Poland fights Big Tech - Will Fine Big Tech $13.5 Million Per Case For Removing Ideological Content

originally posted by: uncommitted

Agreed, the current Polish government want free speech for everyone as long as they don't say something that is critical of them - then they want it banned.

Totally untrue. Please read the OP's original post more carefully. You got it completely wrong. The Hungarian government is going to fine big-tech companies that remove content for their own ideological reasons. In other words, it is acting NOT to censor what it does not like but to STOP censorship by the internet media companies, which occurs world-wide. The Hungarian government fought Nazism in order to preserve free speech. It is not going to allow these companies infected with the intolerant ideology of post-modernism to remove material written by Christians, traditionalists and conservatives merely because their media editors don't like criticisms and rejections of the post-modern way of thinking these companies are trying to foist on to people of many countries irrespective of their cultural and religious traditions.

a reply to: micpsi

Is that why regions in Poland are declared LGBT-free zones?

A bastion of free speech eh?

a reply to: Chadwickus

These 'free zones' are not established by goverment but by leftist activists. Dont spred fake news. There are no such places in Poland!

LINK

originally posted by: glen200376

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: infolurker

I love Poland and Polish stand for human right for freedom of though and speech, and against oppressive ideologies. This could be something for US Democrats to take learning from.

Yeah right,unless you're a homosexual or a black.

Ye ye, or romanian guy or Czechen or Ukrainian or asian, muslim, orthodox, Arab or Jew, fill the blank... everyone is hated so much in this bad Poland. I did not knew I live in such bad country. Maybe I should listen more cnn or read NYT. Then I would be educated and see things that do not exist.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: uncommitted

Agreed, the current Polish government want free speech for everyone as long as they don't say something that is critical of them - then they want it banned.

Totally untrue. Please read the OP's original post more carefully. You got it completely wrong. The Hungarian government is going to fine big-tech companies that remove content for their own ideological reasons. In other words, it is acting NOT to censor what it does not like but to STOP censorship by the internet media companies, which occurs world-wide. The Hungarian government fought Nazism in order to preserve free speech. It is not going to allow these companies infected with the intolerant ideology of post-modernism to remove material written by Christians, traditionalists and conservatives merely because their media editors don't like criticisms and rejections of the post-modern way of thinking these companies are trying to foist on to people of many countries irrespective of their cultural and religious traditions.

I have no idea what Hungary is doing, I never mentioned them. I said what Poland is doing which is not allowing any posts which criticise the government or any of their policies.

originally posted by: residentofearth
a reply to: Chadwickus

These 'free zones' are not established by goverment but by leftist activists. Dont spred fake news. There are no such places in Poland!

LINK

You are right, but wrong. If you read the article you will see that the Polish government will not allow anything to be said that pro or even ambivalent to any aspect of LGBT+ so from a social media perspective, Poland is an LGBT+ free zone.

You don't feel that is oppression and censorship?

Edit to add: Your link says some 'local governments' speak about having LGBT free zones as well as 'leftist activists'. I guess local government means they are doing it at a regional level not by full government level?

Your link doesn't really take away any of the oppression, it confirms it.

originally posted by: residentofearth

originally posted by: glen200376

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: infolurker

I love Poland and Polish stand for human right for freedom of though and speech, and against oppressive ideologies. This could be something for US Democrats to take learning from.

Yeah right,unless you're a homosexual or a black.

Ye ye, or romanian guy or Czechen or Ukrainian or asian, muslim, orthodox, Arab or Jew, fill the blank... everyone is hated so much in this bad Poland. I did not knew I live in such bad country. Maybe I should listen more cnn or read NYT. Then I would be educated and see things that do not exist.

Start by reading the links you send.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

So you can show where it’s mandatory then?

It isn't.

That's kind of the point.

But thanks for verifying you made zero effort to read or understand what I wrote.

a reply to: uncommitted

If you read the article you will see that the Polish government will not allow anything to be said that pro or even ambivalent to any aspect of LGBT+ so from a social media perspective

I read the article:

Under the new legislation, any platform that bans a user would face fines of $13.5 million unless the content is also illegal under Polish law. An arbitration committee would be set up to oversee disputes.

Put in simpler terms, Poland has made it illegal for social media to remove posts or ban users without just cause, that just cause being specified as being against Polish law. Nowhere is there made mention of Poland (or any other government entity) removing posts or banning users from social media. Nowhere.

