Problem with HateAid is that it doesn't focus on helping on hate crimes alone, but also combats hate speech, which is very widely interpreted. This sometimes have included criticism to politicians in power. Although its mission might be noble, the execution is sometimes murky. Of course if we get to the future where the government draws the line between the hate and the murky, the line will be drawn by White House for the US companies, not the EU.
As an example of this, I personally know several feminists who have been censored and even banned from major social media platforms for speaking up on women's rights. Their words were incorrectly flagged as "hate" and removed.
I'm sure that these organizations do some good work in removing actual threatening content but often it's also used to censor views that their operatives find objectionable simply because it doesn't concord with their own beliefs.
US companies doing business in the EU are bound by EU law, not US law. The US set that precedent so it's only fair that this works both ways. You may disagree with the law but using sanctions like this to go after people whose opinions you disagree with is textbook censorship and to do so in the name of free speech is absolutely ridiculous.
These particular people were happy to deplatform Trump in the past. He is guilty of hate speech and might be racist, old, senile, bully and idiot but he is still democratically elected president of the US. They can take their disagreement to him, and based on the history he is not happy what these people have done to him. So from the realpolitik, it is not ridiculous. And if they still think this is ridiculous take can summon Trump to any European court.
> These particular people were happy to deplatform Trump in the past.
Another prime example of advanced conservative thinking, for them it's always:
wrong + wrong == right
Maybe, it's just twice as wrong, no? Maybe, being "not happy [with] what these people have done to him" doesn't automatically make someone's actions right? How about twice as wrong again?
Wasn't the mantra always that whoever owns the platform gets to decide who is on it?
I don't care that Musk turned Twitter into a Nazi safe haven, I just left.
DJT has no right to any coverage, prizes, diplomas and so on, he's just another politician and worse than most. The fact that he's democratically elected is a blemish on the USA just like Wilders is on NL.
> And if they still think this is ridiculous take can summon Trump to any European court.
Is the "murky" part "criticism to politicians in power" or what exactly is unclear about combating hate speech?
> the line will be drawn by White House for the US companies, not the EU.
I don't think there is "one line" drawn by a single person, there are multiple entities here drawing their own lines wherever they want. In some governments, the lines have already been drawn between what is hate speech or not.
> Is the "murky" part "criticism to politicians in power" or what exactly is unclear about combating hate speech?
Chiefly, the subjective definition beyond "speech someone hates". Social media is trending towards establishing lockstep opinions and smushing disagreement. Using such labels is effective in cowing dissent.
It's tempting to objectively label something as bad through a subjective process, as appeals to authority are powerful. Your point about diverging lines being drawn highlights the importance of skepticism of these appeals.
> Is the "murky" part "criticism to politicians in power" or what exactly is unclear about combating hate speech?
Not the commenter you are respoinding to, but the link they shared explained that some of the 'hate speech’ that gets flagged is not anything that would rise to the level of ‘hate speech’ in many other jurisdictions. One of the examples cited was a person prosecuted for calling a politician a “professional moron”. The politician in question had had 700 people investigated for insulting them online in such a fashion; another politician had made more than 500 similar complaints.
Personally, I am uncomfortable with labeling some speech ‘hate speech’ and punishing the speaker even if it is indeed hateful because inevitably such laws will be used by people I don’t agree with to limit expression well beyond ‘hate speech’. Yet even if a case might be made for limiting some speech (denial of the Holocaust, for example) I don’t think that there is a strong case for limiting my ability to call a politician a moron, professional or otherwise.
We don't want a legal government apparatus in place for determining what can be said on the internet. The first thing that will happen is the categories of things you can't say will slowly start to expand to include everything that threatens the power of the government. What happened during covid is bad enough.
If your reaction to "hate speech" is to get the government to remove the speaker from the internet, what you're doing is more dangerous, in the long run, than the speech you don't like.
So what suggestion do you have for people who don't want to deal with hate speech on platforms if the platforms won't do anything because it cuts into their bottom line?
The people of the world seem to underestimate how important free speech is to the typical US citizen. No one else in the world has free speech rights. We view it as very important to have.
What this allows:
- Hate speech (non-violent)
- Holocaust/genocide denial
- Blasphemy and religious mockery
- Insulting leaders, judges, and the state
- Burning flags and national symbols
- Abstract praise of extremist ideologies
- Offensive political misinformation
- Harsh personal insults (non-defamatory)
- Publishing leaked material
- Advocacy of civil disobedience in the abstract
An outsider many view that as going "too far", but you limit one, it's the path to limiting them all.
This is just such a ridiculous joke in 2026 that nobody outside the US and many inside it could continue to take the idea that the US has any actual interest in free speech as a principled argument. We have all just watched for the last decade the people who cried the loudest about it immediately do a 180 the moment they got the political power to practice it. I can’t think of a single prominent “free speech absolutist” who didn’t fail this test miserably and immediately. So no, I don’t actually believe that the US values it above all else, I think that’s some bullshit that people say because they are only interested in the idea that they personally can say and do whatever they feel like and it doesn’t extend beyond that in practice.
The free speech absolutist is such a hilarious caricature these days. "I might not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it!" Well, as long as it's hateful and not woke or about (shivers in disgust) labor unions.
> If your reaction to "hate speech" is to get the government to remove the speaker from the internet, what you're doing is more dangerous, in the long run, than the speech you don't like.
My natural sympathies lie with this position, but is it evidence based? At least currently, more problems seem to be caused by disinformation and hate speech than are caused by government censorship (at least in the US and EU).
That’s not to say that the dangers associated with disinformation and hate speech necessarily justify censoring them (any more than the dangers associated with alcohol necessarily justified prohibition), but if the argument for an absolutist stance on free speech is going to be the consequentialist argument that it’s the less dangerous option, then this has to be evaluated empirically.
Ok, maybe 'empirically' was a bit pompous. What I meant is, if you're saying that X is more dangerous than Y, then that's not a pure statement of principle, it's a claim about the real world. Right now, we're seeing a pretty big advertisement for the dangers of disinformation and hate speech, whereas political discourse in the US and EU remains pretty open. You could say that this is a blip and that in the long run, any form of censorship is more dangerous. But I think someone making your argument should at least acknowledge that present circumstances might appear to refute it.
I don't see hate speech and disinformation as much of a danger. There are plenty of countervailing voices on the internet. And we have plenty of evidence from literally all of human history on the dangers of censorship. Totalitarianism and free speech can't coexist.
It depends on how you feel about the current US administration. It’s there in significant part because of what I’d regard as disinformation and hate speech. It seems pretty dangerous to me, and there are historical parallels for that danger too. Meanwhile, as you say, people in the US and Europe are able to express all kinds of political opinions online, and we don’t seem to be in any kind of crisis caused by European censorship of hate speech.
Okay, but what if there was a strong robust mechanism for removing disinformation and hate speech from the internet & the current US administration was in charge of it?
Because if you're wrong & the current US administration was elected for other reasons than disinformation and hate speech, which could very well be more symptoms than cause, then our situation would be worse, not better.
Don't forget that our current laws & regulations would have been enough to stop Trump's election if not for Merrick Garland & the Supreme Court.
Figuratively, American politics works like a pendulum. Attempts to weaken the First Amendment are like placing an obstacle directly in the path of that pendulum.
All fair points. What I’m saying is that it’s no longer obvious that limited ‘censorship’ of hate speech and disinformation creates a greater danger than its objects. You’re making a positive argument based on real world facts that it is in fact more dangerous, which is fine. I’m
not trying to argue one side or the other here so much as point out that it is necessary to do what you’re doing in order to make a convincing case.
Well, the EU was quick to copy this. The Swiss Jaques Baud was slapped with the same measures. I saw only one youtube video of him and in my memory he was well outspoken and considerate - but definitely not mainstream but also not a conspiracy nut.
I simply think it is not right to basically destroy the life of someone without even a court judgement that he did something illegal. He definitely does not fall in the category of hate speech or trying to stir uproar. I think free speech is important for a living democracy. And that includes people with opposing views.
This is the guy who has whole heartededly swallowed the Russian propaganda to the extent that its coming back out the other end (Either because hes a dangerous idiot or for money, you choose)?
Thinks the British were responsible for the Bucha massacre?
An ex-colonel spouting propaganda from Europes current greatest threat to peace feels like it deserves to get treated on a different level:
I think too many people forget that for the Swiss neutrality doesn't mean the same thing as it does for say the Irish, Swiss Neutrality is about exploiting both sides, and I hope to god someone important remembers that this time round.
this is just ridiculous anti free speech. just because he assumes a point of view that is mostly disagreed with doesn't make it a target for censoring. it's not a slippery slope, it's the straight path to 1984. dangerous idiots should be allowed to speak. and regarding money there is not a single hint he received any, and he lives in a country that is pretty well policed and not corrupt.
