but not a good example to convince someone that privatized censorship is akchally a good thing.
And while its ease to spot and codify extreme cases on both sides, its impossible for a law to clearly codify a clear line where good turns to bad.
The 'original' argument for this type of conversation is: what makes a nude picture an art piece, what makes it porn. If we were given 100 photos we would probably agree in most cases whats art and whats porn, but try to write rules for distinguishing them.
Any evidence for this?
I.e. shouldn't Reddit let a community exist, even if some users post content against the rules, as long as the moderators are putting a reasonable, good faith effort to ban such users?
(I don't know if what notadev said is true, or if Reddit bans communities just because users are posting bad content against the moderators will)
I can assure you he isn't an antifa plant.
They need each other like a married couple.
Also, please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with.
It's especially insane because Polish law is not a superset of every other country's law. If a web site is forced to remove content because it violates a law specific to the country the site is based in -- boom, now they've broken the law in Poland.
The law is stupid of course and an attempt to fight for their point of view(that is: xenophobic, racist and intolerant), but history is a subject rather widely discussed in Poland with all the sides being represented in media.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/"Polish_death_camp"_controvers...
You're also not allowed to refer to camps like Zgoda or Jaworzno - which were labour camps operated by poles on behalf of the communist regime - as 'Polish concentration camps'.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Polish_death_camp%22_contro...
Or to add a different story, a family member sent to a Soviet camp told everyone not to retaliate against neighbours who testified against him - because they were likely forced to do so.
Or think of Nazi-run weapon factories in occupied countries where locals were forced to work. (And sometimes managed to sabotage production quality)
There's literally a common phrase "Poland is the Christ of nations." - Mickiewicz, the chief poet. You can only be the Christ if you're without fault.
edit: this post is getting downvoted :D. I was never good at Polish doublethink, cared too much about facts.
"Various polish governments have done XYZ" vs. "polish people lie". It's similar to "Israel does XYZ to Palestinians" vs "Jews want XYZ to happen to Palestinians" (to use a common antisemitic trope trying to justify antisemitism)
There's a point after which you can say there's a pattern and not just a bunch of samples. When we're talking about populations we're talking in terms of averages and distributions, and the average in Poland is much like I described. In my opinion history of Poland is the second state religion, after catholicism, 91% as of 2018. And if you say many young people don't actually go to church, you're making my point (duplicity and appeasing peer pressure).
97% and 91%. Maybe it's you who don't know what you're talking about?
I wonder if people actually know this, and how many actually go through the pain of "de-registering" themselves from this organisation.
I also wonder how this affects things like "official statistics" of Catholics in the country.
Regarding Witcher 3 there is a very simple reason for nearly all the people being white. It's because the region is in turmoil and there's a war going on. So all the people (of different skin colour, different race) that can leave have already done so.
"Colorful" people leaving because of a war implies a racist society where unusual people are merely tolerated at best of times. History is more complex than that. Duke Mieszko I, the first recorded ruler of Poland, gifted a camel (according to Thietmar) to Otto III, future emperor. That was in A.D. 986.
The Witcher series has been full of fearful populaces wary and hostile to outsiders/other races (Dwarves and Elves in this case).
It's not what I'd call a great law. But I think it's a law with a wholly reasonable motivation.
That's different from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration_in_German-occupi... which may be a controversial topic but one based on real history
Misspeaking and labeling the camps Polish due to geographical location is almost certainly an innocent mistake.
> The bill was proposed by the country’s ruling Law and Justice party (PiS) and calls for up to three years in prison or a fine for accusing the Polish state or people of involvement or responsibility for the Nazi occupation during World War II
The law has since passed, tho it was later amended to remove the prison time portion.
Now I am not a lawyer, nor am I polish, so I don't know what the situation is on the ground - but I believe the law makes repeating much of the contents of this wikipedia page illegal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration_in_German-occupi...
Collaborators were punished because they were traitors and everyone seen and sees them like such.
Below is a link to a Wikipedia where you can learn more:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland_(1939%E2%8...
I hope you will understand how offensive and false your comment is.
> Especially in the early weeks of the German offensive, many thousands of Jews were murdered by members of local communities in the western parts of the previously Soviet zone, such as the Baltic countries, eastern Poland, and western Ukraine.
I am absolutely not trying to paint a complex situation in black and white. The article you linked to also points out how many non-jewish poles were killed, how many non-jewish poles helped jewish poles at great risk to themselves, etc. but the idea that you can “other” collaborator poles out of being poles is denying the reality.
“Hey, no pornography!” “What are you gonna do about it?”
Completely reactionary and fails to consider practicality.
Also the recent rulings on Abortion almost caused a revolution. So they might be more careful in the coming months.
At the end of the day, the data is sitting on a piece of hardware somewhere, isn't the "owning" place the one that dictates what laws can be enforced on it?
There's nothing novel about this. This is how civil judgments are enforced across borders every day.
Otherwise, it is limited to internet traffic from people within the European Union.
