Will Zuckerberg add another clause to his TOS, taking it from "it's OK to call someone mentally ill but only if they're queer" [1] to "it's OK to call someone mentally ill but only if they're queer AND don't live in Europe"?
More seriously, I don't see how those companies can enforce this while not severing US users from EU users. They'll probably just ignore it anyway.
I'm surprised to see these types of reactionary / rage-bait comments bubble up in HN threads recently.
I personally find that they don't add much value to discussion. Perhaps it's a sign of the community growing with outsiders not being familiar with HN guidelines [0], or that Dang is stretched too thin to constantly moderate everything.
I mean, I really don't know how to react to this type of situation, personally. I do think that the CEO of a firm doing a fascist salute, multiple times, on live television is actually relevant to the business interests of the company, and the political interest of the nations in which it operates.
Do I think it's worth talking about in this context? I honestly don't know. I get your point. I also understand that it was the type of "Lol, nothing matters" flamebait, meant to ruffle feathers intentionally, but it's relevant that this is exactly that ethos pointed to in Sartre's Anti-Semite and Jew about the actual brownshirts and blackshirts this salute is meant to directly reference:
No, I would agree with you that the salute isn't directly relevant to the pledge in the article, but it's certainly directly relevant to whether or not the pledge is being made in good-faith. This is why I think it's relevant, even if it's exhausting. We just live in exhausting times.
> These EU Codes of Conduct are voluntary commitments and companies face no penalties if they decide to back out of the agreement, as Elon Musk did with X (then known as Twitter) in 2022 when he withdrew the company from the Code of Practice on Disinformation.
It's pretty obviously a PR stunt done in bad faith to delay actual legal consequences. I don't understand why this kind of "legal" construct even exists tbh.
Contrary to what seems to often be believed, the EU way of doing things is to try to make companies do their own agreement and policing, as to avoid the rigidity of regulation unless we absolutely have to.
Another example is how the EU asked the phone manufacturers to agree on a common charger for years on a good will basis, and only had to regulate when samsung said they were going to back out if no regulation was made because apple was not playing ball.
So the idea here is "guys, we really don't want to come here and make a law about what is or isn't allowed to be said or what has to be fact checked and everything, we want you to behave like adults and agree together about said rules".
I believe in this case, the fact that every company is part of the same country and same bunch of absurdly rich tech companies means it's never going to work at all.
> to try to make companies do their own agreement and policing, as to avoid the rigidity of regulation unless we absolutely have to.
This is precisely the censorship policy of the PRC. It ensures that nobody ever knows for sure what speech is permitted, so no speech is completely safe. Platforms compete for users by permitting marginally legal speech and compete for the favor of regulators by censoring it. This system is much more effective at suppressing political dissent than the US system, in which censorship decisions can be challenged in open court.
The hardware and software industry has about a million standards that were collectively designed and adopted by the industry. Every single IETF RFC governing the internet and W3C RFCs governing browser standards for starters - we wouldn't be on this website having this conversation without those.
It's completely reasonable to say "multiple competing standards harms consumers with no benefit, come up with a common standard". This is what governments are supposed to do! If there is a single manufacturer not adhering to the standard it is reasonable to tell that manufacturer to comply. Is any reasonable person unhappy that we're all using common chargers for phones now?
Nor did this charger regulation seem to have negative consequences. Apple proactively licensed their wireless charging standard tech to the whole industry to get ahead of any legislation. Might not be great for Apple's profits, but I prefer that as a consumer.
It's not hyperbolic in any way. It's a simple, sober, literal explanation of how the Chinese censorship apparatus functions. I have no idea why you're bringing up electrical interface standards; they seem completely irrelevant to questions of civil rights to me. The W3C standards (which are not RFCs) seem barely less irrelevant; we are talking about what viewpoints people are or aren't allowed to hear, and the social processes that determine that, not file format evolution and the priority order of CSS selectors.
To read flagged comments, you have to turn on "showdead" in your HN profile (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=nindalf). I assumed you knew that (you've been using the site for ten years, during which time that hasn't changed), but I see that I was wrong.
