https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/r3qh1m/the_way_s…
Will this increase the quality of OzBargain posts by new users or will it just be a witch hunt?
What Do You Think of The New Anti-Online Trolling Bill
deme on 28/11/2021 - 13:03
Comments
Can I get sued for voting for a comment on OzB?
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will get you sued!
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. ”
—Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia
Easier for a company to sue you for defamation.
And its up to you to prove its true. Including comments from past.
So if you said something was delivered late back in 2019 then you would have to prove it
when did you get back?
only a few days ago.
welcome back.
when did you get back?
When the OS borders were opened…
I think you mean "How will this affect JV??"
The Anti-Online Bolding Bill has been rejected.
Was that the JV amendment?
not sure i understand that bill fully
if i call someone from the govt autistic, is the burden of proof falling on them? do they have to prove they are not on the spectrum?
or do i have to get them tested?If you're called out in a claim, you need to provide the evidence. That's Westminster bro.
time to stock up on protective eyewear and crayons. its going to be a busy summer me thinks
time to stock up on protective eyewear and crayons
I don't get it. Can someone explain this to me so I can understand.
Have you seen Westminster lately? Worzel Gunmmage and Miss Foster's love child is in charge and Lord Snooty with Alfred E Neumann are helping.
You should feel ashamed associate being autistic with an insult. It is discriminatory and I’ve had just about enough if people using autism as an insult. DO BETTER!
Agreed. I can't believe you got 7 downvotes.
Sounds like this bill will be loved by many ozbargainers.
I’m struggling to think who this appeals to at all, unless it is for the first 15 seconds before you think about it.
Whatever part of the political spectrum you stand on, getting this incompetent government to be the one writing legislation about important freedoms is worrisome.I doubt a good law along these lines is practical (are there any overseas?) with the best of leadership, let alone this ham faced gurning collection of amateur hour rejects meant to be running Canberra.
It will be loved by the Liberal party, who will use it basically to attack people who disagree with them online (e.g. friendlyjordies). "He called me bruz!!!". then all other parties will be led by their example. TMK it basically means that no one is truly anonymous, everyone will need to sign up to an account that identifies them, and that info can be provided to anyone who makes a complaint, and that it can then go to court. Michalea "RBF" Cash will then cherry pick cases for the government to spend money on so that poor unsuspecting internet users-sorry trolls, can be bankrupt by the court system
I can think of one OzBargainer who can potentially make millions from this bill LMAO.
We need an anti Pam bill!
Whoops, sorry. Spam, I meant Spam.
I'm a bit OOTL when it comes to this Pam user, who are they and why are they so infamous?
@Ghost47: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/user/314010/comments
HelloPam2019 (or just Hello Pam) now renamed to screensaver. Have a read of the comment history
Hi Pam!
I was talking about a different OzBargainer…
The timing could be better, along with better laws on what actually counts as illegal. On the one hand, Peter Dutton can sue and win over being called a "rape apologist" on twitter which he found deeply hurtful, on the other we have politicians posting clearly false anti-vax information that could physically hurt people and they are allowed to get away with it. The idea of responsibility for what you say online is fine, the implications of that when we see powerful people suing others to keep them quiet is scary. ScoMo talked of it being like the real world where you're responsible for what you say, but no one is paying out tens of thousands of dollars for comments said out loud in the heat of the moment.
I also expect it'll be the death of forums like this. OzBargain doesn't want to be responsible for everything said on these forums that could be seen as defamatory to another individual. What if JV felt defamed by the personal attacks he gets? What if no one could say anything mean about ScoMo on the internet? Half of Australia would have to cease using the internet.
OzBargain shouldn't have to worry if keyboard warriors don't act like dicks just because they can hide behind a screen IMO. If forums have to be shut down it will be the fault of trolls.
Doesn't matter who's fault it is, the platform being made responsible for the comments of users is nuts and impossible to enforce. Every website that can take comments now needs you name, email address and phone number just in case.
