Punishing censorship on social media: what do you think?

[Estro Felino]

A 500 thousand euros fine will be issued to any social platform that violates the article 21 of the Italian Constitution, by censoring people's speech arbitrarily or by preventing someone from expressing their political or religious views:
Social, "multa da 500mila euro a chi censura": la proposta di Fdi


Article 21 Italian Constitution:
Anyone has the right to freely express their thoughts in speech, writing, or any other form of communication. The press may not be subjected to any authorization or censorship.

I mean...this means that unlike some other state in the Western World, our freedom of speech (called freedom of thought) is much wider.

The article is in Italian. Here the translation with Google

Against new Trump-like cases, fines for "digital platforms" and "telematic social networks"

Fine of 500 thousand euros for "digital platforms" and "telematic social networks" that are responsible for "discriminatory" or "detrimental" behavior to "equal treatment" and "free expression of thought". This is foreseen in a draft law by the Brothers of Italy filed in the Chamber on 11 January, which has the objective of guaranteeing "transparency and equal treatment in the management and dissemination of information and news of social and political significance" on websites and social networks, who - reads the text, which Adnkronos was able to view - are also obliged to remove from the same platforms "the news concerning people and facts that date back to more than ten years before the date of entry into force of the law" upon request of the interested party, except for some cases (homicide, serious and very serious personal injuries, crimes against minors and the mafia).
For the signatories of the bill, the FDI deputies Sara Kelany and Francesco Filini , it is "necessary" to shine a light on the "dysfunctional dynamics" affecting the system of communication on the web , where the managers of the platforms "pose, in substance, to 'masters' of the contents that are conveyed through them, applying their own rules of conduct even in spite of the internal regulations of the States they operate in. This - write the parliamentarians of the Brothers of Italy - also for the obvious purpose to orient the political message, mainly bringing out and making accessible a certain type of content to the detriment of others deemed less worthy of dissemination".

According to the exponents of Giorgia Meloni's party, the behavior of the managers of the platforms "has now taken on intolerable forms": just think of the case of the former President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, "censored indefinitely by Twitter with one click" (among other things, the tycoon's lawyers have asked for the reactivation of his Facebook page in the last few days, ed). "Is it acceptable, in a democratic system, that with a simple 'sweep in the sponge' given by the big tech of communication, a political opponent can be suddenly silenced without the possibility of appeal?", ask Kelany and Filini, who invoke " well-defined embankments" and "insurmountable stakes to the censorship drifts we are witnessing".

The risk that "minority and non-compliant thinking" will be sacrificed is very high, the two Fdi deputies remarked, "also due to the fact that the oligarchy that owns the platforms is the bearer of specific and recognizable reference values". Kelany and Filini point the finger at the use that social platforms make of 'bots': in summary, for Fdi, an algorithm cannot be entrusted with "the ability to analyze what lies behind a complex political message".

The Fdi bill introduces the obligation for social platform managers "to guarantee each user the free expression of their thoughts, in compliance with article 21 of the Constitution and with the only limits imposed by current criminal legislation", as well as the obligation to "follow specific criteria of transparency and proportionality" in the management of news and profiles with social and political relevance, contents that must be evaluated by natural persons and no longer by 'bots'.

The platforms will therefore have to keep registers containing "all the data collected in carrying out the checks on the contents", with the obligation to transmit them to Agcom and to the Privacy Guarantor on a quarterly basis. In the event of non-compliance with the provisions, sanctions are envisaged ranging "from a warning for incorrect behavior to the temporary blackout of the website", as well as a fine of 500 thousand euros "for any discriminatory behavior or behavior harmful to equal treatment and the freedom manifestation of thought".

The bill also contains a chapter on the right to be forgotten, with the obligation for platform managers to remove "news concerning people and facts that date back more than ten years before the date of entry into force of this law, on request by the interested party and with the exception of cases of homicide, serious and very serious personal injuries, crimes against minors and those cases in which the mafia aggravating circumstance exists". Cases such as corruption and terrorism remain excluded: in fact, those convicted of this type of crime could request the removal of information concerning them.

"But our proposal, like all the others, is open to possible modifications by Parliament. Parliamentary dialectic is used precisely for this, to evaluate aspects for improvement and corrections", replies to Adnkronos the deputy Kelany, first signatory of the pdl, who he summarizes the meaning of his initiative thus: " Freedom and rights are the cornerstones of a modern and mature democracy. These issues have always been close to the heart of the Fdi".

(by Antonio Atte)

Do you agree? Express your views. Thank you, dears.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

A 500 thousand euros fine will be issued to any social platform that violates the article 21 of the Italian Constitution, by censoring people's speech arbitrarily or by preventing someone from expressing their political or religious views:
Social, "multa da 500mila euro a chi censura": la proposta di Fdi


Article 21 Italian Constitution:
Anyone has the right to freely express their thoughts in speech, writing, or any other form of communication. The press may not be subjected to any authorization or censorship.

I mean...this means that unlike some other state in the Western World, our freedom of speech (called freedom of thought) is much wider.

Do you agree? Express your views. Thank you, dears.

On the contrary, I'd say that censorship, though it can spin out of control, isn't one of our main worries in the US. It's propaganda. And how do you curb dangerous propaganda without censorship?

 

[Estro Felino]

On the contrary, I'd say that censorship, though it can spin out of control, isn't one of our main worries in the US. It's propaganda. And how do you curb dangerous propaganda without censorship?

What propaganda?
One is free to say that horses can fly or that kobolds and mermaids exist.
What's the problem?

 

[Stevicus]

A 500 thousand euros fine will be issued to any social platform that violates the article 21 of the Italian Constitution, by censoring people's speech arbitrarily or by preventing someone from expressing their political or religious views:
Social, "multa da 500mila euro a chi censura": la proposta di Fdi


Article 21 Italian Constitution:
Anyone has the right to freely express their thoughts in speech, writing, or any other form of communication. The press may not be subjected to any authorization or censorship.

I mean...this means that unlike some other state in the Western World, our freedom of speech (called freedom of thought) is much wider.

Do you agree? Express your views. Thank you, dears.

I think it goes back to the purpose and perception of these social media platforms and whether they should be considered publishers or utilities. If they are a utility, then they are prohibited from denying service for arbitrary reasons. A utility can't cut off someone's water or electricity just because they don't like their politics. By the same token, the utility is free from any liability if one of their customers misbehaves. Current U.S. law also limits the liability of internet companies (section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act).

So, if they're free from any liability, there's no real legal or business-related reason for restricting or censoring any content which someone might post on their platform, unless it breaks the threshold of "clear and present danger," which is the only acceptable pretext for limiting speech. Absent that, any form of censorship practiced by these companies comes across as arbitrary, whimsical, and capricious. They act more as publishers with a political bias, as opposed to neutral facilitators and utilities. That is, of course, their right under current law, but the law appears to be wishy-washy on this particular issue. They need to pick either one or the other and stick to it: Utility or publisher? That's where the core of this dispute lies.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think it goes back to the purpose and perception of these social media platforms and whether they should be considered publishers or utilities. If they are a utility, then they are prohibited from denying service for arbitrary reasons. A utility can't cut off someone's water or electricity just because they don't like their politics. By the same token, the utility is free from any liability if one of their customers misbehaves. Current U.S. law also limits the liability of internet companies (section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act).

So, if they're free from any liability, there's no real legal or business-related reason for restricting or censoring any content which someone might post on their platform, unless it breaks the threshold of "clear and present danger," which is the only acceptable pretext for limiting speech. Absent that, any form of censorship practiced by these companies comes across as arbitrary, whimsical, and capricious. They act more as publishers with a political bias, as opposed to neutral facilitators and utilities. That is, of course, their right under current law, but the law appears to be wishy-washy on this particular issue. They need to pick either one or the other and stick to it: Utility or publisher? That's where the core of this dispute lies.

They don't decide what they are. If they want to provide a country with a service, they need to abide by the law of that country. The Civil Code here says they are service providers (so utilities).

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

What propaganda?
One is free to say that horses can fly or that kobolds and mermaids exist.
What's the problem?

Because there is also some medical propaganda in the US which, if followed, can harm a person's health.

 

[Estro Felino]

Because there is also some medical propaganda in the US which, if followed, can harm a person's health.

Usually people go to someone who has a medicine degree to be informed about health, I guess.
They don't go read stuff on social media.

 

[Kenny]

A 500 thousand euros fine will be issued to any social platform that violates the article 21 of the Italian Constitution, by censoring people's speech arbitrarily or by preventing someone from expressing their political or religious views:
Social, "multa da 500mila euro a chi censura": la proposta di Fdi


Article 21 Italian Constitution:
Anyone has the right to freely express their thoughts in speech, writing, or any other form of communication. The press may not be subjected to any authorization or censorship.

I mean...this means that unlike some other state in the Western World, our freedom of speech (called freedom of thought) is much wider.

The article is in Italian. Here the translation with Google



Do you agree? Express your views. Thank you, dears.

As with all things, there are pros and cons. I say BRAVISSIMO - and then curb the cons by laws that prevent libel..

To go the other route is to open the door to thought control (as we see in Canada)

 

[PureX]

A 500 thousand euros fine will be issued to any social platform that violates the article 21 of the Italian Constitution, by censoring people's speech arbitrarily or by preventing someone from expressing their political or religious views:
Social, "multa da 500mila euro a chi censura": la proposta di Fdi


Article 21 Italian Constitution:
Anyone has the right to freely express their thoughts in speech, writing, or any other form of communication. The press may not be subjected to any authorization or censorship.

