Hacker News Reader

Comment by sqeaky | Hacker News Reader

Clearly this is an attempt at censorship which is evil and stupid; But I want to step back and think about what the practical issues of trying to ban fake news.

How does one differentiate between silly things that clearly satire like the onion and extremists like flat-earthers that cleared ought to be the target of satire?

Let's presume all the Facebook and fakenews servers are outside of Germany, or whatever metaphorical country, then how are the laws suppose to stop them? Block that site in the country, that doesn't even work in China?

View on HN

Clearly this is an attempt at censorship which is evil and stupid;

Why should defamation laws that apply to newspapers and other media not apply to social media?

Another issue is that defamation spreads much quicker through social media than most traditional means and it is harder to hold persons accountable (especially when they are not in the same country).

So, it makes sense to evaluate what defamation means in the digital age. The parliamentary and judicial processes should show what is feasible and within bounds of the constitution.

(I understand the frustration. Are you a big ad customer? You can call Facebook and get them to assist you immediately. Are you the victim of provably incorrect personal attacks, no way you can get Facebook to help. Unless you cause a big media storm.)

> Why should defamation laws that apply to newspapers and other media not apply to social media?

Because social media everyone talking to everyone, not a (hopefully) trained and responsible person attempting to be a source of truth addressing the masses.

I am also against libel laws and anti-defamation beyond the most minimal required to prevent fraud. When you start legislating truth it is only a matter of time until you have a state run ministry of truth.

While I agree with your overall sentiment, your statement "censorship which is evil and stupid" is clearly overly simplistic and, hence, wrong.

100% free speech does not exist in _any_ country (not even the US) - and it would not even be desirable. A society is better off overall if there are limits to free speech (think of insults, false advertisement, incitement, etc.).

You probably have to argue in a more nuanced way.

> A society is better off overall if there are limits to free > speech (think of insults, false advertisement, incitement, > etc.)

Insults? You should be able to (and protected to) insult anyone you please, at any time. Insult has to be taken. Insult is never given. There is no right to not be offended, and there should never be one, because offense/insult happen internally. You cannot insult me if i chose to not be insulted, you can not offend me if i chose to be offended.

False advertisement isn't about free speech - it's about making a verbal contract and not following through. You're free to say whatever you want, and the offence isn't in the saying it, its in the failure to keep the contract.

Society is rarely served by more restriction.

I don't think you are right, here. At least from a factual "as is" legal standpoint but also from my moral standpoint ("what should be" / normative).

I am not sure which standpoint you are addressing.

The easiest standpoint to defend is the factual / descriptive "as is" legal standpoint:

Insults / defamations are legally not allowed in most countries.

False advertisement IS indeed an exception to free speech. See here [1].

But maybe you were not talking about descriptive claims but normative ones. This would be a very different discussion.

[1] = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

This entire paragraph sounds like either paradox (first and last sentence) or sophistry.

I think you're confusing the verb "insult" (as it, doing something with the intent of insulting someone) with the state of being insulted. TO insult someone is to ATTEMPT to make them feel insulted, but its up to that person whether or not they are insulted.

I disagree with that distinction. To be able to insult someone means that the person ends up in a state of being insulted. Any failure to do so would be a failed attempt at insulting which cannot be qualified as insulting.

You chose whether or not you are insulted by something. I have no control over whether or not you are insulted. I can try to insult you, i can try to say the worst things possible to insult you - thats "being insulting"...

If you were standing next to say, a very enlightened, mindful buddhist monk - you can be insulting to him, but he will likely never be insulted. Because he choses to not be insulted.

Being insulted, having hurt feelings, taking offense - these are all acts that the "victim" themselves control 100%. Nobody can make you feel insulted, nobody can make your feelings hurt, nobody can make you feel offended. These are all choices you make yourself. You're the only person in this entire world that can make yourself feel hurt, offended, or insulted.

The real question is:

In the current world, where it's extremely easy to disseminate either real or false info on social media, and it has become possible to weaponize this mechanism to try and influence the core engine of a democracy (the minds of the voters), how would you re-define national defense in order to account for the new kind of threats in this environment?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com