News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe a... by locknitpicker on Friday February 20, 2026 @05:35AM (#47086207)
> That's why diversity of sources is the only way to escape censorship:

No, it's a page out of the old fascist playbook where flooding the stage with propaganda generates enough confusion to help fascists further their hateful agenda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Re:US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe a... by account42 on Friday February 20, 2026 @08:08AM (#47087536)
Fascism means diversity of opinions, democracy means everyone is only allowed to have the opinions you want them to have?
Re:US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe a... by ben_w on Friday February 20, 2026 @09:58AM (#47088815)
Fascists in the original sense, Mussolini, didn't tolerate opposition.

I'm not sure about modern fascists, but US politics does look rather Kayfabe-y to me. Fake opposition, there for the purpose of being an opponent.

Of course then you get all the discourse about what even counts as fascism, and someone brings up that the origin of the word is the Roman "fasces" (bundle of sticks) and how that etymological root points to the concept of "strength through unity" which is also why the Lincoln memorial has Lincoln resting his hands on them[0] and why trade unions often use the "strength through unity" phrasing (and get annoyed/upset by the connection).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lincoln_Memorial_statue_a...

Re:US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe a... by joe463369 on Friday February 20, 2026 @04:00PM (#47093884)
Democracy is having the laws Americans approve of, because God wrote their Constitution.
Re:US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe a... by refurb on Monday February 23, 2026 @12:01AM (#47118340)
I find it hilarious when people who are pro censorship bring up Karl Popper and the Paradox of Tolerance.

You can tell they've never read his work because his conclusion in the end is that you should tolerate intolerance up and until it promotes specific violence.

So total freedom of speech up and until it starts inciting violence. It's basically the same stance the US Constitution has.