Free speech

[hellfire]

It makes it easier to remove specific groups from the internet basically.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/artists-against-article-13-when-big-tech-and-big-content-make-meal-creators-it

It provides slimy politicians an attack vector to impinge upon online communities. It's not just the directives themselves but who is in charge of enforcing them. It's not a stretch to imagine Fine Gael for example demanding an image taken from their site be removed online if it is used on a page depicting them as a pack of wankers. Also a great way to get pictures of Jean Claude Junker in the horrors off the internet.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Good article, thanks for that.

[hellfire]

The EFF mailing list throws up some really good articles from time to time.

[hellfire]

This explains my thoughts on the free speech debate in a way that I will never be able to do on a forum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe2SLQPjqgA

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Someone coming at it with a less ostentatiously manifest conservative angle would have been a little easier to swallow. I'd almost argue that what he's saying there is that there is, today, a tyranny of the minority, whereas what we need to go back to is a tyranny of the majority. There is nothing easy about free speech, and it's interesting he references The Sun since that is a shining example not only of a potential tyranny of the majority, but a tyranny of the majority cajoled and directed by absolute elites. Should Katie Hopkins be allowed say whatever she wants? Sure, let's say she should. Should a newspaper be attacked for publishing views intentionally aimed (by the editorial committee of the paper, under the watchful eye of Murdoch and co.) at polarizing the readership towards a certain way of voting? Well, now it's suddenly a little less clear. And, for me, as an intuitive advocate of free speech, that's where the problem resides. Free speech to all, great. Megaphones only for those who can afford them. Hmm, what now? Obviously this cuts both ways, since a vocal minority have armed themselves with megaphones and are annoying the hell out of the Hopkins and Murdochs of the world (and out of ordinary people like you and me too), but "free speech" can never be a non-problematic, neutral thing to have in a society for as long as the channels of communication to the masses are in the hands of a few, whether that be a few people savvy to social media dynamics or a few billionaires who control sprawling media networks.