vrypan |--o--| on Warpcast

vrypan |--o--| pfp

I support freedom of speech. But I have not followed a single discussion about it that isn't either superficial and/or biased. I see people who blame Brazil for banning X (did they actually do it?) but are ok with US banning TikTok. Others who fight freedom of speech and at the same time dream of living in Dubai. I recently listened to a respected crypto founder who wants to leave Canada for UAE. And then 5 minutes later, he is discussing how crazy it is that France arrested Pavel Durov. Wtf? https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/websites-blocked-in-uae/

3 replies

0 recast

3 reactions

Eric P. Rhodes pfp

Conflating and comparing both bans as free speech issues misses some key factors. The potential ban of TikTok centers on national security concerns, not free speech. U.S. law prohibits foreign governments from having direct or indirect control over media companies operating within the country. In 2021, the Chinese government acquired a "golden share" in a ByteDance subsidiary, which allows it to appoint board members and exert influence, raising concerns about potential government interference.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

vrypan |--o--| pfp

I totally understand why the US went this way. Of course, "national security" is US gov excuse to bypass laws, but I honestly think in this case they are in the right direction (not sure of the actual outcome, but that's a totally different discussion). Now, the French law prohibits child pornography. It is my understanding that the French authorities asked Telegram to take measures agains it, give user data related to users accused of it, etc, and Telegram denied to cooperate. Isn't it expected that they would take legal action against the company and the CEO? Why is it about freedom of speech?

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

vrypan |--o--| pfp

I consider the US one of the best places when it comes to freedom of speech. However, one point many Americans miss is that 99% of social media is based in the US and is influenced by the US public opinion. So, in practice, you can say anything you want (First Amendment), as long as you don't violate the ToS of Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc. which are usually much much more restrictive than the Constitution. One could say that the government does not have to actually restrict speech, because others do. I'm trying to illustrate that this is a very complicated matter, and instead of (just) pointing fingers to "others", we should all discuss these things in depth.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Eric P. Rhodes pfp

well, France didn’t ban Telegram, which is an important distinction. Durov holds French citizenship, so he's bound by French law. even as a free speech absolutist, he’s not immune to the consequences of his actions. in France, freedom of speech isn’t absolute like in the US; it operates within a legal framework that balances individual freedoms with public order, national security, and protections against hate speech and defamation. just believing in free speech doesn’t exempt you from the law. you can be upset that France arrested Durov, but he’s still accountable for his actions under French law.

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction