EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 474
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
And I don't know if hasthags themselves can be considered to be hatespeech, but given the name I can imagine that most of the stuff posted with it probably is. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9299 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States6138 Posts
On June 01 2016 12:26 SK.Testie wrote: What private companies do is fine, agreed. But this is to lead you into: When Merkel tells Zuckerberg to stop anti-Migrant FB posts, what does that entail? http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-pressing-facebook-ceo-over-anti-immigrant-posts.html This is a government body telling a private company to do something And my question to you: Is the hashtag itself - #stopislam a hashtag of hate? In the past, when people have raised concerns about the control internet giants have over speech, in my experience the rebuttals have been how it's not an issue because private companies worth multiple billions have the right to do as they please - and if people don't like it, they should make their own social networks. And that seemed like a convenient deference to the free market to me, but whatever. Now the cartel of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft are explicitly working with the EU commission (in other words, government bureaucracy), and I'm being told this isn't an issue because it's up to a government to restrict "hate" speech. It's apparently a cause that just isn't important to some people. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On June 01 2016 13:03 oBlade wrote: In the past, when people have raised concerns about the control internet giants have over speech, in my experience the rebuttals have been how it's not an issue because private companies worth multiple billions have the right to do as they please - and if people don't like it, they should make their own social networks. And that seemed like a convenient deference to the free market to me, but whatever. Now the cartel of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft are explicitly working with the EU commission (in other words, government bureaucracy), and I'm being told this isn't an issue because it's up to a government to restrict "hate" speech. It's apparently a cause that just isn't important to some people. so you were okay with censorship as long as it was done for arbitrary or economic reasons but when it's the result of the democratic process in the form of government institutions it's somehow worse? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 01 2016 13:12 Nyxisto wrote: so you were okay with censorship as long as it was done for arbitrary or economic reasons but when it's the result of the democratic process in the form of government institutions it's somehow worse? Some people in the US see any attempt to restrict or block anything on the internet as a violation of free speech, even if it is done democratically. Some go so far as to say that blocking someone on twitter is censorship. The internet should be open facing so any asshole can come up and bother you any time they want. Facebook shouldn't delete racist ads and articles because people should make up their own minds. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6138 Posts
On June 01 2016 13:12 Nyxisto wrote: so you were okay with censorship as long as it was done for arbitrary or economic reasons but when it's the result of the democratic process in the form of government institutions it's somehow worse? No, I'm saying I don't like censorship. In prior instances when SNS control of speech was criticized, free speech advocates got dismissed with the rationale that companies can do what they want, and your rights are only an issue when the government is involved. Now the government is directly and publicly involved. The EC is an appointed bureaucracy with a less than stellar record - the same body responsible for a controversial handling of the migrant crisis coincidentally wants to expand censorship under the pretense of protecting people. Even if this was a policy by direct referendum instead of a convoluted international bureaucracy, "democracy" is hardly a singular descriptor of Europe. Embedded in the countries are other ideas, like liberalism, which are supposed to protect people from voting their rights away (which again isn't what this is, the EC are appointed officials). http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm | ||
zatic
Zurich15365 Posts
On June 01 2016 07:56 Reaps wrote: You would actually be surprised at what some people on here feel when it comes to stuff like this, you're not one of them however, i was not talking about you. As for this being new worthy i don't see why it shouldn't be, it was a large scale sexual assault which brought back cologne memories for a lot of people. Was it? In a crowd of 400000 people 14 women have been groped. Is that "large scale"? 5 months after NYEs. Is that "the new normal" in a country of 84 mio people that took in around 1 mio people? I wish people would put what actually happens in perspective and do away with sensationalizing headlines. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On June 01 2016 13:56 oBlade wrote: No, I'm saying I don't like censorship. In prior instances when SNS control of speech was criticized, free speech advocates got dismissed with the rationale that companies can do what they want, and your rights are only an issue when the government is involved. Now the government is directly and publicly involved. The EC is an appointed bureaucracy with a less than stellar record - the same body responsible for a controversial handling of the migrant crisis coincidentally wants to expand censorship under the pretense of protecting people. Even if this was a policy by direct referendum instead of a convoluted international bureaucracy, "democracy" is hardly a singular descriptor of Europe. Embedded in the countries are other ideas, like liberalism, which are supposed to protect people from voting their rights away (which again isn't what this is, the EC are appointed officials). http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm again, it's not like it isn't consensus on the national level already. Even in the UK which is arguably the most classical liberal country in the Union hate speech, especially against the typical protected classes (religion, ethnicity, sex and so on) is clearly forbidden. This isn't a new thing. What's new is that it's actually being enforced in the digital sphere given that we've seen what can happen in internet echo chambers. There has been a certain degree of trust that companies like Facebook adhere to European standards on their own. They haven't delivered so now the European institutions get involved, but it's not in principle a top down thing initiated by 'the bureaucracy'. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6342 Posts
On June 01 2016 14:16 zatic wrote: Was it? In a crowd of 400000 people 14 women have been groped. Is that "large scale"? 5 months after NYEs. Is that "the new normal" in a country of 84 mio people that took in around 1 mio people? I wish people would put what actually happens in perspective and do away with sensationalizing headlines. Out of those 400,000 people how many were migrants? 50? 100? 500? The problem is that every time these migrants start gathering in larger numbers they start sexually harassing non-migrant women. Its a problem that needs to be addressed if you want the rule of law in your country. You say a million to 84 is not significant but you are forgetting that 80% (or more) of these migrants are full grown men, so its not 1 in 84, its 1 in 42. So many men coming into the country are going to create gender imbalances on a Chinese scale in some areas, which wouldn't be that much of a problem but every single time they gather in larger numbers they turn violent. And its going to get worse because there just aren't enough women, of course thats even if western women will want to be with them. You will end up with 60% of them extremely sexually frustrated. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
I have many friends who disagree and who even actively fight against "hate speech". My answer to them is always the same simple thing: right now, you are on the same side as the state, but do you trust your government that in the future it won't suppress things you want to say? I do not and I believe that having as large a freedom of speech as possible is one of the best ways to prevent runaway government issues. It's really puzzling to me how many people don't understand how pressing this problem is, particularly in Czech Republic which was stripped from personal freedoms for long 51 years from 1938 to 1989, first by Nazis, then by Communists, then by Communists and the Soviet army. People forget really quickly. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6342 Posts
How the fuck did this get past the 'its only an idea' stage? Running over graves? | ||
|
Banaora
Germany234 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
zatic
Zurich15365 Posts
On June 01 2016 16:08 zeo wrote: Out of those 400,000 people how many were migrants? 50? 100? 500? The problem is that every time these migrants start gathering in larger numbers they start sexually harassing non-migrant women. Its a problem that needs to be addressed if you want the rule of law in your country. You say a million to 84 is not significant but you are forgetting that 80% (or more) of these migrants are full grown men, so its not 1 in 84, its 1 in 42. So many men coming into the country are going to create gender imbalances on a Chinese scale in some areas, which wouldn't be that much of a problem but every single time they gather in larger numbers they turn violent. And its going to get worse because there just aren't enough women, of course thats even if western women will want to be with them. You will end up with 60% of them extremely sexually frustrated. You just made up about 10 figures in 2 paragraphs and non address why a small number of sexual incidents in backwater Germany warrant world wide attention. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10884 Posts
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36416506 ![[image loading]](http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/184CE/production/_89843599_gotthard_base_tunnel_624gr_numbers.png) | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10142 Posts
On June 01 2016 16:43 zeo wrote: French 'art' performance to mark the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Verdun + Show Spoiler + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU7pVnaxCM8 How the fuck did this get past the 'its only an idea' stage? Running over graves? I think it was great. Thx for the video. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6342 Posts
On June 01 2016 18:18 zatic wrote: You just made up about 10 figures in 2 paragraphs and non address why a small number of sexual incidents in backwater Germany warrant world wide attention. So how many migrants were at the concert? What percentage of 400,000? | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On June 01 2016 21:04 Velr wrote: We finnished a Tunnel, a pretty long one, a pretty deep one http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36416506 That is pretty damn awesome | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
| ||