Your initial comment in this thread accused me of lying. If you want to engage in a discussion (which I take to mean something like "a worthwhile discussion"), that is not a good way to do it—particularly when the accusation is not just unproven but, because it's false, unprovable. Not only does it tend to antagonize the person you're calling a liar, it also tends to undermine the presumption of good faith people might otherwise extend you when you claim to value worthwhile discussion.
As for "winning", for me, "winning" in a discussion is when I change my mind about something.
But of course anyone can say that. Actually doing it is harder. I do it publicly on HN about once every two days, and I specifically write an HN comment saying that I was wrong about something about every four or five days.
I've just read through the last month of your comments starting from https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=nindalf&next=4277862..., 28 comments in all, and have found zero instances of you admitting you were wrong about anything, zero instances of you saying you learned something from the people you were talking to, and zero instances of anyone thanking you for your comment.
So I think the ball is kind of in your court to show that you're "the kind of person who can engage in a discussion."
but in case of hate speech it is relatively clear in most cases what is and isn't hate speech even through people on both sides love to pretend it isn't
If people on different sides of political divides are investing a lot of effort in labeling one another's arguments as “hate speech”, which seems to be what you're saying, that sounds like pretty strong evidence that it is not in fact relatively clear what is and isn't hate speech. And, once a book, news article, or political platform has been successfully suppressed, it is of course no longer clear whether or not it was hate speech, because you can't tell what it said; you only know what its political opponents say about it.
In particular, right now, there are numerous credible claims of human rights violations by Israeli troops in Gaza, and widespread criticism of those violations is being labeled as anti-Semitic hate speech, correctly in some cases, while defenses of the same violations are being labeled as Islamophobic hate speech, also correctly in some cases.
These are among the reasons that hate speech is uncontroversially legal in the US.
What I am saying is that it doesn't matter weather people label others as hat speech or not because EU countries don't work by a curt of public opinion and convictions aren't based on this.
The regulations are about removing clear cases of hate speech, not about policing gray areas.
Like there is absolutely no reason to give someone who says all Jews of Muslims should be killed a platform. Or someone who main talking point is that Hitler didn't succeed in killing all, or people which systematically harass other people.
And more or less all of the things social platforms have to police are things _which anyway are already illegal_. It's just that due to the pseudo anonymity of the internet, internationalization, bots, sock puppet accounts and social platform having little reason to cooperate with the police persecuting such things in the traditional way isn't viable.
Sure making it viable would be nice, but I have to yet find a practical way which wouldn't be a form of mass surveillance much worse then such regulations.
Also both in past and presence there have been more then just a few examples about how not hindering hat speech will reliable kill innocents. There are larger examples like the genocide in Myanmar Facebook contributed to. Or smaller examples like recently a innocent teen being murdered by a mob because of people having been radicalized/riled up by hate speech on social media. Or if you want to go back to the 30th a huge part of why the Nazis gained power was that they could effectively spread hat speech and misinformation about how the Jews where at fault for everything bad (WW1, the depression in the 20th, the terms Germany had to accept at the end of WW1 etc.), or about the so called Stab-in-the-back myth, or about pseud science about how the "grate arian race" gets replaced and all mixed up etc.. The relevant part here is how effective they where able to spread this and make part of the population accept it, not whether they came up with it. (Other huge parts where that politics was too polarized to continue working and the previous conservatives helped him as an external person into power as they hoped to fix their issue of losing ground and unify Germany, in a very twisted way they did succeed, at cost of their own existence).
Often here in the UK if there's a problem with a particular, the first step in regulation is for the government to talk to the trade body representing the industry and basically say "Regulate yourselves, or be regulated"
Then, if they're sensible, the industry creates a code of conduct that addresses the problems that drew the attention of legislators, without being too onerous; all the main players in the industry sign up and follow it; and the government doesn't have to pass legislation.
Politicians are happy because the problem goes away, and regulatory burdens on industry don't increase. Industry is happy because they get soft-touch regulation that's under their control.
