HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
No, I'm going to say that:
1. it actually makes my case. The posts cited in the lawsuit are actual calls to violence, which as I was saying is already illegal, and thus not what Elon Musk promised. I.e., we ARE dealing with a delusional SF scenario in which somehow that's what Twitter would end up promoting.
2. censorship is usually the problem, not the solution. And has always been. From the 1915 Armenian Genocide, to the 1930's Germany, to the Khmer Rouge atrocities starting in the '70s, to, yes, Myanmar (and a few more in between) the biggest enabling factor was being able to control what the media says. E.g., in the first example above, the Ottomans just banned all Armenian newspapers, so only the Turkish version of the story would be heard.
And that was already the case with the press in Myanmar. The regime ALREADY controlled the narrative in the press, yes, including about its abusing the ethnic minorities. (Including such 'charming' details as that they used rape to terrorize minorities. Those didn't quite make the local news.) And made a political prisoner out of anyone saying otherwise. It had done so since at least the EIGHTIES. Even at the time of the incident, it retained even the right to monitor and censor any information, including the Internet, and including selective denying access to it. (They just sucked at it, but they had the right to.) It already had all the vehicle it needed for its hate narrative, and the means to block any other narrative in its own media... except for that part where they sucked at actually controlling what comes over the Internet.
If anything, Facebook was (also) a way to get information that's not filtered by the government censorship.
3. This is the dumbest lawsuit ever, because what it tries to establish is that Myanmar laws should prevail over US laws in that case. Which, yes, on one hand is the only way to give Facebook any legal responsibility, but see above what laws we're talking about. The kind of laws where Facebook should have even blocked all reports that the incident is happening. Or where the same Muslims should have only been reported as illegal immigrants and terrorists. Or where those in targeted groups shouldn't have even had access to Facebook or the Internet in general. THOSE were the kind of laws that were active in Myanmar at the time. THAT is the context and purpose of establishing responsibility for the kind of speech you carry: so you can get it in the ass (quite literally sometimes; as I was saying, they used rape as an oppression tool) if you publish anything else than what the government allows you to.
And the consequences of establishing that kind of precedent aren't relevant just for Myanmar. E.g., look at what's happening in Iran right now. Do you REALLY want a legal precedent where foreign companies should respect the local laws when it comes to what information can reach the public?
So yeah, I'm still under the impression that it's butthurt snowflakes who don't know what they're asking for.
1. it actually makes my case. The posts cited in the lawsuit are actual calls to violence, which as I was saying is already illegal, and thus not what Elon Musk promised. I.e., we ARE dealing with a delusional SF scenario in which somehow that's what Twitter would end up promoting.
2. censorship is usually the problem, not the solution. And has always been. From the 1915 Armenian Genocide, to the 1930's Germany, to the Khmer Rouge atrocities starting in the '70s, to, yes, Myanmar (and a few more in between) the biggest enabling factor was being able to control what the media says. E.g., in the first example above, the Ottomans just banned all Armenian newspapers, so only the Turkish version of the story would be heard.
And that was already the case with the press in Myanmar. The regime ALREADY controlled the narrative in the press, yes, including about its abusing the ethnic minorities. (Including such 'charming' details as that they used rape to terrorize minorities. Those didn't quite make the local news.) And made a political prisoner out of anyone saying otherwise. It had done so since at least the EIGHTIES. Even at the time of the incident, it retained even the right to monitor and censor any information, including the Internet, and including selective denying access to it. (They just sucked at it, but they had the right to.) It already had all the vehicle it needed for its hate narrative, and the means to block any other narrative in its own media... except for that part where they sucked at actually controlling what comes over the Internet.
If anything, Facebook was (also) a way to get information that's not filtered by the government censorship.
3. This is the dumbest lawsuit ever, because what it tries to establish is that Myanmar laws should prevail over US laws in that case. Which, yes, on one hand is the only way to give Facebook any legal responsibility, but see above what laws we're talking about. The kind of laws where Facebook should have even blocked all reports that the incident is happening. Or where the same Muslims should have only been reported as illegal immigrants and terrorists. Or where those in targeted groups shouldn't have even had access to Facebook or the Internet in general. THOSE were the kind of laws that were active in Myanmar at the time. THAT is the context and purpose of establishing responsibility for the kind of speech you carry: so you can get it in the ass (quite literally sometimes; as I was saying, they used rape as an oppression tool) if you publish anything else than what the government allows you to.
And the consequences of establishing that kind of precedent aren't relevant just for Myanmar. E.g., look at what's happening in Iran right now. Do you REALLY want a legal precedent where foreign companies should respect the local laws when it comes to what information can reach the public?
So yeah, I'm still under the impression that it's butthurt snowflakes who don't know what they're asking for.
Last edited:
