This is a pretty nuanced topic and its easy to fall into the sort of reactionary autocratic thinking that we were indoctrinated to during various stages of our enculturation. Among the pitfalls policymakers fall prey to are assuming such things as that there will be a "no-halfmeasures" solution that both assures free speech to be maximized and disinformation to be minimized. The thing is, on the political spectrum- both sides make the claim of having access to the facts. This doesn't mean they are inherently equal in their ability to represent the truth. (Given two random variables, it is unlikely they will fall on the same real number.)
I tend to want to err on the side of allowing lies to be spread, even violence to be threatened- as long as the comment-space has a strong identity system. So ultimately if somebody breaks the law (with specific threats of violence, etc.) then enforcement can deal with it appropriately. The problem of "information you think is bogus being spread" is something we are just going to have to learn to live with.. like people dropping "facts" about God being on their side or the health benefits of holding in your farts. You can outlaw stupid, but you shouldn't, because when the other party comes to power you don't want them to outlaw smart. Note that hate speech is legal speech in the USA, and that this is a good thing. Restricting it only turns the haters into martyrs, which aides their cause- and gives them the gift of being "rebels". Its better to let them prove themselves to be idiots, in my opinion.
Speech related laws and Freedom of speech is quite confusing topic. Some countries claim they have Freedom of speech by constitution but atheist talking about non-existent of God is considered offensive and hate speech.
Communist countries have freedom of speech under law but don't complain when you found yourself missing after talking sh×t about President.
After working for years in social media niche I can say that deleting hate speech or antiparty speech is not going to work. You delete one and thousands will start posting same thing. It just triggers more people.
The best solution is limit the reach of particular post. Less people will see and less drama will happen.
The main question here is what does Poland's laws says and what's their limit.
After decades of being great example of transformation from communism to capitalism Poland in last 5 years is taking a deep dive again into communism. Government is getting bigger and bigger, all industries are affected, they are buying everything out (banks, media, hotels even) and taxing everything what's left :/ Sad times.
It's not a law (yet), but it may become law and as absurd as it seems to not be able to whack someone's account when they don't follow the rules of civil discourse, engage in doxing or ad hominem when it is against provider's ToS/AUP; I do believe that on the surface this appears to be preferable to what we're currently witnessing.
The safe harbor was supposed to be a guarantee that the service provider can't be held liable for content posted by users if that content weren't illegal. Hence, the takedown procedure upon notification of illegal content.
DMCA Nutshell... If you police your community in the least then you must police it all or be held to consequences. Somehow that was changed since the Clinton years.
The real dilemma here, is that general purpose social entitiy engines that overwhelm the landscape with an extreme lack of comparable alternatives in terms of participatory inhabitants can harass, shame, and silence half of their user base, becoming a vehicle for particularism in philosophy and opinion.
While legislation such as this does completely remove that ignorant management style, it does nothing to protect the user base itself from the resulting cacophany of list bullies, trolls, and confidence operatives whose mission is to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) - it ties the hands of the administration from being able to protect the community from agitators and disruptors who are seeking not to influence, but rather, derive either enjoyment or a paycheck from working to destroy the community itself.
Choosing to lie, and espouse or believe in questionable concepts is fine, but permitting ad hominem and harassment will do nothing but bring a forum crumbling down to the point where it is, eventually, devoid of participants.
The communities I manage have four rules in common contained in their AuP, notwithstanding any others, and they're very simply stated as such:
1.) Don't be a Meany!
2.) No illegal.
3.) If you don't understand these basic rules of civil discourse, or are unable to exhibit a modicum of decorum at all times, you should probably not register an account here.
4.) We are Bofh - If you violate these terms, you will experience kick/ban without notification.
Those 4 rules in and of themselves are enough for any community's acceptable use policy, but we generally insert a few other (obvious) items between #2 and #3 above.
I appreciate a Government thinking it can help to alleviate abuse of a membership at the hands of administration, so... thanks, but no thanks, and get the fuck of my lawn!