Putting aside the histrionics that Nazis are everywhere and about to kill everyone, does anyone have a good theory on why Elon would do this? Like is he just regressing to a 13 year old troll now? From the last few weeks you'd think he just went full clown. He's a 50 something year old man with 10 or 12 kids who apparently doesn't do much of anything besides troll people on Twitter, what's going on with this man?
I noted in a comment above that this type of behavior, "Lol, nothing matters" is exactly the kind of behavior described by Sartre in Anti-Semite and Jew about the behavior of actual brownshirts and blackshirts that this salute is meant to directly reference:
It isn't that this type of behavior is designed to get something, it's that the type of mindset, one that has decided not to care anymore, to reject nuance and embrace a kind of good-guy/bad-guy explanation of complex problem in the world, ultimately leading to bad faith engagement... well all that leads to this type of behavior.
The idea is that this type of action isn't trying to achieve anything, it's the result of a worldview.
How do you accurately determine when raising your arm is a Nazi salute and when not? If I raise my arm to hail a cab, what's stopping someone form accusing me of trying to hail Hitler?
To me, it's the context that determines that. From my PoV it looked like he was greeting/thanking the crowd. Plenty of other celebrities and athletes do the exact same gesture towards crowds all the time.
People are too quick to see nazism everywhere when they condition themselves for that. However, I also do see how it can be interpreted as a Nazi salute in this case.
Musk has a long history of anti-semitism [1], and has showed support to the AFD in Germany, a political party directly linked to neonazis. He knows some neonazi-adjacent guys usually attend Trump rallies, and this "nazi-ish salute" might be a dog whistle to catter to them.
Or it could not be, and he'll certainly deny it was. We'll never know for sure, that's how a dog whistle works.
From the third link, do you believe there are subtle differences between the two gestures that we're missing, or are you saying that Adolf himself failed and delivered a Roman salute instead of a Nazi one?
That's literally unambiguously a nazi salute. I've seen them before, from actual nazis. Because I am descended from one unfortunately.
It's shameful and at no point does any word play and excuse making around it make it ok. This needs to stop now. Right now.
Add to that the literal support for the far right parties definitely and conclusively aligned with nazi ideology, such as the AfD, it's terrible for everyone.
The ADL, who is defending him, is the world's foremost anti-neo-Nazi organization. If they say not to worry, I'm going to trust their judgment, even though the photos look pretty questionable to me as a layman.
The ADL have ended up in a weird place where the important thing to them is pro-Israel anti-Palestine policy, and everything is downstream from there.
The ADL last called out Musk for reinstating and awarding a tick to Kanye West after West made anti-semitic remarks which got him banned from Twitter. However, that's not as important to them as maintaining the war in Gaza.
I think you need to watch the videos not look at the photos as the videos show more unambiguous context and do not come with a narrative explaining them away. These are plain and simple nazi salutes.
actually if you understand a bit of the meaning behind the salute and how Nazis appropriated terms like "unify", "heal" and a "new beginning" [for Germany] then some of the quotes which they use to weaken the argument of it being a "Sieg Heil" actually strengthen it.
no and they never have been, outside of the US and US contextualized business not many even know what it even is
through it is maybe the worlds foremost anti-antisemitism organization
But in case you might have missed it some neo Nazis and many more non-nazi fascists have dropped their antisemitism from a core point to a not much talked about side point, blaming everything on jews is just currently not very effective. You also might have missed that Israels government hasn't been exactly anti-fascist in recent times. Giving their far right, fear driving, not so open for opposition government which is fine with committing war crimes they themself aren't that far away from fascism.
Fascism doesn't need antisemitism, it just happens to most times come with it.
b) There are leading Nazi experts who have said it is a Nazi salute.
c) ADL has far broader goals on its mind than what idiotic thing Musk does or doesn't do so their statement needs to be put in context and taken with a grain of salt.
If it's the ADL, they don't speak for everyone and they do not speak for me.