As someone who considers the Ukrainians an ally, and therefore the Russians an enemy for starting a war of aggression, I'd say its safe to view someone using their position to espouse Russian propaganda an enemy agent, and Im begruded to think an ex-colonel with intelligence experience believes these easily debunkable theories because hes stupid.
Europe is currently at war, some people just haven't realised it yet apparently.
Im not even going to touch on the swiss further, for only the truly incorruptible would colloborate with Nazis.
> for only the truly incorruptible would colloborate with Nazis
As I'd assume from your comments you consider yourself truly incorruptible. So does that mean collaboration with the Nazis is acceptable for you? Which actually would be a Russian demand to eradicate nazism in Ukraine?
Are you European? Then let me ask you why don't you join the war if you think the Ukrainians are an ally? Ally against what? Russia conquering the rest of Europe? Germany being next?
I am a friend of the Ukrainians, I have Ukrainian friends and I don't want them to die. I am not a friend of the Ukrainian government nor of people who think this war should continue nor of people who force others to participate in a war they don't want to participate in. The truth is that most Ukrainians don't want to participate in this war. Why not let them decide freely if they want to join the army? Why so many left Ukraine while it was possible? Why are so many soldiers deserting? Why do people get shot at the borders trying to leave Ukraine?
If you are so afraid of Russia, then go there yourself and fight. Why are you still posting on HN? Give those that don't want to die the freedom to not do so. Go yourself and fight yourself. As long as it is others dying for you, your convictions your words are cheapest of cheap.
Always remember: those who are keen to continue a war are not the ones who have to continue fighting it. I can't eat as much as I want to vomit if I see exile Ukrainians demonstrating to continue the war. Why don't they return but let those die that didn't have the means to escape?
You assume incorrectly, it was a response to the previous comments claim that Switzerland was not corrupt, which is a laughable claim at best.
You've then proceeded to make a whole host of other assumptions about me rather than engage with any of the points, so I'm not really going to engage with any of them other than also agreeing that the war should end, and should have ended a long time ago. But do I think Ukraine should cede territory to Russia to end the war? Why embolden the beast? We've tried appeasement many times before, it always plays out the same way.
War is not the answer, but Ukraine didnt pick this fight. Im frankly embarrassed by the state of support most european nations have shown them. Not all support needs to be about violence, but far too many of us were too slow to implement too little sanctions on the aggressor.
Anyways the minutia of the ukraine / russia conflict is largely off-topic. The real point is that Russia are the aggressor in Europe right now, and so a european ex-colonel with lots of experience in the intelligence services spouting russian propaganda every occassion they get is probably a collaborator, so I dont see it as anymore unreasonable for the EU to sanction them than say the Russian oligarchs.
> You've then proceeded to make a whole host of other assumptions about me rather than engage with any of the points.
I beg your pardon! You said Europeans are at war currently -please don't deny it, it is up there- and being myself European and not being aware of it, I wondered why you are not participating in it then but rather have other people die for your convictions?
So how did I not engage with your points and how is that an assumption? You just stated it!
If you think I didn't engage, then please ask me questions! I asked 9 questions and you didn't bother to answer one of them. Until then I continue to believe that the most fervent supporters of war are those that wont ever participate in them.
Whenever I hear "Ukraine" I personally hear the "fascist, corrupt leadership with golden toilets to sh*t in" and the suffering population who has to endure it. And I know plenty of Ukrainians and am friends with them.
> Rubio was promoting a conspiracy theory about what he has called the “censorship-industrial complex,” which alleges widespread collusion between the US government, tech companies, and civil society organizations to silence conservative voices
Is that a conspiracy theory in the sense of “some crazy low-status nonsense that no one should pay attention to”, or a conspiracy theory in the sense of “a theory about a private arrangement between multiple actors”?
"Kill Musk's Twitter" was literally a Centre for Countering Digital Hate agenda item on a meeting with Senators in the US. The CCDH was started by advisors of Kier Starmer (one who is now his Chief of Staff). It is 100% a left wing pressure group.
I don't see how anyone call it a conspiracy theory any more.
Just think its a geniunely important semantic note that only Americans and hard righters consider Labour + Kier left wing. If the CCDH is a pressure group, its a neo-liberal one.