You made it all up.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: uncommitted

If you read the article you will see that the Polish government will not allow anything to be said that pro or even ambivalent to any aspect of LGBT+ so from a social media perspective

I read the article:

Under the new legislation, any platform that bans a user would face fines of $13.5 million unless the content is also illegal under Polish law. An arbitration committee would be set up to oversee disputes.

Put in simpler terms, Poland has made it illegal for social media to remove posts or ban users without just cause, that just cause being specified as being against Polish law. Nowhere is there made mention of Poland (or any other government entity) removing posts or banning users from social media. Nowhere.

You made it all up.

TheRedneck

No I didn't. You mean a page you looked at didn't mention it. That means they didn't mention it.

www.heritage.org...
www.article19.org...
www.lexology.com...

The last one shows that if social media block a post, the user can appeal. If they lose that appeal they can then request it is reviewed at government level who will decide whether the post should have its ban removed

Which part of that doesn't mean the government gets to decide what can be posted?

a reply to: uncommitted

You mean a page you looked at didn't mention it.

If you wanted people to look at more information, perhaps you should have linked more information. I used the link in the OP. Now you want to berate me for not magically knowing what Internet address you think I should look at before you mention it?

Sorry, bub... you want people to look at information, give the information freely. Don't get all butthurt because someone called you out on incorrect information and then decide to put out information.

The last one shows that if social media block a post, the user can appeal. If they lose that appeal they can then request it is reviewed at government level who will decide whether the post should have its ban removed

Actually, what it says is:

The bill states that whenever a social media platform blocks access to content or blocks a user, the user will be entitled to file a complaint to the platform and appeal it. Users will also be able to request the content posted on the platform to be removed if in their opinion it is unlawful. In each case, the platform will have 48 hours to examine the complaint.

If the platform objects to the user’s motion, the user will be able to appeal such decision. The newly established Freedom of Speech Council (a body comprising of members appointed by the parliament) will consider the case within seven days. If the platform does not obey such ruling, the Council could impose a fine of up to PLN 50 million (EUR 11 million).

That is called "arbitration." The Polish government does not instigate any complaints, either when someone is banned or has a post removed, nor when someone complains about a post. Users of the social media platform do that. The social media platform then decides whether or not to remove the post.

Just for sake of discussion, let us say Poland has a law against wearing red in a cattle barn (I am using something silly because I do not know, nor do I care about, Polish law specifics). Someone posts a picture of themselves wearing red in a cattle barn. If that poster is not Polish, then the social media platform is not under scrutiny because the user is not subject to Polish law. But what happens if the poster is indeed Polish?

Let's say the social media platform does nothing; the post remains. The new law is not in effect. The government needs no new law to be able to press charges against a Polish citizen for violating Polish law, and the post is evidence that can already be used for prosecution. Now, another citizen can complain to the social media platform to have the post removed. It the social media platform agrees and removes the post, nothing else happens. If the social media platform disagrees and leaves the post up, the complainant can appeal to the social media platform. If they still disagree, then, and only then, does the dispute go to the government panel.

During all this, the user can take down the post voluntarily and stop the whole thing.

In essence, nothing has changed. Users can already ask for a post to be removed. Government can already use social media posts as evidence against someone committing a crime.

Where this law changes things is if someone makes a post and the social media platform removes it. Back to our example, let's say the Polish user posted themselves wearing pink in a cattle barn and Facebook removed the post. Wearing pink in a cattle barn is not illegal, so the poster complains to Facebook. Facebook then decides to ban the poster. Now the poster can appeal to Facebook to have their account and post restored. If Facebook refuses, it goes to the government arbitration panel. The photo wearing pink in a cattle barn is not illegal, so Facebook must restore both the user's account and the post, or face a horrific fine.

If the photo had been wearing red in the cattle barn, then the government could decide the removal was acceptable and the poster would just be out of luck... their post is gone and so is their account. In neither case does this law allow them to be prosecuted in any way! It forces the social media platform to allow users to post.

Now, can you understand?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Why should I assume you won't go and search for it? It's not my OP. It took me all of 3 or four minutes to collate those links.

Although nicely put, your post misses the point.