I'm literally German descended, living in the UK with little to no shit given about Trump whatsoever at all. This is Musk. What I do have a problem with is my friends and my families having a history going back nearly 100 years of misery, death and loss from the ideological constructs he's pushing for the last few years.
You can be a statesman and show respect, honour and decorum or you can be like that. There is no place in our political landscape anywhere for this.
So quite frankly stop gaslighting.
You need to understand that despite what people believe in the US, Europe is ideologically different and has a longer memory. There are literally reminders everywhere around us every day of last time.
So you've never read nazi propaganda, good for you.
Where do you think the 'great replacement' theory came from? Renaud Camus, unlike most far-right people, actually read books (I'm as surprised as you are, it's not in their culture), especially Charle Maurras, and reactualized the late 19th century theory, dressing up the most blatant anti-Semitism but keeping the meat.
What's interesting is that it is clear that Maurras is a way better writer than Renaud Camus, even if it's very dated. For the far-right of the 21st century, I don't expect much. The fact that they read is already impressive enough.
So you literally missed the bit where he was going on about antisemitic conspiracy theories being "the actual truth"? Crikey. Appears no one has any context these days.
c) endorsed a tweet saying that black people have inherently lower IQ.
d) perpetuated lies about companies prioritising diversity over safety.
There are hundreds of examples I could list. But suffice to say his ideologies have a significant overlap with the Nazi ideology. And the recent salutes should give you no delusion about what his inspiration is.
It's going to be really interesting to see how organizations, relying on funding and/or support from the government, will twist themselves to deny what is fairly evident in plain sight hoping to avoid retaliation in general. I'm not sure what Elon was doing/intending to do but the resemblance is uncanny. And he did it twice, just to make sure. The first time, I was like eh, could go either way, he's made unique and enthusiastic gestures in public before before. The second one was more troubling. Certainly the kind of thing that would get you tackled to the floor by German police officers. Even if unintentional, you'd have some time to think about it and some 'splaining to do.
The "hey, maybe he's just a bit overexcited and socially awkward with his gestures" excuse would also be a lot more plausible if it was about someone who hasn't spent the last couple of years giving written and verbal encouragement to the far right, who happened to be exactly the sort of person who would see a Nazi salute as a super clever gesture that owns the libs, is deniable to the parts of his fanbase that don't like Nazis, and meets with uproarious approval with the parts of his fanbase that like Nazis. A bit like when he was tweeting out his approval of interviews describing the holocaust as "humane" and then promptly deleting when called out on it or retweeting neo-Nazis talking about Jews' "dialectical hatred against whites" as "the actual truth" but then apologising for it. Sure, mentally he probably has more in common with a 13 year old carving swastikas into their school desk because it's edgy than Himmler, and his far right admirers hate his H1-B visa stance to the point he seems to be really overcompensating, but that doesn't mean we should act like it's a normal way for an adult with the ear of the president to be behaving.
> who hasn't spent the last couple of years giving written and verbal encouragement to the far right
Even this is underselling his actions. He's retweeted accounts of people who are openly neo-nazis, unbanned neo-nazis, tweeted many known nazi dogwhistles himself, and recently visited the German as-close-to-openly-neonazi-as-you-can-legally-be-in-Germany party.
I looked it up because I was curious. They are a politically active organization funded by individuals, corporations, donor-advised funds and foundations. Being a politically-engaged non-profit they do not disclose who their donors are. There's always risk of conflict between ideology and figuring out who's going to pay you to keep promoting it.
Elon musk did a sign that shows that he's a Nazi. There's no ambiguity, he did the sign the neo-nazis do and it's instantly recognizable. That's my reading of the situation, with my education and background (I grew up & went to school in Sweden) - I mention the background to say that this is how the sign is interpreted where I come from.