I mean...this means that unlike some other state in the Western World, our freedom of speech (called freedom of thought) is much wider.

The article is in Italian. Here the translation with Google



Do you agree? Express your views. Thank you, dears.

First, thought and speech are not the same things, and if your government can't understand this, then they need a tutorial.

Second, you're claiming that this new sensorship order is to be applied "arbitrarily", which I very much doubt.

So until you can clear your own mind of animosity, and clarify more accurately what is being proposed, and what your objection to it is, then it's pointless to try and discuss it.

 

[Estro Felino]

First, thought and speech are not the same things, and if your government can't understand this, then they need a tutorial.

Second, you're claiming that this new sensorship order is to be applied "arbitrarily", which I very much doubt.

So until you can clear your own mind of animosity, and clarify more accurately what is being proposed, and what your objection to it is, then it's pointless to try and discuss it.

If you have read the article (when I have time I can translate it properly...but you can use Google Chrome) ...the bill refers to the Trump-Twitter case.
It says that is an example of arbitrary and unjustified censorship.

 

[Estro Felino]

First, thought and speech are not the same things, and if your government can't understand this, then they need a tutorial.
.

We are Napoleonic juridical school.
If you explain me the difference between freedom of thought and freedom of speech, I will be grateful to you.
I can't see any difference.

 

[Estro Felino]

As with all things, there are pros and cons. I say BRAVISSIMO - and then curb the cons by laws that permit libel..

To go the other route is to open the door to thought control (as we see in Canada)

This is an example of unjustified and arbitrary censorship

 

[Wildswanderer]

A 500 thousand euros fine will be issued to any social platform that violates the article 21 of the Italian Constitution, by censoring people's speech arbitrarily or by preventing someone from expressing their political or religious views:
Social, "multa da 500mila euro a chi censura": la proposta di Fdi


Article 21 Italian Constitution:
Anyone has the right to freely express their thoughts in speech, writing, or any other form of communication. The press may not be subjected to any authorization or censorship.

I mean...this means that unlike some other state in the Western World, our freedom of speech (called freedom of thought) is much wider.

The article is in Italian. Here the translation with Google



Do you agree? Express your views. Thank you, dears.

It's better than the thought police we have had up till now.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Usually people go to someone who has a medicine degree to be informed about health, I guess.
They don't go read stuff on social media.

Do you have any proof of that statement?

That doesn't seem to always be the case in my country.

 

[Soandso]

Usually people go to someone who has a medicine degree to be informed about health, I guess.
They don't go read stuff on social media.

Ehhh, that's not been my experience. One side of my family are pretty heavy science deniers. They tried to give my 86 year old grandma ivermectin instead of taking her to the hospital after she got covid

Thankfully it took too long to come in the mail so she instead got the medical treatment she needed when someone else brought her to the hospital

 

[PureX]

We are Napoleonic juridical school.
If you explain me the difference between freedom of thought and freedom of speech, I will be grateful to you.
I can't see any difference.

It's very simple. I am free to think anything. Period. And no one can stop me because no one can control my mind. I am not free to say anything I think, however, because it is possible for someone else to stop me.

So, we need to regulate what we say in a collective society just as we need to regulate any other behavior in a collective society. And if we are wise, we will do so based on the goal of maintaining peace, unity, and equality within that collective society.

That means we do not have the right to say or do anything we want, and neither does anyone else in our society so as to equally protect us each from being harmed by another. And it is possible to harm someone through but speech and action. (Speech IS a form of action.)

For example we do not have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater just because we think it's funny. People may well be injured as a result, and we can be prosecuted for the harm we caused them by our speech.

We can also harm other people by telling lies about them that cost them income or opportunities that they were otherwise expected to receive.

These are just two common examples, but there are many others. People use speech to do each other harm, often, and given certain conditions, doing so is a crime that can be prosecuted.

I doubt that Italy has no such similar laws, even though you keep insisting that it does not. Because every society has learned through time that certain laws need to be in place and enforced to maintain the peace and cohesion of their respective societies.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's very simple. I am free to think anything. Period. And no one can stop me because no one can control my mind. I am not free to say anything I think, however, because it is possible for someone else to stop me.

So, we need to regulate what we say in a collective society just as we need to regulate any other behavior in a collective society. And if we are wise, we will do so based on the goal of maintaining peace, unity, and equality within that collective society.

That means we do not have the right to say or do anything we want, and neither does anyone else in our society so as to equally protect us each from being harmed by another. And it is possible to harm someone through but speech and action. (Speech IS a form of action.)