As an American, most Americans are unable to distinguish between “liberal” (American left, non-specific), Liberal (Lockean traditional capitalism), neoliberal, Communist, socialist, Social Democratic, “progressive”, and the Democratic Party.
Come to think of it, I’m not sure I understand anymore, either. I really do feel like we’re entering a post-ideological tribal era. Ideological stances change minute to minute, mostly according to “who and whom.”
Some investigative journalists leaked internal documents showing that their intention was shutdown speech of their political opponents and apply EU law onto american citizens.
I side with Matt Taibbi on this one.
They arent innocent researchers being prosecuted by the evil baddies. I'll take my downvotes for having wrongthink.
Thats still speech you just dont like it? HateAid have no legal authority, all they can do is utilise the already established channels to report content same as any other entity, but they do this in a more organised manner. Moreover, HateAid hasnt been sanctioned, individuals that work for or have worked with hateAid have been.
Look, im not saying I agree with everything or anything HateAid does, to be honest I dont care, its irrevelant to the matter. Several individuals have had their freedom of expression curtailed, for right or wrong.
The only point i take issue with is people pretending that that isnt what has happened. If you believe hateAid deplatform and cancel people, how can you not see the US removing individuals who supported hateaids's ability to access the country as the same thing? Don't allow yourself to be blinded just because you disagree with HateAid.
Not all norms and ideals are compatible globally. If a hypothetical group uses your ideals against you, do you remain bound by them out of consistency, or break from your rules to address the perceived threat?
Personally I think if you argue for free speech above all you should stick to free speech above all. What's the point in having morals if you're going to compromise on them when a charitable organisation half way around the world makes you scared?
To be clear, to this end is the exact reason why I dont believe in free speech above all, all people should have a right to expression, but you also have a responsibility for the consequences of that expression. I tried to get that across above, Im actually fine with both HateAid and what the US do / have done, I am neither American nor in the EU. but free speech absolutionists pretending that the US is in anyway protecting free speech is laughable. Look at Minnesota right now.
Honestly, I saw all of this coming in 2009 when 4chan was making racism/misogyny engaging by making it humorous. I remember talking to a friend about how we would eventually get concentration camps that started with illegal immigrants and then expanded to any dissidents in the US.
"I was just joking" is the excuse you tell yourself to say those hateful things and to escape consequences. Just look at Trump "joking" about canceling the election. It's a "joke" so there are no consequences, but where's the damn punch line?
Yes. I remember there was a whole phase of a meme of a black person in a suit with the tag “how I saw black people before 4chan” and some horribly racist after picture.
I’d say people fall somewhere in between 0% and 100% bigoted and what they will tolerate/laugh at can be incredibly nuanced. Nobody is actually 0% or 100% racist but I generally consider myself “not bigoted” in a broad sense. Everyone is of course carrying some bigoted opinion(s) though, it’s unavoidable.
But back to the point: I’d say I am by and large not particularly bigoted. Still, I’d be lying if I said I have never laughed at off-color jokes. No matter how progressive or anti-racist you are something is going to break through. That is what makes it such a powerful tool for less scrupulous actors. You find what a person or community is willing to tolerate, then you either peel off people in private or push boundaries out loud and slowly drive a wedge into the community.
Problem with HateAid is that it doesn't focus on helping on hate crimes alone, but also combats hate speech, which is very widely interpreted. This sometimes have included criticism to politicians in power. Although its mission might be noble, the execution is sometimes murky. Of course if we get to the future where the government draws the line between the hate and the murky, the line will be drawn by White House for the US companies, not the EU.
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/germany...
As an example of this, I personally know several feminists who have been censored and even banned from major social media platforms for speaking up on women's rights. Their words were incorrectly flagged as "hate" and removed.
I'm sure that these organizations do some good work in removing actual threatening content but often it's also used to censor views that their operatives find objectionable simply because it doesn't concord with their own beliefs.
Who are these feminists? I don't want to not believe you but the lack of detail here feels like you're just dogwhistling feminist for transphobic
Yeah, that seems to be what it was. I pointed that out in another comment and it got falsely flagged.
[flagged]
US companies doing business in the EU are bound by EU law, not US law. The US set that precedent so it's only fair that this works both ways. You may disagree with the law but using sanctions like this to go after people whose opinions you disagree with is textbook censorship and to do so in the name of free speech is absolutely ridiculous.