Am I the only one who finds this quite sad? You're basically saying that "half of Australia" [exaggeration, still] only use the internet to bag out other people… That's quite sad. Who goes on the internet for the sole intent and purpose to harm or harass others? And even if this was the case, what's so wrong about those people being punished for that (i.e. harassing others online)? If you can't harass people in person I don't see how you should be allowed to do it online.
90% of statistics on the internet are made up. I have no idea if one person exists like that.
The point is that no one realistically expects a politician to respond to something said to them online. No one is saying anything with the intent to harm or harass because there's near zero likelihood that the politician would ever see it, it's just venting anger at a situation.
If I say something bad about a politician on my twitter account or the OzBargain forums, no one would care unless they go looking for it. But we're treating it like it's published in a newspaper rather than something overheard at the pub.
IMO, just because the act of in-person harassment can be easily observed (because for what other reason would online harassment be okay?) it doesn't mean if it can't be observed that it's okay. E.g. you can't take out your anger at work by beating a coworker, so does that make it okay for you to go home and take out your anger by beating your wife or kid?
That escalated quickly. Is it harrassment if I go home and tell my partner that my boss is a dick or is that illegal too?
My point was that what Peter Dutton sued over wasn't the same as someone walking up to his face and saying it. I'm all for more respect on the internet, but we also need to understand that people are not trying to defame someone every time they speak. Intention should be important.
That's why the timing and impact is worrying, not so much the laws themselves. It could kick off a field day of lawsuits of people who go looking for things to be offended by. Dutton was supposedly told by his staff about the tweet that offended him, it'd be pretty easy to pay someone to go looking for this stuff if you're a famous figure.
Harassment should still be considered harassment no matter the medium through which it occurs. Exactly like how cyberbullying should still be considered as bullying even though it's online.
That's because cyberbullying is bullying. It also has laws that exist for it already and in many cases is a criminal offence where getting the details of the perpetrator isn't difficult for police. What is being discussed here is civil cases that make the platform responsible for what is posted on them and making them a part of civil cases, as well as identifying all their users. I can't see the actual benefit to the law.
Doesn't matter who's fault it is, the platform being made responsible for the comments of users is nuts and impossible to enforce. Every website that can take comments now needs you name, email address and phone number just in case.
Yes, the platform being made responsible is a silly aspect of this bill. As seen previously the poster of comments that can be seen as defamatory has been responsible for their comments but pushing it onto the social media platform is silly, although if the platform creates a complaints system it appears this can remove liability for them.
If I say something bad about a politician on my twitter account or the OzBargain forums, no one would care unless they go looking for it. But we're treating it like it's published in a newspaper rather than something overheard at the pub.
If you're make one defamatory comment towards a politician I seriously doubt you'd have anything to be worried about. It makes no sense that the odd comment would be considered trolling.
That escalated quickly. Is it harrassment if I go home and tell my partner that my boss is a dick or is that illegal too?
My point was that just because the act of something is not observable that doesn't mean it's okay. Harassing behaviour has to be targeted toward someone, so your example isn't actually harassment it's more complaining and shouldn't be subject to the law. If you went home and repeatedly called your boss on the phone to tell them they're a dick, that would be considered harassment.
My point was that what Peter Dutton sued over wasn't the same as someone walking up to his face and saying it. I'm all for more respect on the internet, but we also need to understand that people are not trying to defame someone every time they speak. Intention should be important.
I'm not aware of the Peter Dutton thing so can't really comment. But yes I agree that just because a negative comment is made about someone it shouldn't automatically be considered defamatory, it should be based on intention as you said but also how often it occurs.
What is being discussed here is civil cases that make the platform responsible for what is posted on them and making them a part of civil cases, as well as identifying all their users. I can't see the actual benefit to the law.
As mentioned earlier if platforms create a complaints system it appears their liability in terms of what users posts can be removed so at least there's some recourse for them there. I can understand why some people wouldn't want to share their phone number with social media platforms though (fake emails can be made pretty easily compared to going out and getting a new SIM for example). I've provided my email and phone number to online services I use, giving it to social media platforms doesn't seem like a big deal to me (as long as the data is kept private even from moderators).