Now let's use a more realistic example. The current Polish government has a policy banning anything that promotes or is ambivalent towards any aspect of LGBT+. A post from someone in Poland is blocked that criticises the Polish government for this (could be for any reason, lets say due to some responses to it. An appeal fails and the poster goes to arbitration. The government can now decide whether or not to express free speech. A link posted by another user in this thread confirms they would not allow the poster to express their free speech and would not agree the block should be lifted.

Now, can you understand how this means it's only free speech if the government allows it?

a reply to: uncommitted

As it is, it's only free speech if Facebook, Twitter, et. al. allows it. So how exactly is this different?

Well, it's different in the sense that people can affect the decisions of their government. They still get to vote, I assume, in Poland? No one gets to have any say in what Facebook alone decides is appropriate or not, and recent history tells us that Facebook uses political criteria quite regularly to police its site.

Someone, somewhere, must set a criteria for what can and cannot be posted. At ATS, it is staff, who are sworn to abide by the T&C. At Facebook, it is apparently political activists and those with an agenda. In government it is those who are voted in by the people, and those appointed by those voted in by the people.

If your complaint is about free speech, then you are arguing against an improvement in free speech. If your complaint is about the government of Poland, then you should try and correct it assuming you are a citizen (if you're not a citizen, why do you care?). But if, as I suspect, your complaint is that the censors at Facebook and Twitter might not be able to do as your agenda requires, that is, stifle speech you disagree with, then I completely understand your ire at the thought someone might not let social media run wild and unfettered over others.

In any case, my point is that you are trying to say this law does something it does not do. It does not inhibit free speech anywhere except Poland, and it does not further inhibit free speech there... it extends free speech there. Limits are now set by the arbitration panel based on current Polish law instead of by both the government and social media based on arbitrary political persuasion. That's an improvement, like it or not.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

This OP states that the Polish government will not allow any censorship on social media. My point is that the Polish government will apply their own censorship. End of. It means they aren't the shining light that is being described.

a reply to: TheRedneck

At Facebook, it is apparently political activists and those with an agenda. In government it is those who are voted in by the people, and those appointed by those voted in by the people.

Facebook is a military grade asset protected and controlled by the revolving door policy and aspects of the deepstate.

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: TheRedneck

This OP states that the Polish government will not allow any censorship on social media. My point is that the Polish government will apply their own censorship. End of. It means they aren't the shining light that is being described.

It is a point but there is a larger point. Social media just fully censored the president of the USA. That should bother you. This is whole level above nations. This is fully controlled and weponised social manipulation with a global agenda. It is run by non accountable forces that exist above free and democratic nation.

a reply to: uncommitted

If you want unconditional freedom of speech (or unconditional freedom of anything, really) , you'll have to stay home and do it in that privacy. There are always limits... I just happen to believe the fewer limits the better.

Laws exist. Admitting to a crime will get you in legal trouble. Freedom of speech does not trump that. The sooner you accept that cold, hard fact, the happier you will be.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: TheRedneck

This OP states that the Polish government will not allow any censorship on social media. My point is that the Polish government will apply their own censorship. End of. It means they aren't the shining light that is being described.

It is a point but there is a larger point. Social media just fully censored the president of the USA. That should bother you. This is whole level above nations. This is fully controlled and weponised social manipulation with a global agenda. It is run by non accountable forces that exist above free and democratic nation.

IF the president of the USA is blocked on social media because they don't want him or the comments he was making on their platform they have 100% right to do so. To suggest that they do not have that right should bother you.

Lol..
Sad day for the populist right wingers of ATS

www.latimes.com...

Coming from the land that was praised by right wingers on ATS.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: TheRedneck

This OP states that the Polish government will not allow any censorship on social media. My point is that the Polish government will apply their own censorship. End of. It means they aren't the shining light that is being described.

It is a point but there is a larger point. Social media just fully censored the president of the USA. That should bother you. This is whole level above nations. This is fully controlled and weponised social manipulation with a global agenda. It is run by non accountable forces that exist above free and democratic nation.

IF the president of the USA is blocked on social media because they don't want him or the comments he was making on their platform they have 100% right to do so. To suggest that they do not have that right should bother you.

To suggest that a bakery does not have the right to refuse service to people because of personal reasons......is EXACTLY the same thing

A baker does not have to bake a cake for lgbt customers if he doesn’t want to

Fact