US Bars Five Europeans It Says Pressured Tech Firms To Censor American Viewpoints Online (apnews.com) 169
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press: The State Department announced Tuesday it was barring five Europeans it accused of leading efforts to pressure U.S. tech firms to censor or suppress American viewpoints. The Europeans, characterized by Secretary of State Marco Rubio as "radical" activists and "weaponized" nongovernmental organizations, fell afoul of a new visa policy announced in May to restrict the entry of foreigners deemed responsible for censorship of protected speech in the United States. "For far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose," Rubio posted on X. "The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship."
The five Europeans were identified by Sarah Rogers, the under secretary of state for public diplomacy, in a series of posts on social media. [...] The five Europeans named by Rogers are: Imran Ahmed, chief executive of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate; Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg, leaders of HateAid, a German organization; Clare Melford, who runs the Global Disinformation Index; and former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton, who was responsible for digital affairs. Rogers in her post on X called Breton, a French business executive and former finance minister, the "mastermind" behind the EU's Digital Services Act, which imposes a set of strict requirements designed to keep internet users safe online. This includes flagging harmful or illegal content like hate speech. She referred to Breton warning Musk of a possible "amplification of harmful content" by broadcasting his livestream interview with Trump in August 2024 when he was running for president.
The five Europeans were identified by Sarah Rogers, the under secretary of state for public diplomacy, in a series of posts on social media. [...] The five Europeans named by Rogers are: Imran Ahmed, chief executive of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate; Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg, leaders of HateAid, a German organization; Clare Melford, who runs the Global Disinformation Index; and former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton, who was responsible for digital affairs. Rogers in her post on X called Breton, a French business executive and former finance minister, the "mastermind" behind the EU's Digital Services Act, which imposes a set of strict requirements designed to keep internet users safe online. This includes flagging harmful or illegal content like hate speech. She referred to Breton warning Musk of a possible "amplification of harmful content" by broadcasting his livestream interview with Trump in August 2024 when he was running for president.
Why does US care what EU censors? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the US viewpoint the "only true viewpoint" for the entire world?
Will it be fine if EU starts demanding that particular European views to be propagated within the US?
Re:Why does US care what EU censors? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not even about the EU censoring anything. The only one from EU (the government part) is former commissioner Thierry Breton, who isn't barred for censorship (was never part of his duty), but for overseeing lawmaking and regulatory processes that Trump sees as unfavourable to US companies (e.g. Digital Markets and Digital Services Acts, the ones regularly called against practices of Apple or Meta). The others are heads of non-governmental organisations, i.e. not the EU by definition, and not doing censorship, though exercising their own free speech and defending their opinions (e.g. against fake news, against hate speech).
Re:Why does US care what EU censors? (Score:5, Insightful)
These are NGOs. It's their right to call "hate speech" or "fake news" whatever they don't like. Free speech works both ways.
Re: (Score:3)
Free speech works both ways.
Authoritarianism and Fascism does not.
Re: (Score:2)
Test321 said: "It's their right to call "hate speech" or "fake news" whatever they don't like."
Totally agree with this statement of yours.
From the article:
"...organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose".
Calling something "hate speech" is quite different from actually calling on platforms to punish stuff for "whatever they don't like". So, your statement, while I agree with it as it stands doesn't really apply to this article.
Re: Why does US care what EU censors? (Score:2)
Calling something ... is quite different from actually calling on ...
You're going to have to explain that.
"Trump and his administration are backwards bigoted bloviating blowhards" and
"Don't vote for backwards bigoted bloviating blowhards"
Both protected free speech in the U.S., just to be crystal fucking clear. Are we talking about advocating for violence or something like that? No? Abusing some authority? No? So try explaining why "American Viewpoints" is the deciding factor in your theory here, because that's what the article is talking about.
Re:Why does US care what EU censors? (Score:5, Insightful)
Calling something "hate speech" is quite different from actually calling on platforms to punish stuff for "whatever they don't like". So, your statement, while I agree with it as it stands doesn't really apply to this article.
