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
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
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?
Are you drunk?
No, were just apparently on very different wavelengths here (I’m totally fine with this personally, no animosity intended at all, I like discourse and you don’t seem like you’re being a dick about it, so we’re on friendly terms here from my perspective)
Do you not think that government determination of what is or is not acceptable on “social media” (quotes because generalizing) is eerily similar to thoughtcrime? And an orwellian policy? Making a 1984 reference in its defense a little ironic?
I realize I discounted the bulk of your comment and all the “logical fallacy” buzz phrases you threw in, but I generally consider that pedantry and responding to it would bring in bad vibes on my side, so I skipped it, sorry. I can engage it, but I won’t have anything to say on it worth reading, it’ll just be old guy bullshit…
Agreed. I promise that I’m trying my best to understand your perspective, too.
No disagreement here.
No, not at all.
First of all, the alternative is that you give the power to determine what’s acceptable entirely to corporations. Almost all corporations already prohibited the sort of speech that would be impacted by these laws.
Second of all, thoughtcrime is fundamentally a different animal than what the EU is doing. Thoughtcrime is the policing of thoughts that are contrary to what the government wants you to think, regardless of whether those thoughts are actually harmful, and it’s implemented via pervasive surveillance and a lack of privacy. Criticizing the government is, of course, prohibited.
By contrast, the EU is mandating the censorship of hate speech and calls for violence. The sentiments and logic associated with that hate speech are used as justification for violence and to restrict liberties. And this type of speech is not legally protected in the US under the 1st Amendment.
In 1984, the government rewrites history and uses a multitude of techniques that trick you into accepting things that are not true as being true. This is why it’s important to be able to recognize logical fallacies - they’re used by all sorts of propaganda techniques with the goal of getting people to act against their own best interests, e.g., by getting poor people to vote for Republicans or to support laws that infringe on our liberties by justifying them by saying “It’s for the children!” The world would be a better place if misinformation and misleading propaganda at scale (meaning, in advertisement, on news shows, etc.) were illegal.
I don’t have to engage in doublethink to accept the justification for the EU’s law, but the arguments that you’ve shared for why I should oppose it would require that of me. Ultimately, what I’m asking you is: why would I be opposed to a law that itself is 100% fine, just because the same legislators might later pass a different law that I don’t like? This law doesn’t make it any easier for them to pass one like what you described.
Ultimately because the basic premise of the law could (in general) be the basis for the government to remove our entire conversation here…
It is potentially a tool to do this
I don’t object for the sake of my my benefit, I object for the sake of yours (everyone).
I see it a one degree increment on the proverbial frog in the proverbial pot, being slowly but surely brought to boil and it’s death, and I don’t really care who it affects in the moment.
“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