Even more revealing are the people offering excuses / brushing this and other things off – they are either naive (or have not been following Musk's comments about the AfD etc.) or knowingly acting in bad-faith. If there is one small positive about these political times, it's that we're finding out who the authoritarian / far-right sympathisers are.
it's interpreted everywhere that way(1) except if fascists are asked to take responsibility for their action which is when it was somehow just a strange accident
(1) through I would say it's interpreted as Nazi idolizing fascists in many situations which isn't quite exactly the same as Nazi but not necessary any better either
"The Roman salute, also known as the Fascist salute,"
Also from the link:
"However, no Roman text describes such a gesture, and the Roman works of art that display salutational gestures bear little resemblance to the modern so-called "Roman" salute."
But relevant questions are: Is that salute normalized now? Is the era between WW2 and present going to end?
>"The Roman salute, also known as the Fascist salute,"
Yes, post-WWII "thanks" to fascists.
As I've said in a different comment: I'm not saying this is somehow "ok" now or that Musk didn't do what he did. My point is that people see one's stupidity and immaturity as something bigger than it actually is.
placement of hand before doing the salute is that of the Hitler salute
even his speech before indicates it's a Hitler salute:
"This is a new beginning. Let’s hope for healing and work toward unity in the months and years ahead"
Now this part needs a bit more explanation: The Hitler salute proper name is "Sieg Heil" which yes meas to "Hail!" someone. But it also literally translated means "victory heal".
The meaning here was to "heal" Germany (which include taking over territories in the twisted interpretation of Nazis) but also to "heal" Germany (from Jews, queer people, disabled people etc. by killing them. It also was all about creating a unified fascist Germany under Hitler. It was also about projecting power and that it's a new Germany.
I.e. "new beginning/new Germany", "heal", "unify", "let's make it grate again" (to use modern lingo) where the core aspects of "Sieg Heil" just with very perfidy interpretations of heal and unify. But then taking otherwise well meaning symbolism (e.g. the swastika) and then appropriating it and turning it into something evil was the standard mode of operation of Nazis.
So he makes a Hitler salute after saying things which Hitler (in slightly different words due to language changing over time) would have said (before going full maks off let's kill all yews).
I rally don't know how anyone could interpret it as not being a nazi salute, that would be supper naive/self blinding/foolish.
Now the more interesting interpretation is does it mean he is a Nazi?
Well probably no.
Nazi is a very specific term, and there are many other kinds of fascism which aren't Nazis (which to be clear "different" doesn't contain a judgement. It neither implies "better" nor "worse").
Through what it is is a very clear statement of "I'm a fascist" and/or "I idolizes at least some aspects of Nazi Germany".
Which, let's be honest, shouldn't surprise anyone who followed what he was doing in roughly the last year.
Trump's entire campaign ran on curbing immigration, closing the borders and deportation of illegal immigrants. The one exception to that (the H-1B story) caused a lot of upheaval in his base. Among the many crazy things he said were things like people having to go out and vote for the last time, that he will be a dictator for a day, and calling his political opponents vermin. I'll just mention Project 2025 and his former wife mentioning that he's had a book of Hitler speeches by his bedside in passing.
Among the first acts on his first day as president he shuts down an app that helped people immigrate legally.
The first swath of Biden era executive orders rescinded[1] includes migration related ones to now loosen and reduce oversight and enable more heavy handed treatment of the matter, creating the foundation to conduct the type of raids that started happening the second he was certified[2].
Then at his inauguration this unfortunate little mishap occurs. Twice, mind you. By a man who continually promotes and enables alt-right ideology.
If you squint really, really hard, it's a dog whistle. That's the best case scenario. For everyone else, Elon Musk unambiguously performed a Nazi salute.
The absence of this moment from alt-right safe spaces like r/conservative and the X/Twitter feeds of prominent influencers despite the fact that their user base seems to have loved it is, in itself, a story worth telling.
You might not agree with these policies, but they are defensible, sensible policies and not that much different from polices and statements under Obama.
Initially Hitler Germany also, at least to the outside, pushed a position of them just wanting to "deport" Jews outside of Germany. They then decided to instead place them
into forced labor camps to extract value out of them while slowly working them to death and later (but not much later) they also started with the industrialized mass killing in death camps.
