News The World is upside down.....

[13Gigatons]

Poland plans to make censoring of social media accounts illegal

Following Trump’s Twitter ban, Polish government wants to protect posts that do not break nation’s laws.

Poland plans to make censoring of social media accounts illegal

Following Trump’s Twitter ban, Polish government wants to protect posts that do not violate nation’s laws

www.theguardian.com

Mateusz Morawiecki with Angela Merkel. Both have questioned tech firms’ no-platforming of Trump.

Poland and Germany seem to understand free speech more then America today...that is just not right.

 

[MrSquished]

Poland and Germany seem to understand free speech more then America today...that is just not right.

Apparently both Germany and Poland don't understand the first amendment well. Not surprised about Poland, it's a backwards conservative place, but Merkel? Though if you read her comments she does seem to imply the state should bear that responsibility, perhaps hinting it would have been governments job to censor the evil that is Trump.

 

[ultimatebob]

Older people in Poland probably still remember when the Soviet Union censored the media "for their personal safety". It didn't work out well for them then, and they probably realize more than we do about how censorship of the media by corporate media conglomerates and giant tech companies won't work out well for them now.

 

[lxskllr]

They needed to assign a government agent to bitchslap Trump every time he typed something stupid in his phone. Eventually, he'd cringe when he even saw a phone, and the problem would have been fixed.

 

[MrSquished]

Older people in Poland probably still remember when the Soviet Union censored the media "for their personal safety". It didn't work out well for them then, and they probably realize more than we do about how censorship of the media by corporate media conglomerates and giant tech companies won't work out well for them now.

How can you relate an authoritarian government censoring media to independent capitalist media with terms of service regulating their platforms? Soviet Russian was not a corporate media conglomorate nor a giant tech company. Also corporate media conglomerates carried Trump news and his pressers all the time and let him spread all his lies for years and years and they still haven't censored him really.

It makes no sense, if the people in Poland are thinking that, they have no clue either. The right wing government in Poland merely wants to help spread FUD. They have destroyed the integrity of an independent judicial branch, they have turned Poland's state media into a propaganda channel of the ruling party. The conservative party narrowly won the latest election with support from older over 50 rural voters that enjoy white nationalist, homophobic and xenophobic rhetoric. It's like Trumpism over there.

 

[Exterous]

Oh I thought this would be a thread about living in Australia

 

[Brainonska511]

Poland and Germany seem to understand free speech more then America today...that is just not right.

You need to look up what free speech is. It merely means the government can't censor your speech. Nothing in there about forcing a private corporation to publish your speech.

 

[highland145]

nvm

 

[highland145]

..

 

[13Gigatons]

You need to look up what free speech is. It merely means the government can't censor your speech. Nothing in there about forcing a private corporation to publish your speech.

I truly think we need to update and modify what is considered Free Speech. Since five entities control most of social media and at a flick of switch can shutoff anybodies speech. Corporations have as much power in America today as the Government. It really is a dictatorship by a different name.

 

[VirtualLarry]

The irony is that the republicans, and their FCC chairman, are the cause of this private-party "censorship".

The democrats recognized the importance of separating the content from the network carrying it, which was the whole purpose of 'Net Neutrality' regulations, and among those, was a "must carry" provision for content, if the private parties acting as network conduits for information were to be protected by "safe harbor"-type provisions.

The republicans just wanted to make their wallets fat, by allowing ISPs and other network operators to control content and censor, and establish "market monopolies" over both data transfer and content.

Well, the chicken have come home to roost, republicans, you reap what you sow.

The democrats were FOR "free speech on the internet", by proposing and enacting Net Neutrality, and the republicans killed it.

 

[pmv]

Pretty obvious that if the Polish government (and establishment generally) thought social-media companies were more likely to obstruct commentary by their opponants and enemies, rather than their own propaganda, they'd take a very different line. As always those who posture as defenders of 'free speech' are entirely selective in what they mean by it. It's always cant - there's no such thing as absolute free speech, speech is always regulated by some means or other.

 

[pmv]

Yeah, great supporters of "free speech", sure.