The article is based on the statement of US officials, which is heavily biased. Let's take an example. They sanction the CEO of "Disinformation index". Their activity consists in publishing reports such as:
* Climate Change Disinformation in Canada - August 2025 https://www.disinformationinde... [disinformationindex.org]
* Hate Speech and Bigotry in Canada - August 2025 https://www.disinformationinde... [disinformationindex.org]
* State of Disinformation in Germany - June 2025 https://www.disinformationinde... [disinformationindex.org]
Here is from the abstract of their report on climate denialism in Canada (first sentence of each of the 3 first paragraphs of the summary)
This report examines how climate denial and delayist narratives circulate in Canada’s digital ecosystems, shaping public opinion, fuelling polarisation, and constraining democratic capacity to respond to environmental challenges. [...] Climate denialism frequently overlaps with broader conspiracy theories. Narratives suggest that climate policy is a tool of global elites, often invoking international organisations or Canadian federal authorities as instruments of control. [...] Importantly, disinformation does not circulate uniformly across Canada. Regional vulnerabilities are shaped by economic, cultural, and political factors.
Tell me how this amounts to "organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose". I will tell you: Trump use as an argument that climate change denialism is a core American viewpoint. Which as an euphemism I will say is extremely exaggerated. Therefore anything that challenges climate denialism is "suppression of American viewpoints".
Since the NGO forwards that to the public debate, it's painted as "concerted action". Because some EU has some rules that say that platforms should have moderation (the exact same rules that were ok with Meta creating a multi million dollar fund and independent moderators and annual reports, few years back, a moderation platform which Meta abolished shortly after Trump was elected in his second term), it's now "coerce American platforms".
I could come in agreement if an organisation, or a country, would use the education system to propagate lies about American history, philosophy, Constitution, in order to cause a moral prejudice to the USA. Because even I can see these are core American viewpoints. Now doing this because an NGO calls out climate denialism, and this hurts Trump's mind (and/or business) is just... pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
Moral police... that's pure authoritarianism.
It's not police and it's not authoritarianism because these require to be operated by a government body. Case in point are private associations who voice opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. It is always the same defectives that want unlimited power over others and it is always the same deranged approach of trying to redefine reality. Unless and until we can prevent these crappy and malicious people from ever getting power, this will continue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why does US care what EU censors? (Score:3)
Charlie Kirk was a reprehensible piece of shit.
Re: (Score:3)
The EU does not censor. The EU, like the US and many other nations, does remove illegal speech after it has been published. Censoring means all public speech has to be submitted for review beforehand and some things will be suppressed.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU does not censor. The EU, like the US and many other nations, does remove illegal speech after it has been published. Censoring means all public speech has to be submitted for review beforehand and some things will be suppressed.
The craziness being carted out WRT definition of censorship is fascinating. Seems there is some level of acknowledgement censorship is "bad" and so the views in support of censorship are being molded for consistency by playing word games and redefining terms.
Censorship isn't really censorship unless the government does it.
Censorship isn't really censorship if the censoring is done after the fact.
Censorship isn't really censorship if you do it for the right reasons.
The EU's lack of 1st amendment style prote
Re: (Score:2)
The difference, which you apparently fail to see, is that censorship requires infrastructure and compromised publishing paths with intercept points and also comes with evaluation and monitoring of all affected public speech. Removing of illegal speech just requires laws and somebody that complains to law enforcement.
There is a world of difference between the two.
Re:Why does US care what EU censors? (Score:4, Informative)
The difference, which you apparently fail to see, is that censorship requires infrastructure and compromised publishing paths with intercept points and also comes with evaluation and monitoring of all affected public speech. Removing of illegal speech just requires laws and somebody that complains to law enforcement.
There is a world of difference between the two.
A partial quote from the ACLU for those who feel compelled to keep digging...
"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression."
https://www.aclu.org/documents... [aclu.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You meant the YOB's viewpoint? Or mod parent funny?
Re: (Score:3)
Rubio/Trump are concerned that Americans might recognize Republican talking points as deception. All the parties listed on the ban list are reliable, trustworthy sources. It says _so much_ that politicians went after TikTok (because the Youth were taking actions against Trump) and not Twitter/X (The home to Nazis).
One more step alienating the USA from EU (world?) (Score:4, Insightful)
And three more steps away from trusting and reconnecting to the USA if and when Republicans are no longer in control.
Re:One more step alienating the USA from EU (world (Score:5, Insightful)
And three more steps away from trusting and reconnecting to the USA if and when Republicans are no longer in control.