Similar before murdering Jews they started with going after disabled people and then queer people as this was part of their idea of healing (i.e purging) Germany.
Not saying the US will treat immigrants like Nazi Germany did treat Jews, that would be dump.
But given how they have a profit orientated prison system which more or less forced people to extremely underplayed work and how being an illegal immigrant is a crime and given how some US companies are looking for replacing "cheap labor" from China with something else more under their control I would still be worried.
yes, no one wanted to take a huge blob of people which where forced to leaf while leaving their wealth behind, forced to sell any properties or similar they had for dumping prices etc.
_which is something EVERYONE involved knew before Nazi Germany "tried" to deport them_
but do you really think things will be much different just because the "large blob of not-wealthy people" are not Jews?
I mean sure it will be a bit different, like there likely will be less systematic disowning of wealth (but then it's hard to imagine Trump not trying to fine and deport them and US police not confiscating money they have (like abuse of civil seizure is AFIK a huge problem in some US states). And for those who have a Mexican passport or similar Trump might be able to force Mexico to take them back.
But we are speaking about so many people that there will be thousands or more likely tens of thousand where you can't just place them back where they came from, weather it's because you don't know where they came from or that place simply not taking them back as long as you can't proof they are from there which you often can't.
Then what you do with them? You already arrested them, treated them as pretty bad criminals, right? So you place them in prison. Except prisons are full, so you create new camps, eh prisons, for them and then for money saving you make just a few of them where you concentrate all the refuges in... congratulation you just reinvented the core concept of concentration camps. Now here is a thing, the use has a problem with forced labor and all this people need to be feed and they can't work freely, so what do you do, you force them to work to reduce the cost of such camps. Now we are at the early state of Nazi Concentration camps (not to be confused with Nazi death camps).
But you still have the problem of a huge blob of people you can't let go or bring anywhere and pretending it's "just" forced prison labor will only work for so long. A nasty problem to solve where most solutions are either expensive or evil and inhuman (even more so then what I described before). Or in other (Nazi) terms you need a final solution.
Anyway my point isn't that Trump will build death camps, even if we do for a moment assume he is evil enough to do so he has no reason to do so. And Nazi Germany didn't create industrialized death camps because they wanted to do the most evil shit they can imagine, but because that seems for them the most practical way to get ride of all Jews. Same for the non-death camp concentration camps, they where created for practical reason, too. (Which doesn't make it less evil.)
So the point here are two:
- the "only deport them" thing of Nazis was all just make pretend, excuses for the public allowing Nazis to then do much worse things "because there is no other choice". Other countries not wanting to take them was well known beforehand and part of the plan.
- doing huge mass deportations in any even just somewhat human way is basically never practically possible, and it's a steep slippery slop where you easily can end up with concentration camps, even if such camps aren't created with the intend of genocide they are still a huge issue
Now the lucky part is: Trump probably can somewhat reach his goals with just deporting a small fraction of the people he claims he will deport. And doing so would be much cheaper for the US. The unlucky part is "immigrant prison camps with forced labor" is more profitable for a few people running this "prisons" and Trump seem to not care about the health of the US as a whole (at lest there is no other way I can interpret him nuking the bipartisan passed bill to at lest slightly fix US infrastructure and drink water quality issues, well except if you nuke it because you expect to have thousands of cheap forced labor soon...).
To extend on the parallels: Project 2025 sets the foundation for persecuting queer people. The Project 2025 mandate both suggests categorizing gender affirming care for children as child abuse (p 5) and suggests the death penalty for, among other things, child abuse (p 554).
In conspiracy and qanon circles leaders of the left and basically anyone voicing dissenting views have been labelled as pedophiles for years (while Trump's presence on Epstein's flight logs, pictures of Trump/Musk with Epstein and Maxwell continue to be ignored and explained away) and this I fear creates enough ambiguity to not only cause a lot of harm to those affected, but to abuse these policies and go after political enemies for supporting/enabling these now outlawed things.
As someone from Germany, the whole Project 2025 document reads like a nightmare come true again, but this bit in particular mirrors the past in the most dreadful ways.
