Hacker News Reader

Comment by EarlKing | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. This is against the site guidelines in so many ways I can't bring myself to list them.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We ban accounts that post like this, regardless of how right they are or feel they are, so it would be good if you'd review the rules and stick to them.

> as the European Union (and former EU states like the UK) are transparently run like banana republics whose barely-elected bureaucrats run them like their own little ramshackle empire for their personal enrichment

Bold Statement. I wonder though, could you offer examples of places in the world today where it is being done otherwise?

This doesn't add anything to the discussion.

Also someone whose name is Earl (norsk-germanic for King) and King.. you seem to be hell bent on an anti-european slant.. whilst having a pretty European name.

[flagged]

Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse.

"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Sorry! Actually I am glad to be reassured that the comment I replied to is still considered egregious. The sentiments being expressed in that comment seemed genuinely similar to those of US secretary of state Marco Rubio when he revoked the US visas of two European CEOs from the "Centre for Countering Digital Hate" and the "Global Disinformation Index" today. The reason he gave was "Extraterritorial overreach by foreign censors targeting American speech". Perhaps that act was egregious too. But in this context a comment which accused Europeans of meddling in US affairs and threatening to kick them out did seem plausible.

Of course the comment I replied to went much further than kicking people out of America and into crazy land with a suggestion that we kick Europeans off the internet! This should have been a give away... Again I'm sorry and will refrain in future.

Social media makes teens suicidal. The companies know, but burry it. People defend those companies on the internet.

For what it's worth, I'm European, and I disagree with the US on many things, but I'm not gonna dismiss all Americans' point of view because of that, regardless of how bad I think the country does things. Even the most horrible practices, can have small helpful ideas, that you can cherry-pick. But, no one is forcing you to do so, just like no one can really force us off the internet either.

> the freedom of speech, the right to privacy, obscenity, or indeed anything of import online

That's funny - the EU has better digital laws protecting the average Joe than the US could ever muster in the current climate... GDPR, DMA, etc. You decry 'censorship' and 'barely-elected bureaucrats' while the US is controlled by the billionaire class.

If you don't care, why do you comment? Recent actions show the US government cares. And it might be good to know how people would act on the actions. (Also check your assumption about other countries.)

> run them like their own little ramshackle empire for their personal enrichment

If you are from the US, I’m laughing my butt off, the irony is not lost on me.

OK?

Let me guess, you only see freedom of speech from the perspective of those who speak and not of those who don’t dare to speak because of online harassment. Strangely enough their freedom of speech doesn’t seem to matter for people who justify things like hate speech under the label of free speech.

In a society freedoms are compromises. Absolute freedoms means all for some and nothing for the rest. The EU at least tries a balance. Countries like the US don’t seem to care and seem to favor the strongest or even sociopaths.

> you only see freedom of speech from the perspective of those who speak and not of those who don’t dare to speak

By this logic, when government suppresses speech that is a violation of one's rights?

If they suppress legal speech then yes.

Since the government holds a monopoly on the legal system, that can be simplified to "no".

In a democracy that not a no. A government is made by people and laws aren’t usually made against the will of the voters.

Democracy is majority rule, so perhaps it can be simplified to speech that the majority approve of.

That's how society works

Is, not ought.

Ought as well.

[flagged]

Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse.

"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com