I don’t think it’s the responsibility of X to know the laws of every country; I expect them to respect the wishes of other countries when it is brought to their attention if they want to continue doing business there.
Also, I think we both know that the misinformation we are talking about here has nothing to do with religious beliefs. The context of the linked article clearly indicates that harmful mistruths leading to harmful actions is the subject here.
I’m not sure why it’s so tempting to think of internet content as a special entity that defies otherwise established rules. Maybe it’s simply because no special effort is needed today to get the content across the border?
Regardless, we aren’t talking about your geocities page, we’re talking about billion dollar businesses. Would it be appropriate to take your physical storefront across international borders and insist that the government there should have zero say as to what products you sell? If not, why is it appropriate to do the same with web content? X is selling content in the form of ad distribution, countries should get to decide if that content is appropriate for distribution.
I’m going to challenge your assertion that you’re not talking about what should be considered harmful by pointing out that you are loading your argument substantially by asserting that people need “help” protecting them from “harmful” censorship. Remember that the issue addressed in this thread is Brazil banning X for its promotion of misinformation and hate speech.
Censorship isn’t harmful by default. It is ok to ban people from shouting “fire” in a theater for example, because the shout may result in real harm. Now you can argue that some censorship may be harmful because of its impact on society, such as the removal of books from school hampering fair and complete education or banning research texts that expose inconvenient truths.
But, again the issue here is specifically an attempt to ban misinformation and hate speech; are you going to make an argument that these things are a positive to the community and should be defended as a moral imperative? Frankly it’s a pretty silly stance to take.
Define “harmful censorship”. I would argue—strongly—that censoring hate speech and misinformation is a public service.
I also think that any service (twitter) refusing to abide by the laws of a country (Brazil) has no place in that country.
We routinely censor content to placate China; like, all the time.
I believe each country should get to have a say in what is permissible, and content deemed unacceptable should be blockable by region. I don’t think it’s reasonable to say “well it’s on the internet so it’s untouchable” simply because the server is in another country.
Disinformation campaigns are specifically designed to undermine the reasoning capabilities of people by inveigling them into believing (usually emotionally provocative) falsehoods, turning them into misinformation conduits in the process.
It’s like saying that meth should be legal because reasonable people should just chose not to use it, ignoring the social and mental health issues that drive people to consume it against their best interest.
Sometimes the right thing to do is to cut off the head of the snake before it can bite you.
Seems like a pretty reasonable trade off haha.
I don’t have hard feelings towards the kids or anything, I just don’t really connect with them enough to want to hang out.
Living the dream. I gave up on finding guilds in online games because it’s always a bunch of kids I just can’t relate to.
All good reasons to make a decision, I’m not trying to sway anyone in a direction.
I just feel bad when people see drama in a community and wonder if that thing is “safe”. I’ve seen this kind of thing many times before in other communities—PERL, Python, Ruby, Rust, etc—and it never seems to lead to sweeping changes the normal user would notice. It’s pretty safe to assume that day-to-day users of thing can just carry on if they don’t care about the community upset.
It’s probably wise to simply ignore the drama. Open source seems to invite this at the “top” for whatever reason, but for the casual user there is usually little to no impact.
Unless you’re trying to be a top contributor to nix, I would just carry on with normal usage and all the current drama will blow over.
Big Foot actually being a catchall term for major shoe manufacturers is one of my new favorite things.
Maybe they started the ape-man Bigfoot rumors to distract people from the true evil of Big Foot.
The cut off “listen here” at the bottom took it past the edge of believability for me, but up to that point I was like 50/50 haha.
Tribespeople became so addicted that Marubo leaders, fearing that history and culture — which is passed down orally — could be lost forever, they have now limited access to the internet for two hours each morning, five hours each evening, and all day Sunday.
That is still so much internet, we would probably all be healthier following that guideline.
I had a setup that turned on the action camera when I put my thumb on the steam decks left stick, so I was always in normal mode unless I was actively looking around or moving.
It was pretty natural and the best experience I came up with, but I still felt like it was a compromise I was frustrated to have to make.
I set up a pretty workable controller config that I played with for like two months, but even with many hours invested in fine tuning it I just felt like I was fighting the game’s UI and I gave up.
What’s really frustrating is that the game is totally playable with a controller. ANet just needs to update the menus and it would be a fantastic experience.
AA is my airline of choice, so I guess it’s time to find a new one.
It makes me so angry because children are vulnerable and trusting; exploiting that to get them to believe in nonsense is evil.
Prioritize Primal. It is a truly unique and awesome show.
I thought my mom was so mean for not letting me play with any of the cool doctor office toys. Now my kids get to think I’m so mean for the same thing.
It’s hard to have a discourse on a topic if you insist that the scope of that topic must by default be infinite.
X isn’t being threatened with litigation because they’re freedom fighters bringing literature to the huddled masses; they’re being threatened with litigation because they are a billion dollar business sustaining themselves by selling ads along with content that Brazil argues was misinformation and hate speech.
On the topic of freedom fighters bringing literature to the huddled masses: it may be moral in some extreme examples to defy the government, but there are means of doing that completely removed from the scope of microblogging on a corporate behemoth’s web platform. For example, there is an international organization who’s sole purpose is perusing human rights violations.