The Project 2025 that he disavowed until he didn't, of which the writers are sitting in his cabinet[1], and the policies are getting implemented with executive orders right now?
I don't have a subscription to the nytimes, any chance you could copy paste from the article any specific names and measures that line up between his EOs and project 2025 please?
What I read is that Musk believes Tesla has reached a point where they have enough economies of scale and mature enough processes and infrastructure that they can sell
at a price without subsidies that is competitive with non-EVs and still makes them a nice profit.
His competitors are still taking a loss on their EV sales, and he believes that they cannot afford to lower prices and so the loss of subsidies will greatly harm them.
Even if the loss of subsidies do reduce the number of EVs sold per year, Tesla stands to get a larger percentage of that market.
As far as I can tell Elon seem to have lost interest and doesn't care much anymore about Tesla as a Car company the moment where he realized it likely will be just one of many E-Car companies and he likely won't win the race to full self driving in any in a larger picture dominant way.
But Trump in the past multiple times said more or less "he will stop EV mandates and move the subventions over to battery development and production". I.e. if he doesn't just do the first half it means subventions move from profiting a variety to car companies to mainly profiting Tesla(as a battery company).
the Cybertruck was a PR disaster and isn't exactly a "new product" either, in my opinion this change of heart came a bit after the release of the Cybertruck
It's a testbed for new innovations at Tesla and halo product designed to attract attention, not a mass market product. Especially since it's not globally available officially due to regulations on safety, it makes it a highly desirable status symbol due to this exclusivity.
Halo products are important for brands as they seed the perception over the rest of the models of the brand, becoming viral free advertising. Same why Mercedes races in F1 even though their F1 cars and related tech have nothing in common with the road cars.
The Cybertruck is whatever the opposite of a halo product is, a lemon that is becoming a byword for badly thought out design when a leader is allowed to go unchallenged.
The market might disagree with your take. Plenty of exotics like the Lamborghini Countach, Ferrari F40 and Porsche Carrera GT had some crazy design faults that would cause expensive reliability issues or could even get the driver killed (see the Paul Walker case), and that didn't hinder their high desirability or valuation, quite the contrary. That's the power of a a halo product.
Notice the vigor with which he performs the action, notice how the fingers in his hand start spread out but by the time he's erected his hand they are held together as in the reference video.
do you remember 10 years ago when google promised only to tackle cp with their sensorship? and what happened in 2020-2023? all non-pharmaprofital messages were banned, deleted or flagged. Even 100% facts and even questions. wilder than in nz germany.
There are already dozens of politicans in eu who has been convited of hate speech when all they did was publish public statistics of rpe crimes or vio1ence.
Why the government officials are not working to prevent actual physical crimes that ruin the rest of the lives of so many young children around the europe?
you argument is basically nit picking negative aspects from one side, sometimes taking out of context, too, and then pretending you paint a very clear picture when in fact you do not
Firstly wrt. YouToube censorship a lot is abuse of the copyright system YT doesn't care about because it doesn't make them money. There is still ton's of "non-pharmaprofital" content and similar on YT which wouldn't be there if YT would systematically censor it.
Wrt. politicians while people tend put all kinds of labels onto politicians being "convicted" of hate speech is a very different thing. Not only is it not very common, but in close to all case I had looked into it was done very rightfully so. It's just that after the conviction some (most times) right wing propaganda sources love to ignore a lot of the fundamental aspects/claims/arguments the legal process was based on and then focused on some partial side point which by itself isn't enough to convict anyone for anything and pretends they where convinced for that.
And if you would be you I wouldn't write "even just questions". Because questions aren't necessary any less hate speech then non question. E.g. holocaust denier love to formulate their conspiracy theories in questions (and naturally will ignore or claim fake news if someone answers their questions). But just because you formulate a conspiracy theory as a row of question doesn't make it not a conspiracy theory. And the same for hate speech. You always have to take more then just a sentence into context, something legal proceedings tend to do, and something people hit by such proceedings tend to claim they don't.