There has never been a time when what was illegal in the physical world wasn't on-line. What makes on-line trolling is the anonymous nature of some of the posts.
There is no need for a law to make what is already illegal illegal. There is a need for a bit of posturing from an administration with a derisible history of stuffing up any portal they have put on-line, reliant on active on-line trolling, misinformation, denigration and demonization of any group who can't easily fight back, downright lies and dangerous medical misinformation from members they place at the top of their senate list so the public can't dump them and the support of some of the nastiest rent-seekers and stranded asset preserving vultures in the history of the nation.
I couldnt put it any other way better
I have no real opinion on Peter Dutton but I'd be pretty pissed off if someone in the media called me a rape apologist.
He was probably being a bit OTT with taking this to court but the person calling him that also needs to understand what they're writing and its cause and effect.
The thing is though, it was a tweet from someone not in the media. Someone simply tweeted “Peter Dutton is a rape apologist” and linked to the article. No tagging Dutton, it had 1,200 “impressions” (meaning it showed up in other people’s feeds that many times or was viewed) and he deleted it when solicitors asked. He was a well know refugee advocate though.
If we’re going to change society so that everything we say online is treated as published content from the media then step one shouldn’t be unmasking everyone, it should be clarifying those laws. I get it’s hurtful and wrong to say, but defamation? And if we unmask everyone, how many lawsuits are we going to see?
Fair enough but this refugee advocate is in the public debate sphere, obviously with a sizeable, and avid, following and should have known better.
I agree that this kind of thing can go too far and only really benefits the lawyers who will be pursing and defending these cases.
An additional Machiavellian interpretation is they just want to rattle the cages of anti-government dissent (PRGuy etc) because we're heading into an election (which is the same reason they're yet again asking out loud "Is the ABC actually impartial though, it might be a good time to review whether they really do represent the views or ordinary, decent, hardworking quiet Australians"
Undoubtedly. Even so I think the people who are genuinely concerned about ‘wokeness’ or whatever are sick of being played by this government that whips up a culture war every ten minutes, but actually doesn’t care, so doesn’t actually deliver anything for them anyway.
I think my second take is being the more likely of the two I had, but I'd like to add a third even more sinister provision is that the defamation courts are the playgrounds of the wealthy and powerful, so it's also a tool to threaten the poor(er) voices of dissent while we're at it.
You're onto it, mate!
Announcing the measures on Sunday, Mr Morrison said the internet should not be a “wild west where bots and bigots and trolls” can harm people without consequence.
And yet he introduces legislation to licence favoured religious groups to make vicious and hurtful comment, so long as they laugh at us all afterwards and say "It was part of my genuine belief".
also; the biggest issue in Australia during the current term of Government(s) is defamation protection for our politicians and their families (porter, dutton, barilaro, et al)
Not sure why you are being negged. If anything, this is not cynical enough to capture their transparent vacuously.
the biggest issue in Australia during the current term of Government(s) is defamation protection
I think it's a toss up… either this, or the blatant corruption that isn't investigated as there is no anti corruption organisation looking at federal government.
I sense an incoming spike in VPN subscriptions….
This is just our corrupt governement trying to shutdown anyone that disagrees with them. That's the entire purpose of this bill, no matter what smoke and mirrors bullshit they try on.
Interesting: So if we say a jv comment is as valuable as a HN deal and this is becoming an illegal troll then one has to assume that commercial interests interfere with the equality of law. In this case a change of the federal government at the next election is assured.
Liberals anything but
Our rights casually dwindled away stripping them one by one until there is none left we are heading towards totalitarianism we will end up no different to china or north korea
Reap what you sow Australia and enjoy the spoils from your last voteThey’re only Liberal in name. It’s quite ironic here in Australia we call our conservatives the Liberal party.
