- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Tucker Carlson interview with Putin to test EU law regulating tech companies::Law obliges social media platforms to remove illegal content – with fears that interview will give Russian leader propaganda coup
This essentially adds up to government proctorship of any “public forum” on the internet, including here… So if I randomly throw an “all lives matter” right here mid-comment, which while at face value is a ridiculously benign thing to say, can be and almost always is considered to be hate speech, lemmy is entirely obligated to immediately remove my comment or face heavy sanctions from the EU.
It’s an extreme caricature of an example that I assume won’t go anywhere, but the point is that it could, and the deciding factor on that isn’t anyone here, the deciding factor is a bunch of rando EU officials… If some Karen in Wales in the right position decides she doesn’t like my comment, she could initiate a “hefty” fine against lemmy admins.
It’s an absurd concept, and I don’t say that in the context of tuker Carlson (who I simply don’t give two shits about in any context), I say that in the context of us, as a “social media” community. We are subject to this proctorship, this censorship…
Minor point, but Wales isn’t in the EU.
Karens in Wales: I did what??
Doesn’t apply here, Lemmy is way too tiny. The law only applies the largest platforms. Reddit doesn’t even qualify. Of course maybe that changes someday, but currently the law applies to 19 sites.
It depends on the legislation on where the instance is hosted and/or personal liability of its operator. As a content contributor (if identifiable) you can be also personally liable. In practice you can host an instance anonymously, using bulletproof hosting and don’t care for much for such things.
Not true.
Which part?
The comment they replied to comprised 6 sentences. 5 of those sentences were untrue or incorrect. The other sentence (the 5th one, starting with “It’s an absurd concept”) is technically true but has a different meaning when read with the understanding that the other sentences are false.
Other replies dive into why it’s untrue.
Ok, well it was intended to be an opinion, so your assertion that I’m incorrect is incorrect because its my opinion, but that aside, which part?
I reiterate that question because if your opinion is in direct opposition to mine, it is, in my opinion, the one I would most like to hear. I’m a moderate/centrist/libertarian(non-party) and I’d unironically and unsarcastically love to hear your opinion on it. Unless you’re just being a pedant, then I’ll listen and I respect your right to posit any pedantic objections, but I won’t really care much :)
My understanding is that your opinion is “This is bullshit because X” (where “X” refers to this law applying to Lemmy and thus having the implications you outlined) but your comment was almost entirely about it applying to Lemmy and the implications. If your opinion were “It would be bullshit if it applied to Lemmy,” I would agree with you, but point out that it does not.
This is incorrect because the law does not apply to Lemmy. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Services_Act and the associated sources for more details on why. If you believe that Lemmy has more than 45 million users in the EU please share where you’re getting those figures.
This hypothetical scenario is irrelevant and the conclusion about Lemmy’s obligations are incorrect because the law does not apply to Lemmy.
“The point is that it could” is incorrect because you have misinterpreted the law as applying to Lemmy when it does not.
See above. Karen could do no such thing, even if she was in the EU.
This is the 5th sentence.
This is incorrect because as Lemmy users, we are not subject to it, as the law does not apply to Lemmy.
Technically this would be true if you made this statement about those of us who are users of social media platforms to which the laws do apply, but that would be incongruent with your previous statements (and would assume that we are all users of those platforms - and many Lemmy users are not), so I find it fair to not allow for that possibility.
Sounds an awful lot like sticking your head in the sand.
“Social media” is going to be whatever they decide they want government oversight on… Not being part of the introductory offer isnt a very good reason to accept it in my opinion.
They’ll come for your forum eventually…
Stating that it applies to Lemmy today is categorically untrue. If you think that explaining why you were wrong is the same as sticking my head in the sand, then that’s evidence that you’re failing at basic logic and reasoning, because that progression is unsound. Are you just mad and not thinking straight or is this indicative of your normal capacity? If the latter, would you like help improving at that or are you committed to carrying on as is?
Your second paragraph is an example of the slippery slope fallacy and your last is simple fearmongering. Do you have any reason to believe those statements or are they, too, just your “opinions?”
I get the impression that you might be under the understanding that you can say anything and call it an opinion. That isn’t actually how opinions work, and in fact, “I’m entitled to my opinion” is a logical fallacy when applied to statements of fact. It’s an especially dangerous one as it’s a thought stopper that enables cognitive dissonance, which is how you end up in a cult. (If you’ve read 1984, “doublethink” is an extreme example of cognitive dissonance.) I suggest you disabuse yourself of the fallacy.
How you gonna reference 1984 while actively defending an orwellian policy?
“me talking out my ass about the law is just my opinion, you can’t argue with me now”
Not how that works at all