Slashdot Mirror
US Declines in Internet Freedom Rankings (techcrunch.com)
If you need a safe haven on the internet, where the pipes are open and the freedoms are plentiful -- you might want to move to Estonia or Iceland. From a report: The latest "internet freedoms" rankings are out, courtesy of Freedom House's annual report into the state of internet freedoms and personal liberties, based on rankings of 65 countries that represent the vast majority of the world's internet users. Although the U.S. remains firmly in the top 10, it dropped a point on the year earlier after a recent rash of changes to internet regulation and a lack of in the realm of surveillance. Last year, the U.S. was 21 in the global internet freedom ranking -- the lower number, the better a country ranks. That was behind Estonia, Iceland, Canada, Germany and Australia. This year the U.S. is at 22 -- thanks to the repeal of net neutrality and the renewal of U.S. spy powers. The report also cited "disinformation and hyperpartisan content" -- or fake news -- as a "pressing concern."
Their concerns over "fake news" seems contrary to the notion of "freedom". Freedom means the ability for anyone, anywhere, to do what they will regardless of your opinions.
Their concerns undermine their credibility, although I do agree that the lack of net neutrality and continued surveillance are concerning.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
With shadow banning, FB jail, twitter censorship, deleted accounts due any number of excuses. And lets not forget the spy vs spy MAD Mag comic of the deep state. Julian Assange last interview he talked about those being born today will be the last generation to be free... I'm trying to get a head start of my unfreedom. May I be marked a troll for this.
I believe the problem with "disinformation and hyper partisan content" is who is deciding what qualifies as such. Major platforms Facebook, Youtube, Google, and Twitter have come under intense criticism for the way they decide what is fake news, whether through algorithms, hiring third parties (that could be partisan), or having real people do the job who mislabeling without consequence and thus preventing people from seeing the news, real or fake. Many reporters believe their real news is being mistakenly called fake or being included in a vague undefined definition of hate speech. The corporations try to use an excess of caution on the subject of hate speech that results in even preventing real statistics from being published by organizations if the statistic includes ethnicity or race in any negative light. While it is not the government doing the limiting, there is an only a handful of large tech corporations that decide how many people you can reach with your message and/or whether your message is appropriate. People can create their own websites but it is a bit like shouting in an empty room, you have free speech but no one can hear you.
> Facebook bans aren't the risk to your freedom. Losing Net Neutrality OTOH is.
Your total lack of self-awareness here is hilarious.
Corporate censorship is as much a threat to your freedom as government surveillance.
You are quite literally manning the barricades on behalf of Robber Barons.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The (German) laws have nothing to do with something as silly as using the wrong pronouns for someone. That is protected speech. You can also hate people as much as you want and tell everyone about it. That is protected speech as well.
There's a law against speech that incites the masses called "Volksverhetzung", which is usually applied when speech contains calls for violence and or other arbitrary actions against groups of people. You can read about it accurately enough on Wikipedia.
Then there's laws against slander, which exist in pretty much any civilized nations, of course including the US. Cases rarely hold up in court, because of their difficult nature.
Exactly! And yet, Germany is rated higher than the United States in that report... According to the report-publishers, TFA, and the other so-called "Liberals", America's freedom of speech — what's left of it — is detrimental to "Internet freedom". Which tells you all you need to know about this report...
The report — and TFA — both mention pure-private concerns like "fake news" and absence of "net neutrality" as valid. That means, they disagree with you regarding the role of private entities — and what can and cannot be done with them by government to improve "Internet freedom" (as they define it).
As I argue elsewhere, providing a forum for the despicables is not — should not be — any more toxic, than defending same in court. If a private Internet-company is toxic over allowing Robert Bowers to speak his mind before he committed his atrocity, a private law-firm defending him in front of a jury after it ought to be toxic as well — their bank-accounts closed (Paypal did stop accepting Gab's payments), the lawyers involved disbarred (GoDaddy not hosting their domain-name).
Heck, the private doctors treating him for wounds sustained in a firefight with police must be toxic too, by the same logic... Would you have approved of such boycotts too? Probably not...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.