That's because they WERE liberal when first set up. Well, liberal compared to the ruling Nationalists anyway…
LNP has given us
- Internet filtering
- Internet data retention
- Anti encryption / backdoors
- Banned encryption research unless approved by government
And now this. Seriously everytime we rag on China the LNP get another idea to copy. Social Credit system when?
Don't forget the shitty NBN, they lumbered us with that too
I will never forgive that.
I just consider it a different category of betrayal than erosion of digital privacy.
What shitty version, I have fttp. You can have it too.
@mdavant: Yeah, I can get FTTP. If I pay $11 THOUSAND to get fibre run from the street 60 metres from me. Legit quote direct from NBN.
Or wait another 5-10 years for the new Libs apology/cough/admission of guilt/cough/promise of replacing all copper with fibre, which the media has politely never referred to since the Libs admitted they screwed up.
@Typical16-bitEnjoyer: So you choose not to have it.
Stop complaining then.
I want a Tesla so that I can use my solar to get close to free fuel.
It costs 70 THOUSAND
Until I can afford one I will continue to drive my beat up old car (well I can afford it but I can easily make do with my well over a decade old car, just like I could easily make do with adsl2)
@mdavant: So negged because the other poster wants others to pay for their little plaything.
Fttp in most circumstances is for consumption. Not necessary.
But hey. Get taxpayers to pay more for your better pings
wants others to pay
We all paid. Tax payer dollars paid a squillion for a shitty copper network that Telstra didn't maintain, for the Libs to backflip and essentially write it off.
@Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Some pay more than others. Unless you are a high income earner, you are expecting someone else to pay for your plaything.
I only know I pay heaps
I have no understanding whatsoever why I need to and how it could be wasted so much.
@mdavant: I was promised it - with the web site showing "under construction.". Then it was used as a football by a liar and only one section of the exchange's catchment got broadband, and the rest got Turnbull's Turd.
Given I have paid for Telstra's rotten copper four times, - once to build part of it, once to compensate them for the loss of its utility, once to buy it back so the un-provenance neglected network of verdigris protected by second-hand bread-bags and twist ties could be cobbled on to a frankensteinian mish-mash of a redundancy free distribution tree falsely portrayed as a "network" and currently now that Telstra have a long-term standing cost + contract to maintain the decayed patchwork they neglected for a decade as redundant.
The Queen had a Rolls-Royce and a yacht. You can have one too.
@terrys: I got promised tax cuts and labor culled them.
Div 293 sucks
No private health rebate
Nothing, zip, zero, zilch and you want me to pay more tax so you can game with better pings.
So ironic that people call Labor supporters socialists.
Seems unnecessary.
Dreadful things are posted everyday already under people’s real names.
Lowering the bar for vexatious defamation lawsuits seems a poor decision, and anonymity is important a critical in some circumstances, like whistleblowers.I presume it just won’t work in practice, will be another hassle for online users, won’t catch anybody who actually is posting objectionable stuff, and will end up with more show trials like the appalling Witness K disgrace.
I can’t be shot of this hopeless government quick enough. They have long ago run out of any ideas, so now it is all poorly thought out grandstanding in the hope they might gull a few marginal seat voters who aren’t paying much attention in the lead up to a May election.
No wonder ScoMo is laughing, he knows it won't stop VPN users, posters in countries outside Australia, and 1 post trolls, but it looks like he's doing something, which will fool a few voters come election time.
Spot on
trolling is a pretty large grab all.
its common to be called a troll by just disagreeing with someone's view point
A lot of things can fall under "trolling" true, from what Scomo said though this legislation seems to be more focused on targeted harassment as opposed to something like just disagreeing with someone's viewpoint. I would suspect constant targeted harassment towards a specific person by another person (or group of people) would be subject to this legislation, so cyberbullying for example.
I think the main point is that you have to show the same cyberbullying/trolling behaviour constantly to be considered a troll under this legislation, and having a different view point or opinion to someone else won't hold water.