In general YT "censorship" as in people abusing the copyright system and similar approaches to "take down" content they don't like is an issue, one which spawns to Google and other places, too.
But giving how much mis-information, propaganda and non-pharmaprofitable information and similar you find on YT _even if you are not looking for it_ claiming that there is a huge problem with systematic censorship _today_ is kinda dump. (Yes in the pandemic there had been and issue, for a short time, before it got replaced by banners. It was a very unusual station no one was quite sure how to handle and people did make mistakes. But taking a short period in history and pretending nothing else change since then when a lot changed isn't very useful).
It’s time we start calling these things what they really are: censorship platforms.
They have declared themselves the arbiters of what is or isn’t true, and censor anything that doesn’t align with their views, right or wrong.
At one point YouTube was censoring videos telling people to wear masks, as it contravened the government’s recommendations (who were lying to preserve mask availability for healthcare workers).
Build and use alternatives. Tell your friends and favorite content creators to stop donating content for free to these censorship platforms.
The alternative is moderation only on content (CP for example) and not on speech (save for crimes like death threats and so on).
The more you censor speech the more radicalized people become against the system setting that censorship. It becomes a self perpetuating feedback loop.
> and not on speech save for crimes(death threats and so on).
Dealing with speech that is, actively encourages, or supports (or engenders fear of in potential victims)¹, such crimes, is exactly what this is trying to get the companies to address.
----
[1] That list being the battery/assault/affray equivalents of hate speech
> > could directly lead to
> "Could lead to" is a slippery slope
Bad wording on my part, to an extent due to trying to make the battery/assault/affray comparison match better. I've edited it to “directly encourages”, though that is still vague enough to be accused of being the start of a slippery slope.
I know why people worry about the slippery slope, and you should be able to say anything but not expect zero comeback (“free speech, but not speech free of consequences” and all that), so until/unless there are practical consequences (is anyone working on slap-over-IPv4?) we need to compromise and start blocking things somewhere along that slope.
No, in France it specifically refers to "Harmful speech targeted toward individuals or groups on the basis of intrisinc characteristics [to this group], that may threaten social peace." [1]
If your particular political ideology requires this sort of speech, you should probably do some introspection.
This is already a political position - you might consider something is harmful to a particular group, but I might view this as the opposite. I think it's very easy to see a practical example of this..
That's why we have a text of law and jurists that came up with more rigorous definitions. I basically gave you the shortest tldr of a tldr of the subject. I can only recommend you read up on it more, because this really isn't the censorship tool you make it up to be.
I see how this is used in practice. I don't know about France, but in Poland both sides use that label when convenient, and of course they refer to completely different things, yet always done by their political opponents.
I won't go this route. If you're planning to label views shared by 30% of voters as "hate speech" then I alredy disagree. Like I said, this is a political position.
You can advocate for conservative policies without calling black people the n-word or telling trans people to hang themeselves. And you're certainly not going to get in trouble for anything less than that, so I really don't see what you're whining about. Hate speech is what it says on the label, if you feel like it is an essential part of your particular ideology, then I find it repugnant and so does our laws. It's a political position just as making it illegal to murder political opponents is a political position.
you argument is basically "everything is a political position"
which defeats your original argument because if everything is a political position practically it's no different to nothing being a political position and as such
and sure application of law in practice is never perfect
but that doesn't mean we should allow people to systematically harass others on the internet, or systematically spread misinformation which is intended to cause deformation of whole groups of people, or calls for violence against people or propaganda with the intend to create more violent racism, etc.
If you have the half of the country strongly disagreeing with you, then.. it is. There's no other criteria...
Of course I can only guess we also disagree on what "misinformation", "propaganda" and even "racism" are. So in practice, I can't agree with any of your conclusion.
idk. but in the country I live the majority more or less agrees with my stance, and things are quite similar in a lot of EU countries and this was about EU regulations...
More seriously, I don't see how those companies can enforce this while not severing US users from EU users. They'll probably just ignore it anyway.
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/meta-immigration-gender-policies...