https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... -president

Interesting.

Macron is now taking strong action.

Some points from the article:
-Legislation for social media
-Transparency when it comes to sponsored content
-authorities could be allowed to remove or block content.

Could other countries follow the lead?

I'd say I have mixed feelings about this. Where does Free Speech play into this? Who decides what's "fake" and what's not?

EDIT: I meant to say *Wants to put put a ban on Fake News*

MSPbrandon wrote:

Who decides what's "fake" and what's not?

Here comes the truth police. Sounds kind of messy to be honest.

The end of freedom of speech.

MSPbrandon wrote:

I'd say I have mixed feelings about this

I don't. Completely opposed to this.

It is up to the consumer of the "news" to determine its veracity, not the government.

It's a small step from the state squashing "fake news" to the state suppressing "news" it finds "dangerous" or "subversive" or "offensive" or "dangerous" or whatever.

seahawk wrote:

The end of freedom of speech.

But of course you don’t believe that. You’re only speaking from the perspective of one who has that belief.

No, that I do believe. Making sponsored postings more obvious is a great idea, but threatening to block or close social media accounts because they spread "propaganda" is imho a no-go. Closing fake accounts is a good idea, but it should be based on facts like a large number using the same IP or postings made in other countries that do not fit the fake profile, but never on the posted content as long it basically confirms with the law.

seahawk wrote:

No, that I do believe. Making sponsored postings more obvious is a great idea, but threatening to block or close social media accounts because they spread "propaganda" is imho a no-go. Closing fake accounts is a good idea, but it should be based on facts like a large number using the same IP or postings made in other countries that do not fit the fake profile, but never on the posted content as long it basically confirms with the law.

So again we’re on the Seahawk journey ...

(1) “the end of free speech”

Becomes

(2) “I have a balanced opinion about something I’m posting.”

How does the saying go?

You’re an enigma wrapped in the riddle of whatever ... (mystery)?.

Whatever, bro.

I have no idea why you default to (1) when evidently you’re thinking (2).

For someone who purports to have an understanding of psychology, I’d love to hear your self-diagnosis.

fr8mech wrote:

It is up to the consumer of the "news" to determine its veracity, not the government.

It's a small step from the state squashing "fake news" to the state suppressing "news" it finds "dangerous" or "subversive" or "offensive" or "dangerous" or whatever.

It opens a can of worms that gets out of control fast.

NIKV69 wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

It is up to the consumer of the "news" to determine its veracity, not the government.

It's a small step from the state squashing "fake news" to the state suppressing "news" it finds "dangerous" or "subversive" or "offensive" or "dangerous" or whatever.

It opens a can of worms that gets out of control fast.

Well said Nikky V!

#platitudes

(I’d never ban you ... you’re the gift that keeps on giving!)

MSPbrandon wrote:

-Legislation for social media

make social media more responsible for what they do and not just to optimize profits by letting people play in their bubble, see the comments of the Facebook guy whom said he had some doubts (to put it mildly) about the addictiveness of social media.

On the hand we also, as we are all media consumers, be more responsible in what we post and what kind of sources we believe and spread. There is quite a difference between facts and opinions and for some those lines seems quite vague.

MSPbrandon wrote:

-Transparency when it comes to sponsored content

should absolutely be more clear: advertorials are in the end killing for real balanced researched content.

MSPbrandon wrote:

-authorities could be allowed to remove or block content.

An absolute no go. If authorities deem a content to be so dangerous, then there should be an independent judge looking and agreeing with that assessment. Freedom of speech is very important for a democracy and there are absolute limits - juristical and more important moral - but that judgment can never be put in the hands of the government.

Flagging sponsored postings is mostly a commercial decision for me and is imho mostly aimed at the so called "social media influencers". However closing social media accounts purely based on the content they share is imho the end of free speech, as fake accounts should be flagged by additional indicators.

Blocking sites can be acceptable if the blocked site is obviously intentional fake.

If for example a site newspaperXY.cmo would copy the layout of the real newpaperXY.com but spread false news in the context, blocking the .cmo site should be possible.

seahawk wrote:

Flagging sponsored postings is mostly a commercial decision for me and is imho mostly aimed at the so called "social media influencers". However closing social media accounts purely based on the content they share is imho the end of free speech, as fake accounts should be flagged by additional indicators.