New media law gives Polish government fuller control

Domestic and international concerns grow over Law and Justice policies.

www.politico.eu

WARSAW — Poland’s parliament on Wednesday adopted a new media law that gives the conservative government more latitude to control state-run television and radio.


The law on “national media” is the latest in a series of legislative efforts by the newly elected Law and Justice party (PiS) government to take control of a wide array of state institutions, something that’s creating a growing, but so far ineffective, domestic and international pushback.


Because PiS commands an absolute majority in parliament, the bills have been speedily approved. The opposition has been unable to stop the PiS legislation, but international institutions are starting to voice their concerns.



Frans Timmermans, first vice president of the European Commission, sent a letter to Poland’s foreign and justice ministers on Wednesday stressing that media freedom and pluralism is crucial to the functioning of the EU. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe on Wednesday expressed “deep concern” about the media bill.


“I fear the hastily introduced changes will endanger the basic conditions of independence, objectivity and impartiality of public service broadcasters,” Dunja Mijatović, the OSCE’s representative on freedom of the media, said in a statement. Her concern was echoed by groups such as Reporters Without Borders and the Association of European Journalists.


The law, which would come into effect immediately after being signed by President Andrzej Duda, would allow the treasury minister to swiftly replace senior public broadcast officials.


“The public media are ignoring their mission towards the nation,” Elżbieta Kruk, a PiS MP, said in parliament. “Instead of creating a media shield for the Polish national interest, journalists often sympathize with negative opinions about Poland.”


In the quarter century since the end of communism, Poland has been unable to create apolitical public media, and there is something of a tradition of new governments putting their loyalists into top jobs — it’s just that Law and Justice’s moves are faster and blunter than their predecessors.

 

[MrSquished]

This is the exact same thing as right wingers claiming the mantle of being anti-cancel culture, meanwhile they try to boycott everything. They even boycotted the Dixie Chicks for saying something not nice about Dubya for getting us into an illegal war. Hell, Trump, the cult leader, has literally called for boycotts against American companies, like Goodyear. This party has tried to cancel the votes of over 80 MILLION AMERICANS, especially in heavily African-American populated areas. They literally are trying to steal an election, the ultimate cancel of the most powerful thing most people have, a vote. How much more cancel culture disgusting can you get? Really that is the limit.

These people are so full of shit. The government isn't censoring the Right wing here, maybe stop being neo-nazi Confederate flag waving traitor fascists and conspiracy theorists calling for the lynching of political opponents and you won't get so censored by private entities trying to prevent bloodshed, or clearly riling up your base with conspiracy theories for months and months, tacitly endorsing violence at your rallies, and retweeting fucked up shit on the down low. Trump has spread his lies for years on major media and social media, and so have many many groups that support him and his ilk, with virtually no consequences, the result being at least a third of the population does not exist in reality now, and now a few private industries want to have some standards. I mean literally Trump supporters think massive swaths of Portland burned to the ground due to right wing propaganda and Trump saying Portland is burning, to the point the Fire Chief of Portland had to call a press conference to say they had one fire incident during the protests and it required one fire engine to respond to, that's it. But that is the free speech these idiots defend.

Go cry some more fascists. A third of the country is politically brain dead because of your speech. Now you are finally facing some repercussions from private entities.

 

[Sonikku]

Being banned from twitter isn't suppression any more than a cakebaker telling you to take a hike because your gay is. For years we heard from Republicans about how private businesses should be able to do whatever they want and give you the boot off their turf if they so choose. Guess what? This is it. The 1st amendment ensures the government can't suppress your speech. You can't be suppressed on a public platform. A private company booting you off their private platform doesn't fall under that umbrella. Don't like it? take it to another platform or make your own. Even infowars can own and operate their own space on the internet where their message can be heard.

This isn't an issue of censorship. It is at most an issue of monopolies holding a disproportionate amount of the market.

 

[13Gigatons]

The irony is that the republicans, and their FCC chairman, are the cause of this private-party "censorship".

