Speech will always be a struggle between the desire of power to cement its control, and the desire of citizens to live authentically. It is a war that will never, ever end, as even something as broad and free as the US’ 1A leaves ample room for government shenanigans to suit the desires of power in censoring speech.
That being said, it’s unequivocally bad when censorship is done via hidden means. No good censorship occurs in the shadows or behind closed doors, as such measures preclude accountability by the masses of the powerful. To shield the exercise of power behind privacy is to argue that it is never wrong.
> European authorities held a “DSA MultiStakeholder Workshop” in Brussels, intended to help major platforms like Meta, X, and Google understand their obligations under the DSA. As Jordan notes, the seminar was closed to the public, unlike previous seminars about laws like the Digital Markets Act. Participants of the new event were specifically warned not to describe the seminar’s “exercise scenarios,” but Jordan’s committee got hold of key documents.
We are ruled by secret laws - it doesn't get more incriminating than that. The censor is never satisfied with mere censorship - he wants to keep the censorship itself secret. To deceive people into thinking it's reasonable and limited.
The article's perspective is American, but as a European, I want to know what authority permits the EU to police speech in its member states, covertly, without informing them or their citizens?
"Some of the most upsetting examples:" - the article abruptly paywalls here, but examples can be found on Jim Jordan's twitter, which quotes directly from the congressional report:
I would also argue that Chinese control of TikTok in America is fueling the people who are on it a lot (mostly younger people) to believe whatever China wants them to believe.
Speech will always be a struggle between the desire of power to cement its control, and the desire of citizens to live authentically. It is a war that will never, ever end, as even something as broad and free as the US’ 1A leaves ample room for government shenanigans to suit the desires of power in censoring speech.
That being said, it’s unequivocally bad when censorship is done via hidden means. No good censorship occurs in the shadows or behind closed doors, as such measures preclude accountability by the masses of the powerful. To shield the exercise of power behind privacy is to argue that it is never wrong.
Too bad "claim my free post" is a dead link
> European authorities held a “DSA MultiStakeholder Workshop” in Brussels, intended to help major platforms like Meta, X, and Google understand their obligations under the DSA. As Jordan notes, the seminar was closed to the public, unlike previous seminars about laws like the Digital Markets Act. Participants of the new event were specifically warned not to describe the seminar’s “exercise scenarios,” but Jordan’s committee got hold of key documents.
We are ruled by secret laws - it doesn't get more incriminating than that. The censor is never satisfied with mere censorship - he wants to keep the censorship itself secret. To deceive people into thinking it's reasonable and limited.
The article's perspective is American, but as a European, I want to know what authority permits the EU to police speech in its member states, covertly, without informing them or their citizens?
"Some of the most upsetting examples:" - the article abruptly paywalls here, but examples can be found on Jim Jordan's twitter, which quotes directly from the congressional report:
https://x.com/jim_jordan/status/1948730617803296910
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-j... (also linked within the article)
control of information shapes the cognitive environment - this is essential for the maintenance of public order and national security.
I would also argue that Chinese control of TikTok in America is fueling the people who are on it a lot (mostly younger people) to believe whatever China wants them to believe.
Neither situation is good.
Whatever your other opinions of Musk, exposing the previously secret censorship requests from the EU is a very good act.
While I agree that the article seems interesting, I hate it when articles on HN are behind a paywall.