Page 2 of 2 [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,952
Location: Poland

20 Oct 2021, 12:10 pm

^If you're not a lawyer, you're wasting your talent here.

Mind that I live in a different legal system - defined by stated codexes rather than past judgements.
That's another problem - social media operate internationally, under multiple different legal systems.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

21 Oct 2021, 10:31 am

magz wrote:
^If you're not a lawyer, you're wasting your talent here.


Unfortunately, the requirement for a degree in the field, and the cost of obtaining this do put a dampener on moving into that field :(

magz wrote:
Mind that I live in a different legal system - defined by stated codexes rather than past judgements.
That's another problem - social media operate internationally, under multiple different legal systems.


It is interesting looking at different laws\legal frameworks and seeing how they work, along with the similarities\differences between them. As to social media operating across multiple jurisdictions, they generally have something in their "terms of service" regarding this - For example, this site states:
Quote:
If you choose to visit WrongPlanet.net, your visit and any dispute over privacy is subject
to these Terms, including limitations on damages, arbitration of disputes, and application
of the law of the locations of California, Virginia, Maryland, Washington, Minnesota, the
Disctrict of Columbia, and any other states, countries, or localities in which, or through
which, data from your machine travels or originates.

Which allows for applicable privacy (and anything else connected to the "visit" (and use) of the site) to be covered both by listed locations, as well as local ones to the person using the site (at least, as I read this) - and also applies to "visit" to the site, with no requirement for an account, which could prove "interesting" with regards to certain comments by some members which aren't deemed "personal attacks" only because their target isn't a member, yet the comments have the potential to be defamatory (whether the site as a whole, or the individuals who made the comments (or both) would be liable is also an interesting area of investigation)... Given the site owner and admin aren't interested in\concerned about "personal attacks" (specifically those in the libel\defamation area) on anyone who is not a member, it has certainly allowed for the accumulation of a sizeable level of potential legal risk to the site, from what I have seen.

It also gives the appearance (through so many locations being offered) that anyone with a potential legal claim could select the jurisdiction which they felt would be most favourable to them, whereas sites such as Facebook have a much smaller "pool" of options:
Quote:
If you are a consumer, the laws of the country in which you reside will apply to any claim, cause of action or dispute that you have against us that arises out of or relates to these Terms or the Facebook Products, and you may resolve your claim in any competent court in that country that has jurisdiction over the claim. In all other cases, you agree that the claim must be resolved exclusively in the US District Court for the Northern District of California or a state court located in San Mateo County. You also agree that you submit to the personal jurisdiction of either of these courts for the purpose of litigating any such claim, and that the laws of the State of California will govern these Terms and any claim, without regard to conflict of law provisions


Other sites (such as Patreon) require the use of arbitration services, rather than courts, which in the case of Patreon (with "interesting" terms of use at the time) ended up being rather costly - https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/americas/1596377657-court-rules-against-patreon-fan-funding-service-in-key-case-over-cancelled-comedian (I haven't heard too much about these cases since then, although being individual cases it is unlikely much more would be published in a widespread manner, and they may have non-disclosure clauses as well which would limit the amount of information available.)



Rotter
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 14 Dec 2021
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 50

16 Dec 2021, 6:56 pm

magz wrote:
It's not that expensive nor technically hard to mass-create fake "users" spreading conflicting messages if your goal is just to create chaos and distrust.


More fake news should be generated. Lots and lots of it. Fake news should be spread all over the place.

It's very dangerous to allow any government anywhere to block or delete fake news, because it makes it far too easy for the upper class (AKA "the elite") and politicians to abuse their power even more than they already do.

Instead of deleting fake news, the opposite should be done. Generate MORE fake news. Lots of it. However, at the end of each piece of fake news, there should be a special message -- something along the lines of "Please note: This message is fake news. It's intentionally misleading."

This is the principle known as desensitization. When people are frequently exposed to fake news, they develop a habit of recognizing it. They become much more skilled at recognizing fake news. They also begin to think more critically and skeptically -- this is excellent.

However, if you allow the upper class to delete anything that they interpret as "fake news", then you're inviting a terrible amount of abuse. A bunch of genuine truthful news will be deleted along with the fake news.

Even if a government could be trusted to only ever delete fake news that really is fake (this is clearly impossible but let's think about it in theory), it would still be harmful to society because it worsen the critical-thinking skills of most people. The state of critical-thinking skills is already in an emergency situation -- most people have terrible critical-thinking skills. This problem will become even worse if governments delete what they claim is "fake news".

BTW, when I say "upper class", it may sound like I'm a time-traveller from the 1700's or 1800's, but no, I'm not a time-traveller. I just needed to clarify this for readers. The year is 2021. Nearly everyone in WP is a member of the lower class. All employees are also members of the lower class. The upper class don't work, except if they really want to, and then only on the bits they enjoy (the boring parts are delegated to a member of the lower class).



Mountain Goat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,403

16 Dec 2021, 7:14 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Is the Traditional ACLU View of Free Speech Still Viable? Ira Glasser Speaks Out. Glenn Greenwald for the intercept
Quote:
THAT A BELIEF IN FREE SPEECH is rapidly eroding in the U.S.is hardly debatable. Every relevant metric demonstrates that to be the case.

Both a cause of this contamination and a result is the growing popular belief that free speech can no longer be protected as a primary right but must be “balanced” — meaning constricted — in the name of other political and social values that are purportedly in conflict with free expression.

A 2019 poll found that large percentages of Americans, in some cases majorities, believe the First Amendment goes too far in protecting free speech and its understanding should be “updated” to reflect contemporary cultural views.

Just this week, the New York Times Magazine published a cover story by the thoughtful liberal journalist Emily Bazelon which explicitly questioned — one might say rejected — the ongoing viability of the First Amendment and free speech values on the ground that the U.S., in Bazelon’s view, is “in the midst of an information crisis caused by the spread of viral disinformation, defined as falsehoods aimed at achieving a political goal.” As a result, Bazelon approvingly argues: “increasingly, scholars of constitutional law, as well as social scientists, are beginning to question the way we have come to think about the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.”

But perhaps the most potent and disturbing trend illustrating how rapidly this erosion is taking place is that it has even infected sectors of the organization that has, for decades, been the most stalwart, principled, and unflinching defender of free speech: the American Civil Liberties Union. Internal debates over whether the group should retreat from its long-standing free speech position have been festering for years.

One of the most intense crises in the organization’s history came in 2017 when ACLU lawyers defended a white supremacist group that was denied a permit by the city of Charlottesville, Virginia to protest in a prominent and symbolically important public square. The ACLU prevailed, and when one of the extremists in that group plowed his car into a group of counter-protesters, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer, numerous ACLU activists and even some lawyers angrily insisted that the group should not represent the free speech rights of racist or neo-fascist groups.

The ACLU’s leadership then issued a series of confusing statements and memos that suggested at least somewhat of a retreat from their long-standing organizational posture, though Executive Director Anthony Romero insists that they were simply re-affirming what had always been the group’s policy regarding armed protesters.

But today’s SYSTEM UPDATE episode is devoted not to my views on these questions but those of Ira Glasser, who served as the Executive Director of the ACLU from 1978-2001, when he retired shortly before the 9/11 attack.

Glasser is an old-school civil libertarian in the best and most classic sense of that term. One of his first challenges upon assuming his leadership position was dealing with the fallout of the crisis the ACLU faced in that era: public and internal fury that its largely Jewish lawyers had represented a neo-Nazi group’s right in 1977 to march through the town of Skokie, Illinois, which had not only a large Jewish population but one with thousands of survivors of the Nazi death camps. Glasser steadfastly defended the nobility of that position even as donors and even some staff members left in droves, threatening the ongoing viability of the group, and he continues with great eloquence, and with great relevance to our current debates, to defend that decision today (on its site, the ACLU also continues to defend that Skokie case as one of its proudest and most important moments).

Glasser has not been shy about very vocally and vehemently criticizing what he regards as a retreat by the modern-day ACLU from the organization’s long-standing mission. He is particularly scathing about how the politicized money that has poured in has caused the group to pursue standard-issue liberal policy goals at the expense of the Constitutional rights it once uniquely and fearlessly defended.

What fascinated me most was Glasser’s recounting of the Skokie controversy was how African American civil rights leaders of the 1970s and 1980s were among his staunchest allies and supporters when it came to defending the free speech rights of white supremacists groups — because they knew they would be among the first to be targeted by successfully implemented precedents of state censorship. Equally fascinating is Glasser’s invocation of his experience, as a Jewish leftist, and how it led him to believe that defending the free speech rights of those whose views he found most repugnant was not just ethically right but a matter of self-interest.

Glasser is an important figure in the political and legal battles of the 20th Century. He remains an incredibly eloquent advocate and compelling thinker on all of these issues. Too many people are unaware of this history.

Bolding is mine
Besides it being the morally the right thing to do perceived self interest as an Autistic is an important reason I am against the increasing acceptance of more restrictions on freedom of expression by influencers and institutions.


You may find this interesting. It makes one think.

https://youtu.be/3yFPKKOPH_Q



Last edited by Mountain Goat on 16 Dec 2021, 7:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Rotter
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 14 Dec 2021
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 50

16 Dec 2021, 7:24 pm

magz wrote:
In Europe, after what WWII did here, most people do believe that harm of Nazi ideology outweights benefits of freedom of expression - and we have an explicit limit to freedom of expression here.

The anti-Nazi laws in Europe are incorrectly designed. They're defective laws because they are written as if the threat comes from Nazi-style thinking in the citizens, whereas in reality the threat came and comes from Nazi-style thinking in the government, not the citizens.

The Nazi's were a government. Hitler was a politician. The Nazi party was a political party. The DDR (the democratic East German republic) was also a government.

Certainly I agree that Nazi-style thinking is terrible, but this threat is in the governments, not in the citizens, therefore the existing laws are wrong because they target the citizens.

So, if you want to prevent a repeat of the Nazi's or a new modern variation on the Nazi's, then you need to strictly monitor and control governments and politicians, not the citizens. Just look at what's been happening in the world during the last couple of years -- the refusal to expire the necessary patents immediately for humanitarian reasons. The rightwing extremist action to make a few corporations even more wealthy than they already were. An ethical society would cancel the necessary patents and put it in the public domain, because it's necessary for humanitarian reasons. The events of the last couple of years demonstrate that the threat of Nazi-style thinking comes from governments, not from citizens. The current situation is spectacular because multiple governments in the world are engaging in Nazi-style human rights violations for the profit of already-wealthy corporations that don't need the money.

I mean, if the anti-Nazi laws aren't defective, then why am I (and millions of people in my group) currently being persecuted for our beliefs, similar to the persecution of the Jews?

* We're practically forbidden from working certain jobs. Similar to how the Jews were forbidden from various occupations.
* We're practically forbidden from studying in universities.
* We're forbidden from travelling on public transport -- trains, trams, buses.
* In some countries, we have house arrest. We're forbidden from leaving our house during certain curfew hours, unless we have "a good reason".
* We're forbidden from going shopping. We're not allowed to enter most shops, except for supermarkets to buy food.
* We're forbidden from using various services.
* Other restrictions also exist.
* When will it stop? Will we be forced into concentration camps next year???

Millions of Jews are being persecuted currently, but we're a different type of Jew.

No, no, no, I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I support vaccinations. Myself and my children are vaccinated. I wasn't talking about the persecution of anti-vaxxers. Anti-vaxxers are ALSO being persecuted, but I meant the persecution of a different group. Millions of people in my group are still being persecuted. Anti-vaxxers are also being persecuted but that's a separate group.



Rotter
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 14 Dec 2021
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 50

16 Dec 2021, 8:05 pm

Today, I was forced to use a bicycle to travel to the other side of the city for an appointment with a medical specialist. Including the return trip, it took hours. I'll have to do it again next month.

Myself and everyone else in my group (millions of people) are forbidden from travelling on public transport including trains, trams, buses.

I don't own a car, because of the results of suffering from discrimination against ND people. So, no public transport, and no car. Hence the bicycle.

This is persecution. I'm one of the new Jews. We're being persecuted similar to the Jews. I'm vaccinated but I'm persecuted anyway.

It sounds like I'm living in a bad third-world country, but no, I live in a respected first-world country.

In addition, my child needs a particular kind of therapy, but we're forbidden from entering the practice/building. Because of our beliefs. We're allowed to visit a normal doctor's practice, but not the specialist therapy that he needs. This persecution in a 1st-world country that calls itself democratic, modern, and civilized.

Even if we were allowed to step inside the building, there is also the issue of how to travel there with a young child, considering that everyone in our group (millions) is forbidden to use public transport, and we can't afford a car currently.