This rule was unclear in the beginning of the law implement, but there have been high court rulings clearing up the confusion.
See this, for example “Google wins landmark right to be forgotten case”: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49808208
There are limits to that due to contract law, but there are also limits how many rights one can sign away, especially when dealing with predatory corporations.
To give a less digital analogue: if you are robbed, your local police is the authority you talk to. They are not going to tell you that you need to find out who robbed you and talk to the police in their home town.
I am a dual US|EU citizen, but I am culturally American. I was trying to explain it from the perspective of Americans.
Thank you again for the clarification.
> (presumably, but could be any other)
You will have to put more limits up front to control what content gets uploaded.
The real problem are still people that want content removed that mostly doesn't even concern them in the first place.
But you are correct, a literal usage of this law is insane.
Note that PiS is actually pronounced piss, which must be some kind of divine providence.
no it isn't. It's pronounced peace
https://www.reddit.com/r/ericprydz/comments/jkzj5a/antigover...
how it happened https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygAMU7HOM7I
His childhood/teenage hero was Janosik, a highlander bandit along the lines of Robin Hood. Being a fan of vigilante justice is not a good sign if you're a minister of justice.
He's bothered by independent courts and independent prosecutors. He puts pressure on judges ruling not along his will, he harasses them, stripped one of immunity for investigating a break of parliamentary statute. If you do something he doesn't like, he might relocate or harass you under a pretext. Make an example out of you. His actions are clearly aimed to produce a chilling effect. But priests accused of pedophilia get silent protection, including getting a peek into court documents. He also likes to micromanage court cases, especially in flashy cases where it's easy to get an emotional reaction from people, such as accusions of rape, pedophilia (except by priests), murder.
He gets in bed with Ordo Iuris, a para-legal branch of the Brazilian catholic sect TFP, condemned by bishops in Brazil in the 80's. They are absolutely against abortion and openly seek goals like forbidding divorce.
He's a mediocre lawyer.
He objects to the idea that European Union cares about law-abidingness and asked the consitutional court to check if the idea is compatible with constitution. Political goals and "good of the nation" are more important to him.
He's a paranoid, petty and vindictive person. Also, very power hungry.
> does not break Polish law
The ruling party intentionally creates ambiguous law that can be applied in an arbitrary manner. Be on the party's good side.
Current Polish government is a lite version of authoritarianism, and getting more so over time. It doesn't control all aspects of life like a totalitarian party would, yet. But it's trying, for example religion, against sexuality(including basic sexual education), edits history textbooks, paints new people as heroes and erases old ones. Doctors and experts don't have much to say in matters of the pandemic. One party official openly stated they have no use for experts because they refuse to implement the party policy.
Don't miss the fact no ruling party member congratulated Joe Bidden on winning the election. The closest they got was congratulating him on a "good campaign", echoing the statements of those like Vladimir Putin. They are very much fans of Donald Trump. NATO's new focus on "defense of democracy", EU's attention to law-abidingneness, Biden's ostensible emphasis on values and democracy are all dark clouds for the Polish ruling party.
The bottom line: for the pro-West, pro-EU Poles, Ziobro is an awful person.
https://www.msn.com/pl-pl/wiadomosci/polska/norman-davies-%E...
He also said Polish priests hoped for theocracy in reward for their support against the communist state as it was falling apart.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Polska/comments/7c30dz/polski_probo...
He is overall very sympathetic towards Poland, speaks the language quite well, and thinks people should learn more about it. Timothy Snyder is another one. I like non-Polish historians because they have a different view.
Facebook is a website by all technical terms.
Where is the hard defined line between social media services and a website?
What is a website that hosts a forum?
What is Discord?
What if I run a WordPress website with the BuddyPress plugin?
What about comments on my blog articles?
He (and podcast co-host John Gruber[0]) talked about the idea that Facebook isn't the same site for any two people. Due to the algo, everyone has their own personal version of the site. Therefore, there's no individual snapshot of Facebook at any given time.
I found this an interesting concept to point out. If one needed to distinguish between a website and "social media services," perhaps a law could be drafted such that such a condition was true.
HN, for example, would be a website because commenting and voting is user-based. I suppose that might mean Spotify and Netflix would be swallowed by the definition. The definition would then need additional language about user-submitted content.
[0]: https://dithering.fm
HN is a social media, your basement server isn’t, hosted content on AWS probably needs some definition workarounds but instinctively shouldn’t be.
A user account is not the primary criteria of being a "social" application.
What if I have a blog with comments? That is a website that involves social interaction. If I remove a comment on there, that is “removing content”.
This is kind of insane.
So if I offer a free website- a private company operating as I like- I would be forbidden from removing content from my own website that I don't like because the person who wrote it- again, not a paying customer- wants it to be there. Not only does that person have free speech, but I have to foot the bill for them to promote their free speech.
> does not break Polish law
This is the real key piece. Poland's government can just ban saying anything that goes against their own viewpoints. Now their supporters can't have their comments removed, and their detractors will.