These particular people were happy to deplatform Trump in the past. He is guilty of hate speech and might be racist, old, senile, bully and idiot but he is still democratically elected president of the US. They can take their disagreement to him, and based on the history he is not happy what these people have done to him. So from the realpolitik, it is not ridiculous. And if they still think this is ridiculous take can summon Trump to any European court.
> These particular people were happy to deplatform Trump in the past.
Another prime example of advanced conservative thinking, for them it's always:
wrong + wrong == right
Maybe, it's just twice as wrong, no? Maybe, being "not happy [with] what these people have done to him" doesn't automatically make someone's actions right? How about twice as wrong again?
Wasn't the mantra always that whoever owns the platform gets to decide who is on it?
I don't care that Musk turned Twitter into a Nazi safe haven, I just left.
DJT has no right to any coverage, prizes, diplomas and so on, he's just another politician and worse than most. The fact that he's democratically elected is a blemish on the USA just like Wilders is on NL.
> And if they still think this is ridiculous take can summon Trump to any European court.
Ok, so you're really just trolling. Goodbye.
> the execution is sometimes murky
Is the "murky" part "criticism to politicians in power" or what exactly is unclear about combating hate speech?
> the line will be drawn by White House for the US companies, not the EU.
I don't think there is "one line" drawn by a single person, there are multiple entities here drawing their own lines wherever they want. In some governments, the lines have already been drawn between what is hate speech or not.
> Is the "murky" part "criticism to politicians in power" or what exactly is unclear about combating hate speech?
Chiefly, the subjective definition beyond "speech someone hates". Social media is trending towards establishing lockstep opinions and smushing disagreement. Using such labels is effective in cowing dissent.
It's tempting to objectively label something as bad through a subjective process, as appeals to authority are powerful. Your point about diverging lines being drawn highlights the importance of skepticism of these appeals.
> Is the "murky" part "criticism to politicians in power" or what exactly is unclear about combating hate speech?
Not the commenter you are respoinding to, but the link they shared explained that some of the 'hate speech’ that gets flagged is not anything that would rise to the level of ‘hate speech’ in many other jurisdictions. One of the examples cited was a person prosecuted for calling a politician a “professional moron”. The politician in question had had 700 people investigated for insulting them online in such a fashion; another politician had made more than 500 similar complaints.
Personally, I am uncomfortable with labeling some speech ‘hate speech’ and punishing the speaker even if it is indeed hateful because inevitably such laws will be used by people I don’t agree with to limit expression well beyond ‘hate speech’. Yet even if a case might be made for limiting some speech (denial of the Holocaust, for example) I don’t think that there is a strong case for limiting my ability to call a politician a moron, professional or otherwise.
We don't want a legal government apparatus in place for determining what can be said on the internet. The first thing that will happen is the categories of things you can't say will slowly start to expand to include everything that threatens the power of the government. What happened during covid is bad enough.
If your reaction to "hate speech" is to get the government to remove the speaker from the internet, what you're doing is more dangerous, in the long run, than the speech you don't like.
So what suggestion do you have for people who don't want to deal with hate speech on platforms if the platforms won't do anything because it cuts into their bottom line?
My suggestion is you use some other platform. The existence of speech you find upsetting is literally the price of freedom.
Do you think there should be any kind of moderation for hate speech?
From the government? Absolutely not.
No, and I was not asking you
The people of the world seem to underestimate how important free speech is to the typical US citizen. No one else in the world has free speech rights. We view it as very important to have.
What this allows: - Hate speech (non-violent) - Holocaust/genocide denial - Blasphemy and religious mockery - Insulting leaders, judges, and the state - Burning flags and national symbols - Abstract praise of extremist ideologies - Offensive political misinformation - Harsh personal insults (non-defamatory) - Publishing leaked material - Advocacy of civil disobedience in the abstract
An outsider many view that as going "too far", but you limit one, it's the path to limiting them all.
This is just such a ridiculous joke in 2026 that nobody outside the US and many inside it could continue to take the idea that the US has any actual interest in free speech as a principled argument. We have all just watched for the last decade the people who cried the loudest about it immediately do a 180 the moment they got the political power to practice it. I can’t think of a single prominent “free speech absolutist” who didn’t fail this test miserably and immediately. So no, I don’t actually believe that the US values it above all else, I think that’s some bullshit that people say because they are only interested in the idea that they personally can say and do whatever they feel like and it doesn’t extend beyond that in practice.
The free speech absolutist is such a hilarious caricature these days. "I might not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it!" Well, as long as it's hateful and not woke or about (shivers in disgust) labor unions.
No, except what the site owner wants to do to foster a particular type of community.
I'd suggest they stop using the platforms. Probably the best decision I ever made, never looked back.
Who is we? I do want exactly that.
You want to live under a totalitarian government?
We already are.
That's ridiculous.
What’s more totalitarian than going door-to-door and breaking in without a warrant in violation of the fourth amendment?
Where is this happening?
Minnesota
https://apnews.com/article/minnesota-immigration-us-citizen-...
> If your reaction to "hate speech" is to get the government to remove the speaker from the internet, what you're doing is more dangerous, in the long run, than the speech you don't like.
My natural sympathies lie with this position, but is it evidence based? At least currently, more problems seem to be caused by disinformation and hate speech than are caused by government censorship (at least in the US and EU).
That’s not to say that the dangers associated with disinformation and hate speech necessarily justify censoring them (any more than the dangers associated with alcohol necessarily justified prohibition), but if the argument for an absolutist stance on free speech is going to be the consequentialist argument that it’s the less dangerous option, then this has to be evaluated empirically.
How do you propose to evaluate something like that empirically?
Ok, maybe 'empirically' was a bit pompous. What I meant is, if you're saying that X is more dangerous than Y, then that's not a pure statement of principle, it's a claim about the real world. Right now, we're seeing a pretty big advertisement for the dangers of disinformation and hate speech, whereas political discourse in the US and EU remains pretty open. You could say that this is a blip and that in the long run, any form of censorship is more dangerous. But I think someone making your argument should at least acknowledge that present circumstances might appear to refute it.
I don't see hate speech and disinformation as much of a danger. There are plenty of countervailing voices on the internet. And we have plenty of evidence from literally all of human history on the dangers of censorship. Totalitarianism and free speech can't coexist.
It depends on how you feel about the current US administration. It’s there in significant part because of what I’d regard as disinformation and hate speech. It seems pretty dangerous to me, and there are historical parallels for that danger too. Meanwhile, as you say, people in the US and Europe are able to express all kinds of political opinions online, and we don’t seem to be in any kind of crisis caused by European censorship of hate speech.
Okay, but what if there was a strong robust mechanism for removing disinformation and hate speech from the internet & the current US administration was in charge of it?
Because if you're wrong & the current US administration was elected for other reasons than disinformation and hate speech, which could very well be more symptoms than cause, then our situation would be worse, not better.
Don't forget that our current laws & regulations would have been enough to stop Trump's election if not for Merrick Garland & the Supreme Court.
Figuratively, American politics works like a pendulum. Attempts to weaken the First Amendment are like placing an obstacle directly in the path of that pendulum.
All fair points. What I’m saying is that it’s no longer obvious that limited ‘censorship’ of hate speech and disinformation creates a greater danger than its objects. You’re making a positive argument based on real world facts that it is in fact more dangerous, which is fine. I’m not trying to argue one side or the other here so much as point out that it is necessary to do what you’re doing in order to make a convincing case.
all resistance is online .. people comment and think it to be enough.
Well, the EU was quick to copy this. The Swiss Jaques Baud was slapped with the same measures. I saw only one youtube video of him and in my memory he was well outspoken and considerate - but definitely not mainstream but also not a conspiracy nut.
I simply think it is not right to basically destroy the life of someone without even a court judgement that he did something illegal. He definitely does not fall in the category of hate speech or trying to stir uproar. I think free speech is important for a living democracy. And that includes people with opposing views.
This is the guy who has whole heartededly swallowed the Russian propaganda to the extent that its coming back out the other end (Either because hes a dangerous idiot or for money, you choose)?
Thinks the British were responsible for the Bucha massacre?
An ex-colonel spouting propaganda from Europes current greatest threat to peace feels like it deserves to get treated on a different level:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Baud
Also worth follow up reading on the swiss intelligence agencies, start with the wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_intelligence_agencies#St...
I think too many people forget that for the Swiss neutrality doesn't mean the same thing as it does for say the Irish, Swiss Neutrality is about exploiting both sides, and I hope to god someone important remembers that this time round.
this is just ridiculous anti free speech. just because he assumes a point of view that is mostly disagreed with doesn't make it a target for censoring. it's not a slippery slope, it's the straight path to 1984. dangerous idiots should be allowed to speak. and regarding money there is not a single hint he received any, and he lives in a country that is pretty well policed and not corrupt.