Blocking sites can be acceptable if the blocked site is obviously intentional fake.

If for example a site newspaperXY.cmo would copy the layout of the real newpaperXY.com but spread false news in the context, blocking the .cmo site should be possible.

Mr No Opinion seems to have an opinion

Who would’ve guessed?

NIKV69 wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

It is up to the consumer of the "news" to determine its veracity, not the government.

It's a small step from the state squashing "fake news" to the state suppressing "news" it finds "dangerous" or "subversive" or "offensive" or "dangerous" or whatever.

It opens a can of worms that gets out of control fast.

A bit like keeping Trump's twitter account open, then ?

Good luck with that. We have anti-astroturfing laws, FTC rarely enforces them.

Making sponsored content more obvious is a great thing, except for the advertisers or lobbyists who would prefer their influence be less noticeable.

And it would also be nice to clamp down on astro-turfing/spam gangs aligned with political parties or lobbyists.

This does not surprise me at all. Countries like France already have laws making it an offence to express the wrong onions.

I have no problem with sponsored content being made more obvious. Nor do I have problems with articles being labelled as "opinion" rather than pretending to be news. But I do see problems with the state being able to decide what can or can not be published, simply because what is published serves and agenda that may not coincide with that of the government of the day.

Once upon a time it was fashionable to quote "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." These days it is increasingly fashionable to say "I don't agree with you, therefore I am going to silence you under threat of punishment." And it doesn't seem to matter whether people are on the so-called left or right of the political spectrum.

We have Trump suggesting strengthening libel laws because people say things that he doesn't like. We have attempts by the Liberal/
National party government in Australia to restrict what can and can't be reported, supposedly in the name of security. We have others wanting to ban so-called hate speech because they don't like what is said. Mind you, this isn't new. Western Australia had a law styled the Slander of Women Act, 1900 which made it actionable to besmirch a woman's character. This was repealed by the Defamation Act of 2005.

It is amazing how people have had to be on guard constantly to safeguard free speech over the centuries. The latest attempt to curtail ours is underway from big mouth himself. The biggest purveyor of lies and bullshit in years, maybe ever.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Good luck with that. We have anti-astroturfing laws, FTC rarely enforces them.

But France is very different from the US on that matter. Here basically the new part is about the internet. On TV, things are under control, we don't have any kind of political ads, only some clips that have to follow many rules, are aired in groups (4-5 political parties/candidates at a time), are timed, can't be negative, and the airtime is free on public channels. That is only during official political campaigns (a few weeks before elections), the rest of the time, nothing at all.

Companies can't give money to political campaigns, nor finance anything politics related. So there are no PAC or anything like that. Campaigns are largely funded by the state, as long as you have a bit of traction (it's based on previous showings).

As for fake news, Emmanuel Macron was attacked several times during the campaign, from Russia, one time accusing him of being gay and in a relationship with a radio boss. I'm sure that would have gone well in a US presidential election.

Don't worry, we'll be far from a police state, despite what I just mentioned, the Russia Today France TV channel has just been launched with government approval, despite RT being an obvious Russian state propaganda tool.

Aesma wrote:

As for fake news, Emmanuel Macron was attacked several times during the campaign, from Russia, one time accusing him of being gay and in a relationship with a radio boss. I'm sure that would have gone well in a US presidential election.

Don't worry, we'll be far from a police state, despite what I just mentioned, the Russia Today France TV channel has just been launched with government approval, despite RT being an obvious Russian state propaganda tool.

Sure, the current French government would not abuse such a law, but it is more fundamental than that. Two things:
- laws are there to stay, so the next government could implement it a little different, the crawling argument: before we know it we are at a place which we should never be gotten to;
- self-censorship: people might be more careful what they post because they don't want to get in trouble. So less critical on the current government which is bad for democracy and freedom.

Bad governments don't care about laws. There are several examples in the EU right now.

Aesma wrote:

Bad governments don't care about laws. There are several examples in the EU right now.

True, but it sure is easier when the law is on your side.

As stated, a series of laws like these can only have a chilling affect on free speech.

I don't think it has any effect on free speech.

Once your speech is motivated by a financial relationship it is no longer free speech.

If aviation bloggers are getting freebies to write positive reviews, how is it free speech?