For example we do not have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater just because we think it's funny. People may well be injured as a result, and we can be prosecuted for the harm we caused them by our speech.

We can also harm other people by telling lies about them that cost them income or opportunities that they were otherwise expected to receive.

These are just two common examples, but there are many others. People use speech to do each other harm, often, and given certain conditions, doing so is a crime that can be prosecuted.

I doubt that Italy has no such similar laws, even though you keep insisting that it does not. Because every society has learned through time that certain laws need to be in place and enforced to maintain the peace and cohesion of their respective societies.

In abstract, this speech is absolutely flawless.
But I would like to speak of specific, factual cases: like the Twitter case, where employees have confessed that they used to censor people who would spread "right-wing ideas", even if completely harmless.

The Italian draft bill is referring to such social media.

 

[wellwisher]

On the contrary, I'd say that censorship, though it can spin out of control, isn't one of our main worries in the US. It's propaganda. And how do you curb dangerous propaganda without censorship?

Dangerous propaganda works much better, if you can censor those who will undermine the scam, using their right to free speech.

For example, the Twitter files show us how the Democrat led Swamp used dangerous propaganda to keep the Hunter Biden Laptop story quiet, just before the midterms election, by calling it Russian propaganda. This propaganda was dangerous since it involved election interference which is dangerous to Democracy. What benefits the Swamp is not automatically good for all.

To make that and any dangerous propaganda work, they had to censor free speech connected to anyone who could undermine their scam. It was taboo to interfere in their dangerous propaganda. If we had had free speech, this may not have become as big an issue, since the very people, who were censored, would fight the scan, and may have changed the outcome.

The more common fear of free speech, is that weak minded people will whine too much, some will melt like ice cream in July and some will overreact and hurt others. To maintain free speech we may need a way to protect the weak minded from themselves. For example, if one whines too much, or gets too angry or obsessed, due to mental confusion, caused by free speech, we can give them a time out, so they can cool off; shadow banding some sites for one day. Then they go back to full free speech. This time out can occur as many times as needed to help them become stronger minded. The goal is to help them handle anything, and not just become a pile of mush, or a zombie with rabies looking for an excuse to feed.

It makes more sense to help strengthen the weak minded, so we all can tolerate totally free speech. If you cannot handle all thoughts, there are other places that will be better for you. Do not gravitate to what pushes your buttons, unless the goal is to expressed emotions or to become desensitized. St Paul said; "All things are lawful, but not all thing edify. All things are lawful, but I will not be mastered by anything." We worry most about those who get mastered by words and ideas; they can lose control.

We may also need to make sure Big Government is not running Swamp scams. This can be done with mandatory punishment, that has no statute of limitations. Like with the dangerous propaganda of the Biden laptop, now that the scam is well known, the criminals would be rounded up, and placed in prison as a future deterrent. As long as they can escapes justice, we will need full free speech to fight back.

 

[PureX]

In abstract, this speech is absolutely flawless.
But I would like to speak of specific, factual cases: like the Twitter case, where employees have confessed that they used to censor people who would spread "right-wing ideas", even if completely harmless.

The Italian draft bill is referring to such social media.

Twitter is a private company providing a service. They are allowed to regulate that process to best provide that service. The same way a fancy restaurant can deny service if you are't wearing a jacket and tie. The dress code is part of the service they are selling. And it is part of the service other people are paying for. So the provider has a right to regulate that service to the liking of their customers.

The vast majority of Twitter users (costomers) do not want to put up with a few toxic extremists, and the company had the right to regulate the service it provides and charges them for, accordingly.
It's no different than my being asked to leave a restaurant because I'm not wearing a shirt or shoes. I am behaving antithetically to the service the restaurant provides, and is charging other customers for. If they let me in, they are in effect cheating their other customers.

 

[Revoltingest]

A 500 thousand euros fine will be issued to any social platform that violates the article 21 of the Italian Constitution, by censoring people's speech arbitrarily or by preventing someone from expressing their political or religious views:
Social, "multa da 500mila euro a chi censura": la proposta di Fdi


Article 21 Italian Constitution:
Anyone has the right to freely express their thoughts in speech, writing, or any other form of communication. The press may not be subjected to any authorization or censorship.

I mean...this means that unlike some other state in the Western World, our freedom of speech (called freedom of thought) is much wider.

The article is in Italian. Here the translation with Google



Do you agree? Express your views. Thank you, dears.

If someone dislikes the terms of service on
any social media platform, don't sign up.
Some censorship is useful.
Would you want posters on RF being able
to profanely abuse each other without limit?

Some platforms allow more leeway, or they
censor in different ways. Diversity rules.

BTW, I wonder if Italy is really as bad or
extreme as you post about it.