If.
There's no sign that the Republican party or right-leaning citizens of the country are interested in ever hearing from, compromising with, or being led by civilized people in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
The "and when" is for a hopeful (but still unexpected) positive outcome eventually some time in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
And three more steps away from trusting and reconnecting to the USA if and when Republicans are no longer in control.
You mean when it's possible for them to be in control? Because no one will ever trust us again as long as they might get control again. Democrats were bad enough but at least they tend to obey treaties and keep agreements with other nations.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, at least they pretended to, and claimed in press releases that they did, but no part of drone strikes, torture, extra-judicial killings, or destruction of civilian infrastructure outside of war zones abides by the Geneva Conventions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Transactionalism: managing the fallout from having no diplomacy one issue at a time.
US cannot afford to sponsor EU (world) (Score:2)
If US stays on the current trajectory it will go bankrupt. No more wars. No more paying for military protection of EU/NATO countries.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The US was the only one profiting from Russia's invasion.
This is completely disconnected from reality. How much have Europe and the US given to Ukraine? [bbc.com]. US taxpayers contributed HUNDREDS of BILLIONS to Ukraine, with some of it getting embezzled by Ukrainian politicians [bbc.com].
Re:US cannot afford to sponsor EU (world) (Score:4, Informative)
The US spent a total of $130.6bn (£98bn) between 24 January 2022 and 31 August 2025
So less than $40B per year? For comparison that is 1/10 of what Trump's tax cut's cost us every year ($4T over 10 years)
Also I do enjoy how your second story is only a story because the people who did it are being charged by Ukrainian prosecutors.
"Reading the article" vs Republicans remains undefeated.
Re: (Score:3)
Now talk about Israel and Egypt.
Re: (Score:3)
And be assured the US is not selling at cost but with a significant profit...
Re: US cannot afford to sponsor EU (world) (Score:2)
I've seen every obscure European origin weapon system from the past several decades fielded in Ukraine, all on YouTube, Reddit, etc. The fuck are you talking about.
I can't even name half of them, modern British tanks, polish Cold War era anti tank arial munitions that float down and fire shaped charges, German tanks, french .. tanks? Jets, British umm what are their anti tank things.. those Turkish drones!
Then you get into the drones and electronics and shit and it's coming from all over the world, without
Re: (Score:2)
It is nit the EU that gets isolated. It is the US.
What's the problem? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is not quite true. Even if stated frequently.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're on someone else's platform, you have no right to free speech anyway
Well actually you do, but so does the platform.
I get what you mean though.
Re: (Score:2)
The trumpistan is now the enemy of the free world (Score:5, Insightful)
Aligned itself with russia on Ukraine, with china on Taiwan, with the monopolists on the rule of law.
Good luck taking on your real enemies without your former allies, dumbasses.
Re: (Score:3)
1) You cite the Council of Europe. It isn't the EU and doesn't have executive power; it's a discussion assembly, a regional equivalent to the UN. It can't cancel an election. Romania did; the EU has no say in the matter.
2) I will summarize it for you, it's a case of foreign interference in a Presidential election. (We talked about it https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org])
1. Two weeks before Presidential election in Romania, hundreds of Romanian tiktokers receive an offer for 1000 € to repost a professional
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I can think of some extreme cases, if malicious lies were spread, but that is not what happened in Romania. My view is that elections did not go "approved" way and what you described was used as a prete
Re: (Score:2)
The problem was foreign money (obscurely) funding a campaign. This is as well would be disallowed in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem was foreign money (obscurely) funding a campaign.
That would be a problem if you can prove coordination with the candidate's campaign. Otherwise you can see how that would be abused, where a foreign entity would take up some ads supporting a candidate, then leak information about that to disqualify that candidate. From what I know about the case, there was no proof of coordination. That is, foreign funding was a pretext.
Re: (Score:2)
You are veeeeery disconnected from the real world. The real world needs limits on propaganda and manipulation of public opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
The real world needs limits on propaganda and manipulation of public opinion.
Just like communism, this only works in theory. In practice, anyone tasked with defining what is propaganda and manipulation gets effective censorship power. Imagine what you would do if you had such power, would you ban me from the Internet first, or right after Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
You either have no clue what you are talking about or you are maliciously pushing propaganda intended to harm. My guess is the latter.
