Defamation is very far away from our current situation. Europe is on the correct path imo in holding those who profit from disinformation accountable.
There should be no right to abuse others verbally or spread disinformation. Of course you can always use this in bad faith as a government but that is what we have assasins for.
People and companies have abused the judicial system as long as it has been in place. We havent (and shouldnt) dismantle it just because it can be abused.
That is correct. It neither needs to be nor is a society that allows abuse of power „civil“.
This new development showed that the ever going „we win, you lose, and you‘ll be happy about it“ does in fact have an antidote, although a horrific and regrettable one.
In theory, yes. But thats not how social systems work. If you build a selfsustaining cycle of abuse held in place by dopamine inducing mechanics like easy to consume media you can manipulate people to do whatever you like, see the current shift to fascism. Nobody with a hint of compassion would vote for a fascist, hell nobody with an ounce of self interest would do that but here we are. Its like asking drug addicts to just not use the stuff. Not how humans work.
Defamation is very far away from our current situation. […]
How so? Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by “make them liable if it turns out to be false” — I think it’s possible that defamation wouldn’t account for all possibilities, but I think it’s at least one thing that is covered by what you are talking about.
Defamation is very far away from our current situation. Europe is on the correct path imo in holding those who profit from disinformation accountable.
There should be no right to abuse others verbally or spread disinformation. Of course you can always use this in bad faith as a government but that is what we have assasins for.
For clarity, are you referring to the government abusing the judicial system to silence someone with opinions they don’t like?
Among other potential abuses, yes.
People and companies have abused the judicial system as long as it has been in place. We havent (and shouldnt) dismantle it just because it can be abused.
I hesitantly agree, though I would clarify that I don’t think that’s an argument for not improving the justice system.
Imo, this isn’t sustainable in a stable, and civil society.
That is correct. It neither needs to be nor is a society that allows abuse of power „civil“.
This new development showed that the ever going „we win, you lose, and you‘ll be happy about it“ does in fact have an antidote, although a horrific and regrettable one.
I would argue that the antidote is compassion.
In theory, yes. But thats not how social systems work. If you build a selfsustaining cycle of abuse held in place by dopamine inducing mechanics like easy to consume media you can manipulate people to do whatever you like, see the current shift to fascism. Nobody with a hint of compassion would vote for a fascist, hell nobody with an ounce of self interest would do that but here we are. Its like asking drug addicts to just not use the stuff. Not how humans work.
How so? Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by “make them liable if it turns out to be false” — I think it’s possible that defamation wouldn’t account for all possibilities, but I think it’s at least one thing that is covered by what you are talking about.
I’m unfamiliar with those specific laws. Could you cite what your referring to for my reference?
No problem: the digital services act and the digital markets act. The best write up I could find ad hoc is this
Thank you for the source 🙂