This is a pretty nuanced topic and its easy to fall into the sort of reactionary autocratic thinking that we were indoctrinated to during various stages of our enculturation. Among the pitfalls policymakers fall prey to are assuming such things as that there will be a "no-halfmeasures" solution that both assures free speech to be maximized and disinformation to be minimized. The thing is, on the political spectrum- both sides make the claim of having access to the facts. This doesn't mean they are inherently equal in their ability to represent the truth. (Given two random variables, it is unlikely they will fall on the same real number.)
I tend to want to err on the side of allowing lies to be spread, even violence to be threatened- as long as the comment-space has a strong identity system. So ultimately if somebody breaks the law (with specific threats of violence, etc.) then enforcement can deal with it appropriately. The problem of "information you think is bogus being spread" is something we are just going to have to learn to live with.. like people dropping "facts" about God being on their side or the health benefits of holding in your farts. You can outlaw stupid, but you shouldn't, because when the other party comes to power you don't want them to outlaw smart. Note that hate speech is legal speech in the USA, and that this is a good thing. Restricting it only turns the haters into martyrs, which aides their cause- and gives them the gift of being "rebels". Its better to let them prove themselves to be idiots, in my opinion.
What is "hate speech"? :)
It's anything the left disagrees with.
Speech related laws and Freedom of speech is quite confusing topic. Some countries claim they have Freedom of speech by constitution but atheist talking about non-existent of God is considered offensive and hate speech.
Communist countries have freedom of speech under law but don't complain when you found yourself missing after talking sh×t about President.
After working for years in social media niche I can say that deleting hate speech or antiparty speech is not going to work. You delete one and thousands will start posting same thing. It just triggers more people.
The best solution is limit the reach of particular post. Less people will see and less drama will happen.
The main question here is what does Poland's laws says and what's their limit.
After decades of being great example of transformation from communism to capitalism Poland in last 5 years is taking a deep dive again into communism. Government is getting bigger and bigger, all industries are affected, they are buying everything out (banks, media, hotels even) and taxing everything what's left :/ Sad times.
How totally kewl is that? Awesome dude!
Er... Sort of, anyway...
It's not a law (yet), but it may become law and as absurd as it seems to not be able to whack someone's account when they don't follow the rules of civil discourse, engage in doxing or ad hominem when it is against provider's ToS/AUP; I do believe that on the surface this appears to be preferable to what we're currently witnessing.
The safe harbor was supposed to be a guarantee that the service provider can't be held liable for content posted by users if that content weren't illegal. Hence, the takedown procedure upon notification of illegal content.
DMCA Nutshell... If you police your community in the least then you must police it all or be held to consequences. Somehow that was changed since the Clinton years.
The real dilemma here, is that general purpose social entitiy engines that overwhelm the landscape with an extreme lack of comparable alternatives in terms of participatory inhabitants can harass, shame, and silence half of their user base, becoming a vehicle for particularism in philosophy and opinion.
While legislation such as this does completely remove that ignorant management style, it does nothing to protect the user base itself from the resulting cacophany of list bullies, trolls, and confidence operatives whose mission is to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) - it ties the hands of the administration from being able to protect the community from agitators and disruptors who are seeking not to influence, but rather, derive either enjoyment or a paycheck from working to destroy the community itself.
Choosing to lie, and espouse or believe in questionable concepts is fine, but permitting ad hominem and harassment will do nothing but bring a forum crumbling down to the point where it is, eventually, devoid of participants.
The communities I manage have four rules in common contained in their AuP, notwithstanding any others, and they're very simply stated as such:
1.) Don't be a Meany!
2.) No illegal.
3.) If you don't understand these basic rules of civil discourse, or are unable to exhibit a modicum of decorum at all times, you should probably not register an account here.
4.) We are Bofh - If you violate these terms, you will experience kick/ban without notification.
Those 4 rules in and of themselves are enough for any community's acceptable use policy, but we generally insert a few other (obvious) items between #2 and #3 above.
I appreciate a Government thinking it can help to alleviate abuse of a membership at the hands of administration, so... thanks, but no thanks, and get the fuck of my lawn!
I hope that helps :)
⛵
.