Do you actually read the articles you cite? (Score:2)
Re: There is no 'freedom' in Globalism (Score:2)
What the fuck does globalism have to do with arresting people in the U.S. for things they said online, or US states going papers please to access social media?
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, the Dunning-Kruger case striketh again :)
Re: (Score:2)
You really just aren't a very intelligent person, are you?
And yet (Score:3, Interesting)
For the record, Trump is mentioned alongside Epstein as being accused of rape in a 2020 FBI file [thedailybeast.com], 50D-NY-3027571. Among other things [time.com].
Re:And yet (Score:5, Insightful)
It's similar for a lot of the "inclusive" ideologies too for that matter. You can't be truly inclusive unless you also accept the views of those who hate you for what you are or do, no matter how reprehensible they might be.
Re: (Score:2)
Then I suppose you're upset at how the government is dragging its feet about releasing the Epstein files. Not only is that censorship, but it violates a law passed overwhelmingly by both houses in Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
It's similar for a lot of the "inclusive" ideologies too for that matter. You can't be truly inclusive unless you also accept the views of those who hate you for what you are or do, no matter how reprehensible they might be.
That is similar to what Charlie Kirk once said, "You need to be open minded, but firm in your beliefs."
If you're firm in your beliefs, you're not open minded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And yet, this has been discussed a century ago (Score:2)
Just like we are re-living play-by-play the rise of the Nazis, this exact philosophical question has been debated a century ago. It even has it's own name: "the paradox of tolerance".
tl;dr: Tolerating intolerance leads to intolerance taking over.
Read the Wikipedia blurb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Or take the time to read Karl Popper's full book "The open society and its enemies" here: https://archive.org/details/in... [archive.org]
And it's second volume with sources here: https://archive.org/details/in... [archive.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Just like we are re-living play-by-play the rise of the Nazis, this exact philosophical question has been debated a century ago. It even has it's own name: "the paradox of tolerance".
tl;dr: Tolerating intolerance leads to intolerance taking over.
The KP paradox is merely a bumbling restatement of Jefferson and is routinely misinterpreted as a license to justify (the right kind of) intolerance.
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." ~Thomas Jefferson
Speech is indeed inherently dangerous which is precisely why the first thing Nazi's and every other tyrant i
Re: And yet, this has been discussed a century ago (Score:2)
There is a huge jump from letting people say their opinions about the Republic of their form of government and hate speech, slander and other reasonable restrictions on speech.
That's why the first amendment is not an absolute free pass, and has never been meant so. Many supreme Court decisions around that.
Also, life is a lot wider and more diverse than the application of current US laws. That's where philosophy comes in - you think about things from basic principles.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a huge jump from letting people say their opinions about the Republic of their form of government and hate speech
In the US hate speech is free speech.
slander and other reasonable restrictions on speech.
Slander is action distinct from speech in the same way asking a voice activated bomb to explode is action distinct from speaking. In both cases you are not merely communicating thoughts and ideas you are taking actions for effect where act of speaking is merely the modality by which action is effectuated.
That's why the first amendment is not an absolute free pass, and has never been meant so. Many supreme Court decisions around that.
In the US free speech... more specifically "pure speech" is absolute and case law bares this out.
https://billofrightsinstitute.... [billofrigh...titute.org]
Where people get confused is in the fa
Re: (Score:3)
Go on Truth Social and post a comment that Trump is a rapist and a pedophile and see how fast your post gets removed.
Calling Trump a pedophile over association with Epstein is guilt by association, which is fallacy. Also, by that standard Chomsky, Clinton, and Dershowitz are in the same boat and I don't see you applying that equally. Calling Trump rapist over sexual misconduct allegations is also a huge stretch even if you agree (which I don't) that uncorroborated 20+ year allegations litigated in a civil court (at lower burden of proof) were true. So yes, such malicious post would get removed for being politically motiva
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, a couple of dozen women all accusing him of the same thing, none of whom had any financial motivation to do so, is just coincidence and TDS. /s
SMDH
Re:And yet (Score:4, Interesting)
In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll. From there, it's not a "huge" stretch to rape. The jury was just unable to come to a verdict on that stronger charge. From Wikipedia:
Carroll's accusation against Trump was more severe than the accusations made by other women. Regarding the jury verdict, the judge asked the jury to find if the preponderance of the evidence suggested that Trump raped Carroll under New York's narrow legal definition of rape at that time, denoting forcible penetration with the penis, as alleged by the plaintiff; the jury did not find Trump liable for rape and instead found him liable for a lesser degree of sexual abuse. In July 2023, Judge Kaplan said that the verdict found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word, i.e. not necessarily implying penile penetration.[e] In August 2023, Kaplan dismissed a countersuit and wrote that Carroll's accusation of rape is "substantially true".