The democrats recognized the importance of separating the content from the network carrying it, which was the whole purpose of 'Net Neutrality' regulations, and among those, was a "must carry" provision for content, if the private parties acting as network conduits for information were to be protected by "safe harbor"-type provisions.

The republicans just wanted to make their wallets fat, by allowing ISPs and other network operators to control content and censor, and establish "market monopolies" over both data transfer and content.

Well, the chicken have come home to roost, republicans, you reap what you sow.

The democrats were FOR "free speech on the internet", by proposing and enacting Net Neutrality, and the republicans killed it.

I'm for Net Neutrality but I haven't heard of an ISP cutting off service because of someone's opinion....well not yet.

Social media is controlled by very few people and they SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to control free speech.

I'd be for Twitter, Facebook, etc not being responsible for someone shouting fire in a crowded theater. Section 230 was to protect them from such an act.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Social media is controlled by very few people and they SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to control free speech.

Is it really "Free speech", if it's on someone else's dollar / dime / server?

In other news, why do republicans think "free speech, as enshrined in the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution", is the "freedom to lie without consequence from fellow citizens"? Deluded, they are.

 

[pmv]

Is it really "Free speech", if it's on someone else's dollar / dime / server?

I wonder whether there is in fact no solution to this dilemma. Either you let the state determine what can be said, or you leave it to the market - which means allowing those with the most money to decide. So much of the grandstanding and mock-heroic-absolutist-posturing about 'free speech' evades that issue. There just isn't really such a thing as true 'free speech' in this world.

 

[sdifox]

I truly think we need to update and modify what is considered Free Speech. Since five entities control most of social media and at a flick of switch can shutoff anybodies speech. Corporations have as much power in America today as the Government. It really is a dictatorship by a different name.

you are not entitled to broadcast your thoughts on other people's platform. Build your own. The only people I interact with on FB are people I know in real life.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I wonder whether there is in fact no solution to this dilemma.

Sure there is. There are technological solutions in development, that would allow one to "publish" THEIR OWN speech, freely, on the internet, using blockchain and decentralized technology.

My way of thinking that, would be, that I could "post" messages, to a "public" forum, and that forum would be free to unlink my posts from their forum (freedom of association of a private party). Those posts that I posted, would not actually be deleted or censored, they would be "floating about in the decentralized internet" - what I personally refer to as the "sea of data", but basically adrift, without "anchoring" those posts to any one forum. Using the appropriate search protocols for the "sea of data", someone, if they were so inclined, could find my "adrift posts". But the factual matter of things are, if you post unpopular speech, your posts may be "unlinked" from "anchor sites", like a certain forum. Just like search engines are free to "block" (not link via their search engine) spam sites, because they violate that search engine's Terms of Service.

Btw, Twitter and Facebook "banning" people, IS NOT CENSORSHIP. At least, not at the internet level. Neither is Parler's upstream hosts refusing to provide service to them.

If they want to see what REAL INTERNET CENSORSHIP IS, look at DNS-blackholes and IP-blacklists/bogon-filters/route blacklisting. THAT's what real internet censorship is, what China does.

 

[lxskllr]

Big companies only "control" social media because people allow it. They trade having a data probe shoved up their asses for a couple cents in drive space, and some trivial software. Such a bargain! There's plenty of alternatives if people get off their lazy asses and use them.

 

[nakedfrog]

Er, so we have a "right" to a social media presence now, is that the argument?

 

[Sonikku]

 

[ultimatebob]

you are not entitled to broadcast your thoughts on other people's platform. Build your own. The only people I interact with on FB are people I know in real life.

As much as I would love to make my very own Facebook with beer and strippers, I'm not sure if I can convince all of my friends and co-workers to use it. I'm a sysadmin, not a social influencer.

 

[MrSquished]

And there is still a difference because you can't help being gay, which is a main group conservatives want to be able to discriminate against, and being gay is now a protected part of the 1964 civil rights law in the workplace, which is a big deal. That does not transfer to being a customer, but it sure does show that it's a protected class on a very important level.

Being a neo-nazi or violence encouraging QAnon Conspiracy pushing POS? That you can help being. It's not like race, sex, sexuality, ethnicity or gender.