If one real passenger posts a bad experience, 100 astroturfers(pretending to be other passengers with good experience) jump in to put it down, how is that free speech?

Russia was able to manipulate our election because our social media majors just cared about ad revenue.

Glad le pen is out of ink, and let that inkwell stay dry. En Marche!

In France, we don't believe in the "US free speech", that is a lame excuse for promoting hate speech. As a french I am glad we don't see the society as an other US version. Our laws comdemn hate speech antisemitism, racism and negationism.

Events like you had in Charlotte are unthinkable here.

WarRI1 wrote:

It is amazing how people have had to be on guard constantly to safeguard free speech over the centuries. The latest attempt to curtail ours is underway from big mouth himself. The biggest purveyor of lies and bullshit in years, maybe ever.

Unfortunately "Free Speech" isn't half of what it used to be.
And we need to be very careful of protecting a broken concept.

Elsewhere on this forum a thread was started including a quote from the President of the United States. Ordinarily those credentials alone should be enough.
But this particular President used a bad word. According to the principles of free speech we have every reason to expect to quote him.
Guess what?
The thread title has been sanitised.
Last edited..... on 12 Jan 2018 15:51. Reason: Edited title for clarity

I realise this mod is only following forum rules, that were originally put there with fine & noble intent, but in doing so, the mods on these forums have inadvertently made their own political comment.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1383463#p20087165

The rules surrounding free speech, and indeed the entire concept, need a radical overhaul in light of 21st century technology. And in view of the dark forces at work in the shadows all around us.
In order to protect Free Speech, we may have to throw a few treasured items overboard in order to save the entire ship from sinking.

jetero wrote:

Mr No Opinion seems to have an opinion

Who would’ve guessed?

In fact, Mr. no opinion was over in Mil-Av-Space the other day acting as the self appointed forum censor.
He has strong opinions!

Olddog wrote:

Events like you had in Charlotte are unthinkable here.

Instead you had a satirical magazine office shot up with 12 people left dead. But then again, you don't want "US free speech" there so I guess it shouldn't bother you too much.

That is an akward comment. There is no terrorism in the UK ?

Olddog wrote:

That is an akward comment. There is no terrorism in the UK ?

You're complaining about "US style freedom of speech" and about a bunch of Nazi protesters showing up somewhere while living in a country where 12 people were MURDERED simply because the magazine they published was offensive to someone.

Good and I love how all the France haters are loosing their minds.

The fact is that Russia spent a lot of money trying to destabilise us in the last election, trying to get Le Pen elected to weaken France. This legislation is a natural reaction and will hopefully do a lot to limit the influence of those trying to influence

Once again, Macron has proved that he has the biggest balls in Europe. Russia will be enraged, I'm sure.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Once your speech is motivated by a financial relationship it is no longer free speech.

Very true, I wish that more people would make this distinction.

Olddog wrote:

In France, we don't believe in the "US free speech", that is a lame excuse for promoting hate speech. As a french I am glad we don't see the society as an other US version. Our laws comdemn hate speech antisemitism, racism and negationism.

Events like you had in Charlotte are unthinkable here.

100% agree. It is important how France makes nasty stuff like Holocaust Denial a crime (meanwhile in the US, Turkey spends lots of money lobbying against recognition of it, trying to rewrite history).

Olddog wrote:

In France, we don't believe in the "US free speech", that is a lame excuse for promoting hate speech. As a french I am glad we don't see the society as an other US version. Our laws comdemn hate speech antisemitism, racism and negationism.

Events like you had in Charlotte are unthinkable here.

Too bad your anti free speech laws didn't include mocking one's religion, maybe those 12 people would be alive.

Like if your laws protected the lives of innocent people. Remember me how many people are killed in your fabulous country ?

NIKV69 wrote:

MSPbrandon wrote:

Who decides what's "fake" and what's not?

Here comes the truth police. Sounds kind of messy to be honest.

About as messy as any court case, because that is what courts are designed to do, figuring out which story is true and which is fake.
But hey, that may just decide who is put to death or locked away for life. The unimpeded ability to deliberately lie is of course a much higher value than human life. .....

On the topic itself: can't block lies, never worked, never will. Spend more money on education, specifically media competence training, logic and reasoning, and fake news will go away all by itself and eliminates religion, the ultimate fake news, with it.

Going after the people that cooked up the fake news however is reasonable, when applyable laws exist, like in case of fake refugee raped xxxxx reports, since reporting a crime that never happened is a crime.

Best regards
Thomas

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Events like you had in Charlotte are unthinkable here.

Instead you had a satirical magazine office shot up with 12 people left dead. But then again, you don't want "US free speech" there so I guess it shouldn't bother you too much.

Free speech in the US means no one dared show the content of Charlie Hebdo. It was all hidden from viewers.

Besides, if we want free speech, it's because speech has power. Charlie Hebdo had been attacked before, they knew they were taking a risk. They took it anyway, that's free speech. In the US it seems your speech is so free that actually a lot of issue are taboo, not to be talked about, let alone solved.

Aesma wrote:

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Events like you had in Charlotte are unthinkable here.

Instead you had a satirical magazine office shot up with 12 people left dead. But then again, you don't want "US free speech" there so I guess it shouldn't bother you too much.

Free speech in the US means no one dared show the content of Charlie Hebdo. It was all hidden from viewers.

Nah, one magazine reprint them in the US. Stores like Barnes & Noble then refused to sell it.

Best regards
Thomas

zkojq wrote:

Once again, Macron has proved that he has the biggest balls in Europe.

Balls? I thought he has the biggest collection of lipsticks in Europe...

zkojq wrote:

Russia will be enraged, I'm sure.

That's absurd. Why would Russia be "enraged" about something that nicely plays into the hands of their propaganda narrative: "Look, there is no free speech! Even the EU has its own censorship."

L410Turbolet wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Russia will be enraged, I'm sure.

That's absurd. Why would Russia be "enraged" about something that nicely plays into the hands of their propaganda narrative: "Look, there is no free speech! Even the EU has its own censorship."

Because it makes it harder for them (& their surrogates) to con people into supporting the FN.

L410Turbolet wrote:

That's absurd. Why would Russia be "enraged" about something that nicely plays into the hands of their propaganda narrative: "Look, there is no free speech! Even the EU has its own censorship."

That is absurd and would only demonstrate that Russia doesn´t even understand what freedom of speech is. Most, if not all of Europe, have the freedom to express an opinion, i.e. fake news, deliberate lies, have never had blanket protection. Not here, not in the US, nowhere.
It is funny how people think the internet is a space without law...... this law, no matter how messed up and wrong the implementation may (and most likely will) be is just porting laws onto the reality of Internet that Newspapers and other media outlets had to operate since pretty much forever. People always had the right to a counter statement for wrong reporting, including the right to stop a media from wrongful reporting and suing them for damages ....

best regards
Thomas

zkojq wrote:

L410Turbolet wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Russia will be enraged, I'm sure.

That's absurd. Why would Russia be "enraged" about something that nicely plays into the hands of their propaganda narrative: "Look, there is no free speech! Even the EU has its own censorship."

Because it makes it harder for them (& their surrogates) to con people into supporting the FN.

Not very democratic and pro free speech, if laws aim at silencing one political position.

seahawk wrote:

zkojq wrote:

L410Turbolet wrote:

That's absurd. Why would Russia be "enraged" about something that nicely plays into the hands of their propaganda narrative: "Look, there is no free speech! Even the EU has its own censorship."

Because it makes it harder for them (& their surrogates) to con people into supporting the FN.

Not very democratic and pro free speech, if laws aim at silencing one political position.

What political position is it silencing?

If the aim is to silence support for the FN then it is imho not right. Either it aims to reduce the infleunce of fake news in general, or it is no fair law.

Seahawk, I know you like to have fun but if you are serious you may have missed that this law will merely adapt existing laws to internet era. The only added part is about financing...

Yet, I like to look at the reasoning for any new law or any change to an existing law. Once a law aims at a certain set of opinions, I am always sceptical.

But that law does not deal with opinions. It rather targets sponsored russian campaigns meddling with our elections. Germany voted a law that is close it seems, but of course when France does the same. You may have seen the press conference when Putin came and what Macron said about Russia today and spoutnik....

A law should target any form of meddling in our elections. And in principal I agree on the idea behind it, but the reason should always be that any meddling is bad, not that Russian support of the FN is bad.