Comment on Tucker Carlson interview with Putin to test EU law regulating tech companies

• hedgehog@ttrpg.network ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Are you drunk?

  source

  • aelwero@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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…

    source

    • hedgehog@ttrpg.network ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      No, were just apparently on very different wavelengths here

      Agreed. I promise that I’m trying my best to understand your perspective, too.

      we’re on friendly terms here from my perspective

      No disagreement here.

      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?

      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.

      source

      • aelwero@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        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?

        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

        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.

        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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments