppressing civil liberties, just pointing out we have laws that do that and to date they haven't snowballed into chaos.   You should look up scientific consensus. It is the act of considering all the evidence, not just one or two studies.  Also you should check out how the peer review system works.  Even after publication studies are scrutinized and often withdrawn when they are wrong.