> Disinformation researchers are critical to online censorship
Oh yeah? You mean pointing out people are spreading disinformation leads to censorship? As in the kind of "censorship" against the disinformation you want to spread?
Instead of casting stones from glass houses, perhaps the US should look inwardly to its own censorship. A number of states and the current federal regime have their fingers fully into that pie.
Criticism of Israel, lgbtq material, calls for soldiers and police to only obey lawful orders, material critical of the current regime, it's policies, and the personalities that drive it, criticism of college campus trolls like Charlie Kirk, even kneeling at a fucking protest, have all come under attack.
Once we turn the clock back on all that, and the people carrying all that out have been appropriately purged and punished, perhaps Americans should start talking about the EU.
Additionally, this is actually the point of the article: prior US admins directly funded the current censorship efforts. Despite the First Amendment, which should be providing clarity, we don’t have a consistent stance towards this.
Because the man crying wolf about the EU's fines against his business has his arms elbow-deep in this mess. Any such conversation involving him is like asking the House of Saud in to weigh in on freedom of the press and the health and well-being of investigative journalists.
> directly funded the current censorship efforts.
The current censorship efforts are radically different in both their degree and in their quality. Public dissent to radical MAGA ideology is being aggressively and violently attacked in a way that hasn't been happening since the Cold War. (Despite what people trying to play victim and drawing false equivalences may claim.)
Hmm, I have to disagree. There’s a very real threat right now that Western governments will effectively shrug off years of precedent and fully “lock down” the internet—finally killing anonymity and privacy for good, and closing the remaining escape hatches that are available. The UK wants to do it, Australia wants to do it, the EU wants to do it, and a large (though not currently dominant) segment of the US political establishment wants to do it. This is sort of an all hands on deck moment to prevent these people from succeeding. It has to be fought in every venue using any and all means necessary.
> Disinformation researchers are critical to online censorship
Oh yeah? You mean pointing out people are spreading disinformation leads to censorship? As in the kind of "censorship" against the disinformation you want to spread?
Instead of casting stones from glass houses, perhaps the US should look inwardly to its own censorship. A number of states and the current federal regime have their fingers fully into that pie.
Criticism of Israel, lgbtq material, calls for soldiers and police to only obey lawful orders, material critical of the current regime, it's policies, and the personalities that drive it, criticism of college campus trolls like Charlie Kirk, even kneeling at a fucking protest, have all come under attack.
Once we turn the clock back on all that, and the people carrying all that out have been appropriately purged and punished, perhaps Americans should start talking about the EU.
¿Por qué no los dos?
Additionally, this is actually the point of the article: prior US admins directly funded the current censorship efforts. Despite the First Amendment, which should be providing clarity, we don’t have a consistent stance towards this.
> ¿Por qué no los dos?
Because the man crying wolf about the EU's fines against his business has his arms elbow-deep in this mess. Any such conversation involving him is like asking the House of Saud in to weigh in on freedom of the press and the health and well-being of investigative journalists.
> directly funded the current censorship efforts.
The current censorship efforts are radically different in both their degree and in their quality. Public dissent to radical MAGA ideology is being aggressively and violently attacked in a way that hasn't been happening since the Cold War. (Despite what people trying to play victim and drawing false equivalences may claim.)
Hmm, I have to disagree. There’s a very real threat right now that Western governments will effectively shrug off years of precedent and fully “lock down” the internet—finally killing anonymity and privacy for good, and closing the remaining escape hatches that are available. The UK wants to do it, Australia wants to do it, the EU wants to do it, and a large (though not currently dominant) segment of the US political establishment wants to do it. This is sort of an all hands on deck moment to prevent these people from succeeding. It has to be fought in every venue using any and all means necessary.
Hah, "censorship"; it's simple regulation.
US companies follow the law when in US so why not the same for EU?
EU laws only apply when a company is serving EU residents.
Also, background on founder of posted source: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/michael-benz-rising-vo...