One grey area that could be introduced that IMO holds more water than your example is whether something is considered actual targeted harassment/cyberbullying or a joke. E.g. every one of us sees JV being the butt of people's jokes basically every day. If JV goes to court against these people (lol) these people could easily make the argument that they were "just joking" and that they were "just having a bit of fun" (which not ironically is the exact same excuse people make when they harass others in person; "Oh sorry honey [that I grabbed your arse on the dancefloor], I was just having some fun!"). The point of difference though would be how often this behaviour occurs and whether or not it is repeated. So I hope JV has been screenshotting comments because he could be sitting on a gold mine lmao.
Decentralized social media fixes this.
How so?
Decentralized systems are still subject to the law.
Is bit torrent sharing of copyrighted works somehow not illegal because it is distributed?If you mean there are technical measures to prevent this law being effectively enforced, then I 100% agree.
Decentralized networks are not governed by any entity or individual. This bill may apply to the network by cannot be enforced. The only way to remove content will be by a majority consensus.
Decentralized networks help to the flow of data (information) which is a basic human right.
Oh, a basic human right?
Which one? Provide references.
@rektrading: Freedom of expression, right. Is freedom of expression the same as "the freedom to express my opinion in medium X"? Was I denied a basic human right when my recipe for shortcake wasn't published in the Introduction to Michael Crichton's "Prey"?
Stick to the crypto speculation.
I'd normally say 'stick to what you're good at' but here we are.
@CrowReally: Don't snip the article. Quote the whole thing.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.@rektrading: Rektrading going in to bat for the Holocaust Deniers on the internet because of ".. coiners".
Blockchain as a basic human right is the bottom of the barrel stuff. Don't tell me you've run out of El Salvador feelgood stories?
@CrowReally: I (somewhat) agree with rektrading.
The best way to "solve" the issue of things like Holocaust Deniers, it isn't to expel them into their own echo chambers. It is to shine a light on their ideas, challenge them, and move forwards. The question isn't about absolute freedom to obtain/share information, or total control over it. It is about the degree of it, and how, and when, and where, it would be appropriate to do so.I mean absence of freedom, total control, when that is bad. We all know this instinctively. And I don't have to give any reasons beyond that.
What is interesting is that Freedom, without any restrictions, is also bad. It would be total anarchy, or law of the jungle. I'm speaking from a morality point here. You do want checks and balances. It is an oxymoron, I grant you that. But we are humans and subject to our genetics and psychology.
Example:
If you give someone in the shops a choice of 500 different jams, it is actually likely they will waste more time, spend more money, and choose a worse product (or they won't buy at all). Now, if you limit that to only the top 20 different jams, you actually get more happy people, as they buy a product that is more to their fit, and do so with less time, money, and mental concentration. This is an example of when "theoretically less freedom actually results in practically more freedom".@Kangal: "The best way to "solve" the issue of things like Holocaust Deniers, it isn't to expel them into their own echo chambers. It is to shine a light on their ideas, challenge them, and move forwards. "
Holocaust Denier Step 1: Publish material saying the Holocaust never happened, Jews are liars
Solution Expert Step 1: 'Shine a light on it', publish material debunking their claim
Holocaust Denier Step 2: Step 1, again. (while they are able to remain on this platform, this will be their sole action)
Solution Expert Step 2: Choose between 2A and 2B
Solution Expert Step 2A: Repeat Step1
Solution Expert Step 2B: Realise you won't break their cycle because they want to say those things, "move forwards" to somewhere else/someone else can handle it.@CrowReally: What you said is true for one person, but isn't true for a collective.
If someone is being ridiculous, others tend to notice. To take a risk in this conversation, just look at people who have Apostatised from Islam. They were brain-washed from youth into the ideology until adulthood, and many were curious whilst some had criticisms. However, because they didn't have an open market of ideas, they were stuck in their beliefs. It was only when someone challenged those ideas, usually through a two-person discourse, whom are third-parties. Only then did they start understanding the nuances of viewpoints and the ridiculousness of certain positions. And as those points are added up, it becomes more and more difficult to stay in your beliefs. Not that I have anything against people having their own personal belief and faith. The same could be said for a number of discourses; eg Flat Earth Believers.