As someone who considers the Ukrainians an ally, and therefore the Russians an enemy for starting a war of aggression, I'd say its safe to view someone using their position to espouse Russian propaganda an enemy agent, and Im begruded to think an ex-colonel with intelligence experience believes these easily debunkable theories because hes stupid.
Europe is currently at war, some people just haven't realised it yet apparently.
Im not even going to touch on the swiss further, for only the truly incorruptible would colloborate with Nazis.
> for only the truly incorruptible would colloborate with Nazis
As I'd assume from your comments you consider yourself truly incorruptible. So does that mean collaboration with the Nazis is acceptable for you? Which actually would be a Russian demand to eradicate nazism in Ukraine?
Are you European? Then let me ask you why don't you join the war if you think the Ukrainians are an ally? Ally against what? Russia conquering the rest of Europe? Germany being next?
I am a friend of the Ukrainians, I have Ukrainian friends and I don't want them to die. I am not a friend of the Ukrainian government nor of people who think this war should continue nor of people who force others to participate in a war they don't want to participate in. The truth is that most Ukrainians don't want to participate in this war. Why not let them decide freely if they want to join the army? Why so many left Ukraine while it was possible? Why are so many soldiers deserting? Why do people get shot at the borders trying to leave Ukraine?
If you are so afraid of Russia, then go there yourself and fight. Why are you still posting on HN? Give those that don't want to die the freedom to not do so. Go yourself and fight yourself. As long as it is others dying for you, your convictions your words are cheapest of cheap.
Always remember: those who are keen to continue a war are not the ones who have to continue fighting it. I can't eat as much as I want to vomit if I see exile Ukrainians demonstrating to continue the war. Why don't they return but let those die that didn't have the means to escape?
You assume incorrectly, it was a response to the previous comments claim that Switzerland was not corrupt, which is a laughable claim at best.
You've then proceeded to make a whole host of other assumptions about me rather than engage with any of the points, so I'm not really going to engage with any of them other than also agreeing that the war should end, and should have ended a long time ago. But do I think Ukraine should cede territory to Russia to end the war? Why embolden the beast? We've tried appeasement many times before, it always plays out the same way.
War is not the answer, but Ukraine didnt pick this fight. Im frankly embarrassed by the state of support most european nations have shown them. Not all support needs to be about violence, but far too many of us were too slow to implement too little sanctions on the aggressor.
Anyways the minutia of the ukraine / russia conflict is largely off-topic. The real point is that Russia are the aggressor in Europe right now, and so a european ex-colonel with lots of experience in the intelligence services spouting russian propaganda every occassion they get is probably a collaborator, so I dont see it as anymore unreasonable for the EU to sanction them than say the Russian oligarchs.
> You've then proceeded to make a whole host of other assumptions about me rather than engage with any of the points.
I beg your pardon! You said Europeans are at war currently -please don't deny it, it is up there- and being myself European and not being aware of it, I wondered why you are not participating in it then but rather have other people die for your convictions?
So how did I not engage with your points and how is that an assumption? You just stated it!
If you think I didn't engage, then please ask me questions! I asked 9 questions and you didn't bother to answer one of them. Until then I continue to believe that the most fervent supporters of war are those that wont ever participate in them.
Whenever I hear "Ukraine" I personally hear the "fascist, corrupt leadership with golden toilets to sh*t in" and the suffering population who has to endure it. And I know plenty of Ukrainians and am friends with them.
The EU finally finds out that “foreign interference” also includes them.
Let’s hope Rubio cranks it up harder.
> Rubio was promoting a conspiracy theory about what he has called the “censorship-industrial complex,” which alleges widespread collusion between the US government, tech companies, and civil society organizations to silence conservative voices
Is that a conspiracy theory in the sense of “some crazy low-status nonsense that no one should pay attention to”, or a conspiracy theory in the sense of “a theory about a private arrangement between multiple actors”?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/zuckerberg-says-the-wh...
"Kill Musk's Twitter" was literally a Centre for Countering Digital Hate agenda item on a meeting with Senators in the US. The CCDH was started by advisors of Kier Starmer (one who is now his Chief of Staff). It is 100% a left wing pressure group.
I don't see how anyone call it a conspiracy theory any more.
https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/election-excl...