Re: (Score:3)
She has the blue dress with what she says is his DNA on it. However, he's been too busy playing golf to take a 10 second cheek swab for comparison.
Funny how someone completely innocent would do that.
Re: (Score:2)
I was not on that jury, but from what I read about Jean Carroll case it is clearly political hit job.
Then I think you need to examine where you get your news. Here, these may help:
https://adfontesmedia.com/ [adfontesmedia.com]
https://ground.news/ [ground.news]
https://www.snopes.com/ [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
None of your links were to a story about Jean Carroll. Did you intend to just waste my time?
No, I intended to provide you with resources to examine where you get your news. As I said in my post.
Re: (Score:3)
The timing of the second trial for defamation and battery was because New York extended the statute of limitations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The timing of the first trial for defamation was because she wrote a book detailing sexual assaults by Trump, and then Trump repeatedly accused her of lying in order to sell books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Don't forget that one of the reasons we know that Trump repeatedly assaulted women is because he bragged about it.
Re: (Score:2)
On top of that, making a false accusation to law enforcement is a crime. This is not just free speech. The ones making that statement face real personal consequences if they just made things up. Hence they very likely did not.
Oh, the irony (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There are two issues with the 60 Minutes story. First, as you said, she's been accussed of burying the story by claiming there was nothing new AND that the administration hadn't responded to a request for comment.
The second issue is the whiner in chief wants the people who complained to Weiss about burying the story to be fired because . . . they complained about the story being buried.
No, really. That is the argument being used. Because the people who went to all the effort to create the story are upset at
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
she's pulled the story because the "journalists" flat out lied about the administration. They claimed the administration refused to be interviewed or provide a statement and gave that reason for their shit report having no response from the administration. The truth is 3 different departments responded directly to interview questions and separately provided a 300+ word written statement.
Please stop ruining the narrative with your malinformation.
Re: (Score:3)
The irony is how quickly conservatives started treating CBS as Fox:2 instead of the "mainstream media" and now bend their asses all the over for something that if it was done under Obama or Biden would be absolutely livid. Now all of a sudden you've found the well of nuance.
I'd point out how shameless it all is but you are all so far past that you're in a universe where shame ceases to function.
Nothing says restoring trust in media like the government installing "bias monitors" at news agencies. Good luck
I would put that in my CV (Score:2)
If I was one of those five people.
It's a badge of honor to be targeted by a fascist regime.
Once again, not censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
When individuals or companies refuse to promote your viewpoints that is called free speech. They have the right to not only disagree with you, not only tell you their own opinion, but also to refuse to aid you in spreading your view.
Censorship ONLY applies to governments that prevent you from speaking and/or prevent others from spreading your views.
When a government punishes you for not spreading their view THEY are the ones that are doing censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship ONLY applies to governments that prevent you from speaking and/or prevent others from spreading your views.
This is not at all the case. Anyone can partake in censorship. It is by no means the sole province of the state.
Re:Once again, not censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Censorship ONLY applies to governments that prevent you from speaking and/or prevent others from spreading your views.
This is not at all the case. Anyone can partake in censorship. It is by no means the sole province of the state.
When a non-government entity restricts your speech on a platform it controls, you might want to call it censorship, but it's actually just that entity exercising its own free-speech rights. You can still find another platform. You can't if the government is imposing the restriction.
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship ONLY applies to governments that prevent you from speaking and/or prevent others from spreading your views.
This is not at all the case. Anyone can partake in censorship. It is by no means the sole province of the state..
Re: (Score:2)
You just denied what I said. You are wrong, and foolishly so.
Lets say I think you are a moron. I have the right to say it, and you have the right to deny it.
Do I have the right to make you hold a sign saying that you are a moron?
