News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by Lapsa on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @06:35AM (#33786270)
```We all agree that stuff should be illegal, let's make it illegal," she told BBC News``` - I disagree. I think we should avoid any kind of censorship, whatever the content is, as long as possible, wherever possible. YOU are an idiot, if you buy into racism or whatever else hot topic mentioned on the article. but I also think that at the end of the day - it's mostly just greed trying to amplify control. such agenda will never triumph.
Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by PartiallyTyped on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @07:08AM (#33786521)
Okay, let's suppose then that an idiot does something horrible, is the idiot to blame 100% for the horrible thing? What about the people that should know better? What about the people who repeatedly encouraged a rabid base to attack people? What about the people who exploit the morons to do their bidding?

What if people start getting branded as "undesirable" by certain individuals, and others make sure to cleanse them?

So let me make it more clear, how many innocents are you willing to sacrifice for free speech?

Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by scarmig on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @02:02PM (#33791676)
Is it better when the governing class decides certain individuals or thoughts are evil and makes sure to cleanse them from the world? Could that cause harm to people, or is the government always right? How many innocents are you willing to see die and suffer for the sake of purging bad thoughts from society?
Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by PartiallyTyped on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @02:32PM (#33792085)
Stawman.

Who said the government should decide?

> Is it better when the governing class decides certain individuals or thoughts are evil and makes sure to cleanse them from the world?

Leave it to the people, let the people vote with their wallet. People clearly don't want that kind of speech available, exhibit all absolute free speech sites.

The government dictating what is allowed to go on platforms and forcing companies to host vitriol and calls to violence to "cleanse" society is not any different to what you describe.

It just adds a middle man so the government keeps their hands clean.

Cut the strawmans. I didn't advocate for government control, you took it there, and the fact that I am even entertaining this response is well beyond what it deserves.

Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by lootsauce on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @08:45AM (#33800610)
And what if when it is government branding the undesirables? Only a problem when you disagree? But of course all the sane people agree with the ministry of truth and decency.

Personal responsibility is a far better position to defend despite the garbage that comes along for the ride than say an overarching unquestionable central authority that dictates and enforces what is acceptable for all with threat of government sanctioned violence (imprisonment) for non-compliance.

Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by PartiallyTyped on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @12:03PM (#33803656)
Who spoke about the government doing things? Yet another strawman.

The government forcing companies to host speech they do not want to host as DeSantis wants to do with Apple, and has been done in Florida and Texas is inherently fascist.

Where is the personal responsibility for the people who willingly taunt their followers and point the finger towards minorities?

Why are republican figures not facing justice for the atrocities committed as a consequence of their speech?

Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by concinds on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @07:16AM (#33786585)
"We don't want people to be banned on social media if they're not committing crimes, but we want to make all these things crimes" is an insane position for the UK government to take. There are still far too many white-collar and violent crimes being committed for the government to be entitled to regulate common speech.
Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by kylebyproxy on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @07:17AM (#33786596)
> YOU are an idiot, if you buy into racism

Unfortunately, idiots can carry guns and have a propensity for acting on said racism. Refusal to confront that problem in the name of some free speech ideological purity is tempting history to repeat.

Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by Lapsa on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @09:00AM (#33787632)
how does free speech differ from [some] free speech ideological purity?
Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by kylebyproxy on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @08:19PM (#33795704)
The recognition of harmful speech. See e.g., German restrictions on Nazi symbolism.
Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by raxxorraxor on Thursday December 01, 2022 @09:55AM (#33816993)
Which is a really bad example. It is clear why it is there, but in general it isn't a good solution.
Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by chrisbaker98 on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @09:50AM (#33788265)
> idiots can carry guns

Not in the UK, usually.

Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by kylebyproxy on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @08:21PM (#33795719)
Don't take that for granted
Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by madeofpalk on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @07:23AM (#33786650)
I presume you like Hacker News - you've been here for 11 years. What are some of the qualities you like about it?

Hacker News is heavily "censored" so it can maintain what it believes to be a high quality posted links and discussion.

[dead]
Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by HPsquared on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @10:52AM (#33789064)
Ironically someone flagged your comment.
Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by CleverLikeAnOx on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @01:35PM (#33791337)
There is a huge difference between having a post removed in a moderated community and having a post be punishable by the law of your nation.
Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by Lapsa on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @04:14PM (#33793395)
somewhat smart folks around here. that's about it
Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by SyzygistSix on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @08:04AM (#33787075)
>it's mostly just greed trying to amplify control. such agenda will never triumph.

Sometimes it gains power for a long period of time with unfortunate results. Not that I think that is a valid argument against freedom of expression.

Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by amelius on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @01:54PM (#33791586)
> YOU are an idiot, if you buy into racism or whatever else hot topic mentioned on the article.

Advertising works, so does any other form of propaganda. It's taught in psychological manipulation 101.

What you are doing is called victim blaming.