Just think its a geniunely important semantic note that only Americans and hard righters consider Labour + Kier left wing. If the CCDH is a pressure group, its a neo-liberal one.
Everyone in the UK considers them left wing, apart from the far left Corbyn/Your Party supporters.
As an American, most Americans are unable to distinguish between “liberal” (American left, non-specific), Liberal (Lockean traditional capitalism), neoliberal, Communist, socialist, Social Democratic, “progressive”, and the Democratic Party.
Come to think of it, I’m not sure I understand anymore, either. I really do feel like we’re entering a post-ideological tribal era. Ideological stances change minute to minute, mostly according to “who and whom.”
Some investigative journalists leaked internal documents showing that their intention was shutdown speech of their political opponents and apply EU law onto american citizens.
I side with Matt Taibbi on this one.
They arent innocent researchers being prosecuted by the evil baddies. I'll take my downvotes for having wrongthink.
Do you have any evidence to support those claims?
Probably related to these Congressional investigations from last year.
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/foreign-cen...
Ah yes, the famously fair and independent Republican Party. Terrific sourcing.
[flagged]
The GOP is the terrible for free speech. Censorship and dissembling is basically the main thing they do.
Banning individuals from entering your state for their opinions doesn't feel particularly pro-free speech.
These people (HateAid) deplatform and cancel others for their speech, via lawsuits, pressure, and other means. That's not speech.
Thats still speech you just dont like it? HateAid have no legal authority, all they can do is utilise the already established channels to report content same as any other entity, but they do this in a more organised manner. Moreover, HateAid hasnt been sanctioned, individuals that work for or have worked with hateAid have been.
Look, im not saying I agree with everything or anything HateAid does, to be honest I dont care, its irrevelant to the matter. Several individuals have had their freedom of expression curtailed, for right or wrong.
The only point i take issue with is people pretending that that isnt what has happened. If you believe hateAid deplatform and cancel people, how can you not see the US removing individuals who supported hateaids's ability to access the country as the same thing? Don't allow yourself to be blinded just because you disagree with HateAid.
Not all norms and ideals are compatible globally. If a hypothetical group uses your ideals against you, do you remain bound by them out of consistency, or break from your rules to address the perceived threat?
Personally I think if you argue for free speech above all you should stick to free speech above all. What's the point in having morals if you're going to compromise on them when a charitable organisation half way around the world makes you scared?
To be clear, to this end is the exact reason why I dont believe in free speech above all, all people should have a right to expression, but you also have a responsibility for the consequences of that expression. I tried to get that across above, Im actually fine with both HateAid and what the US do / have done, I am neither American nor in the EU. but free speech absolutionists pretending that the US is in anyway protecting free speech is laughable. Look at Minnesota right now.
[flagged]
Honestly, I saw all of this coming in 2009 when 4chan was making racism/misogyny engaging by making it humorous. I remember talking to a friend about how we would eventually get concentration camps that started with illegal immigrants and then expanded to any dissidents in the US.
Is it really humourous if you're not already racist/misogynist though?
There is a well known connection between humor and fear. One does not need to feel racist notions to feel fear about, and therefore laugh at racism.
"I was just joking" is the excuse you tell yourself to say those hateful things and to escape consequences. Just look at Trump "joking" about canceling the election. It's a "joke" so there are no consequences, but where's the damn punch line?
The punch line may well be that he wasn't joking after all.
He really needs better writers then - that punch line is lame enough to fail the bar for even late night shows.
He does not joke. I don't think that he knows how.
Yes. I remember there was a whole phase of a meme of a black person in a suit with the tag “how I saw black people before 4chan” and some horribly racist after picture.
I’d say people fall somewhere in between 0% and 100% bigoted and what they will tolerate/laugh at can be incredibly nuanced. Nobody is actually 0% or 100% racist but I generally consider myself “not bigoted” in a broad sense. Everyone is of course carrying some bigoted opinion(s) though, it’s unavoidable.
But back to the point: I’d say I am by and large not particularly bigoted. Still, I’d be lying if I said I have never laughed at off-color jokes. No matter how progressive or anti-racist you are something is going to break through. That is what makes it such a powerful tool for less scrupulous actors. You find what a person or community is willing to tolerate, then you either peel off people in private or push boundaries out loud and slowly drive a wedge into the community.
Once we decided nothing really mattered, nothing matters.