Besides, that is how Knowledge (science) works in-general… by sticking to the Scientific Method and Peer Review. Information is challenged, tested, shared, criticised, and built upon. If you compromise in any of the steps, it cannot function. That is why rektrading's stance on this topic is closer to the probable truth than CrowReally's. But again, I could be mistaken.
@Kangal: So, your solution to the problem:
"If anyone can post on a platform without moderation it will inevitably lead to people using it to post known lies and false information"
is
"Well, let's let them keep doing so but others will be posting truthful stuff too and they might 'open up' to all the ideas around them, then they might change their views, of their own free will. But in the meantime, they can absolutely have the platform and equal time to say whatever they want"
Well. I guess that's a vote for the "do nothing and hope niceness happens" option.
@CrowReally: That's not my solution at all.
Did you read my comment properly?I don't think the answer is at any of the two extremes. It is somewhere in between. Now, where along that line is what is up for debate. I don't have the answers, but that doesn't mean I don't know anything.
You can either control information, to a point where it strangles the topic and compromises any meaningful resolution. Or you can let it run rampant, where you face problems of fragmentation and mis-information. Both methods will likely lead to loss of knowledge/science, however, the latter is usually more forgiving. There have been instances, where doing nothing leads to more efficient or better outcomes than interfering.
Or you can look for solutions in between; such as Verified Accounts, +/- voting, censorship of accounts that are inappropriate, and moving comments which are too far removed from the forum post (ie Derailment). And likely a plethora more. And you can try to use one, some, or many of these solutions with different degrees of emphasis.
@Kangal: I don't know what I was expecting from the guy who came along with "We can't tell people they're only allowed one jam, but it would be too inefficient to offer them 1,000 so l guess we should pick a number in between", but the above seems to encapsulate that entire branch of thinking.
You've frankly lost me on how this ties in to "and that's why blockchain is a fundamental human right" but I guess some may take comfort in the "Well, there's a lot of factors at play, and whoever is discussing this will need to consider those" as somehow answering anything that was covered above.
It's the sort of thing I'd expect to hear from someone asked a direct question in a meeting who wanted to give a non-committal answer. To hear someone clear their throat and tell everyone gathered "well, there's a lot of options, from doing too much to doing too little, but who's to say what the right one is" just strikes me as baffling, frankly.
@CrowReally: The truth sometimes is baffling.
What I'm not hearing is that you fundamentally disagree with me. And if you do, what are the points of contention? The jam example is called the Choice Paradox, you can read about it in your own leisure. I really don't get how pointing that out, made you lose track of the issue. Especially when I summarised it to you nicely: "theoretically less freedom, results actually in, practically more freedom".As to the points about blockchain: I dunno, I wasn't talking about that. I was only focusing on online freedoms, or the freedom vs restrictions aspect. That seems like a strawman to me. And if I am not clear, I am not here to attack you or defend rektrading (or vice versa).
@Kangal: You're dropping meaningless truisms, of course I don't disagree with you. If saying something non-descript and uncontroversial which someone will agree with is what you want to bring to this party, I won't deny you that. But I'm not going to pretend it was a meaningful contribution.
I mean, anyone can drop a fortune cookie koan like "With limited jam options, everyone makes their decisions faster and has greater 'freedom' in their jam selections" but it really just dodges all the important questions (So, who actually decides which 20 jams makes the cut? How did they get into the position to make that decision? Does anyone end up worse off under that scheme? "There's ten meat dishes to pick from vegetarians #yourewelcome")
I am absolutely not being hostile to you either, but it feels like you've wandered into a "it's time to discuss whether blockchain is actually a human right via freedom of expression protocols" discussion with some offtopic vague "heyyyyyy guyssssss, nevermind that actual question, let's discuss choices and what that means to us as humans, yeah? And I don't have the answers, I dunno, but here's some spectrums of discussion".