If you refuse, is that censorship? Because that is exactly what you are claiming.
You have the right to not support my beliefs. That is not censorship. Me objecting to your rights and calling you a censor is wrong.
Oh and the fact that you own a newspaper does not change anything
The King (Score:2)
We should build that wall for Trump (Score:2)
When did Hate become an American value? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Republicans sure are looking like the party of hate, and little else.
No such thing as hate speech (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no need for freedom of speech if everyone agrees. I
That statement is nonsense. It does work the other way round though: "If everybody agrees, there is no freedom of speech". But I guess you are one of those that does not understand what an implication is and that direction does matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Incitement of insurrection used to be illegal too, unless Republicans vote to ignore it.
Re: (Score:3)
America was founded by a compromise between slavers and aristocrats. That's the original sin, and conservatives are dead set on bringing back slavery by any means necessary. Slavery can only exist when absolute hatred and debasement of the enslaved class exists -- that's why conservatives are so interested in "cancel culture" and "DEI". Because they know equality is the biggest threat to the slavery they dream of.
Pot Calling Kettle (Score:2)
efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose,
Black! Black! Black!
"Pressured"? (Score:2)
These must be very mighty individuals instead if they can just "pressure" US tech firms! Or maybe they just contribute to the law being applied?
Without disinfo... (Score:4, Insightful)
North Korea (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait, did I say North Korea? I meant United States of America.
Re: (Score:2)
East Germany visitors would be required to upload a live selfie photo in addition to the current passport biographical page image requirement. They would also be mandated to submit to GDR Stasi officers all social media identifiers from the past five years; personal and business phone numbers used during the previous five years; personal and business email addresses going back ten years; IP addresses from photos and metadata; family member names, birthplaces, and contact information; and expanded biometric
Re:Who am I supposed to root for again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Europe never really understood "freedom" as it is understood here.
You don't have freedom in the USA. You have the highest number of people in prison both per capita and absolute numbers. You constantly live in fear of other Americans with guns. Your kids have to learn drills to deal with mass shooters. Then there's a whole raft of "won't someone think of the chiilllldruuun" censorship laws that the US brought in long before any other nation....
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have freedom in the USA.
The do have freedom there like their government, the best they can buy.
Re: Who am I supposed to root for again? (Score:2)
The UK arrests imprisons people for incitement to riot, not mean tweets.
Re: (Score:3)
The UK arrests imprisons people for incitement to riot, not mean tweets.
False:
https://www.bbc.com/news/artic... [bbc.com]
Re: Who am I supposed to root for again? (Score:2)
Yeah the UK is almost as unfree as the US.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
Re:Who am I supposed to root for again? (Score:5, Interesting)
The EU's take on free speech and freedom in general shows a deeper understanding of freedom than any country has ever shown in the world. Freedom is not just free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and so on, individually. With freedom comes responsibility and the rights and freedoms of one person should never violate those same freedoms of others. That implies there has to be a balance between all the different kinds of freedoms as well as all the different kinds of fundamental human rights.
Freedom of speech means nothing if it violates others' freedom of religion. Freedom of religion means nothing if it preaches hate agains people who think differently or compels its followers to kill them. Freedom of the press means nothing if it leads to social media being overwhelmed by desinformation. To name just a few.
That does not mean there cannot be any grey areas. Sometimes the perception of a thing is not the reality of a thing. If a person feels their rights and/or freedoms have been violated, they can take it up to court and let the judge (or in some EU countries a jury) make a ruling on the matter.
Re: Who am I supposed to root for again? (Score:3)
The US never understood to be liberal, educated, or free. Instead just repeating nonsense propaganda
Re:Who am I supposed to root for again? (Score:4, Insightful)
So I root for the United States Constitution.
Fuckin' absolutely stupendous to say this and side with the guy who plotted to overturn the election [justsecurity.org].
But totally not a cult folks.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's wrap our heads around this, your local town postponed their local elections and did some local stuff you disagree with your strong support of the US Constitution led you to vote for the guy who who plotted to overturn the election
You notice how the response is never "No, Trump did not in fact plot to steal the election" it's always "but Dems" and "covid"
Also remind me, who was President in 2020?
Re: (Score:2)
Pre- or post- slavery?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Dark times. They saw the evil in the world and thought "We want to be part of that!".