Were you worried rekt or myself might accidentally discuss something specific?
@CrowReally: I just can't even.
You prefer that I lie to you, and give you some made up answers. That is what you're advocating for. I'm not for it. Saying "I don't know" is a very important thing. You the recipient need to be satisfied when someone is upfront to you about limitations to their knowledge or understanding on certain topics. Or you are merely inviting people to either lie to you, or refrain from you.I still don't get the blockchain argument, that is a logical fallacy. It's a strawman. Why embarrass yourself by resorting to it, it's childish.
Now, about who gets to pick, and how, yes those are the right questions.
Does anyone end up worse?
Yes! That's the point. No matter which side you take, there will always be at least one person that loses. In either extremes. Or somewhere in the middle. That is the whole point of the exercise: find the optimum, where the least compromise happens.Your other important questions… well, I don't have the answers right now. Likely no-one in this planet does. But that doesn't mean I am worthless, and we can work to get closer and closer to the truth. I've hoped you would raise something specific, but you had not, so there was little for me to comment on besides vague concepts. As I've said earlier, choosing the optimum (by asking the right questions/finding the data) is what is actually important. Otherwise you're just wasting time debating between one extreme or the other. As an analogy, think of the debate about immigration… some say open the borders let everyone in, and others say no immigrants whatsoever. They're both wrong and detract from the conversation, since what actually needs to be asked is: how many immigrants is acceptable, what are the requirements we want, and how do we enforce these, etc etc.
You claim I only talk in truism, without specifics/examples, but that is not true. As a matter of fact, I already gave you some examples for solutions to controlling speech online. You cared not to comment on them. Ironically, this very comment is written in a thread which I don't have absolute freedom of expression (mods can delete it anytime). So your response tells me you are more concerned about "winning" an argument instead of digging deeper to find the truth in a discourse. On top of that, you didn't contribute anything of substance to the topic, you didn't disclose details of how you would control online speech and the metrics to do so. For those reasons, I will thank you for the reply but I think it will be unproductive to continue.
@Kangal: "I still don't get the blockchain argument, that is a logical fallacy. It's a strawman. Why embarrass yourself by resorting to it, it's childish."
I know you don't understand the blockchain argument, which by the way, is the conversation you joined. Whether decentralised media via blockchain is a fundamental human right. It's right there up at the top, when the conversation began. I wouldn't say my bringing up the subject of a conversation is "resorting" to it, much in the same way I wouldn't say it's "embarrassing" or "childish" either. But I tend to use words I understand, in a context that makes sense.
It's unfortunate you understand literally nothing of what we were discussing (which by the say, isn't a "logical fallacy" or a "strawman" either, you might want to learn what those terms are if you keep using them), but I see what you lack in specific knowledge you make up for with eagerness in discussing many, many other ideas that were never presented or relevant.
I was confused why you chose to join a conversation you're ill equipped for (have a re-read of my comments about 'being in a meeting'), and I'm frankly baffled why you persist. Hopefully you'll find someone interested to delve into the issues you're clearly keen to discuss.
Not me, however. You speak like the output of a Markov chain being fed articles on comparative morality. Desist.
@CrowReally: its the Streisand effect.
You ban it and people become more interested in it.
You ban talk about the Holocaust and then people feel their idea may have merit but they are not allowed to have that opinion (then suddenly they are "saying what we are all thinking").
A better option is outright dismissal.
And remember when people post, the audience is not the person you are replying to, but the people who are reading it.
As soon as a right wing person talks about eugenics/race, etc then most people ignore Everything they have to say.There will always be morons - flat earthers for example.
But its just better to ignore them or tell them why they are wrong, than ban discussion of it.
Decentralized networks are not governed by any entity or individual
Bitcoin takes like 20 minutes to settle. So basically 40 minutes for a post and a reply.
Tell us about the gas fees on Ethereum.
How about trying to chat cross block chains?
how will this affect jv ?