As we can see from this user who has fallen ill with Epstein Brain, the real victims of social media algorithms are actually adults.
He is currently prepping to overthrow his local Pizzeria while the rest of us argue as if social media even exists anymore (it doesn't, it's just algorithmic TV now).
Judging by your recent posting history, you spend an awful lot of time telling people to stop trying to hold pedophiles accountable. I wonder why that is.
> Capitalist social media is exactly as dangerous as alcohol and tobacco.
Most actual studies done on this topic find very little evidence this is true.
It's a run-of-the-mill moral panic. People breathlessly repeating memes about whatever "kids these days" are up to and how horrible it is, as adults have done for thousands of years.
I expect some emotional attacks in response for questioning the big panic of the day, but before you do so please explore:
> has largely been unchanged for 150 years. I really don't understand the recent outrage over these and other laws. We have been fine
The last 150 years of Germany have...ahem...not been what I would call "fine."
It would be interesting to have a replay of history without this law and similar ones related to it. Could be nothing different happens.
On the other hand, any law regulating speech is going to have a reverberating effect on the marketplace of ideas with 2nd and 3rd order outcomes that are impossible to disentangle after the fact.
almost all communication was oral 20 years ago, now-- especially since covid -- it's almost all, even casual comments, through text messages which can easily be used in evidence
That's a good point. Though I wouldn't say text as a medium is the critical factor, it's that more communication is taking place in the open (over social media) and being recorded for everyone to see.
However, I don't see how this would imply the law that's been in place for 150 years would suddenly be bad. In fact, one might argue that precisely because so much communication is happening in public now, more regulation is needed.
Can we filter for current censorship? Hate to brake it to you but the top category in that page, "censorship in the soviet union" does not apply anymore.....
Spanish courts ordered ISPs to block dozens of pro-independence domains and mirror sites during the referendum. Civil Guard units physically entered data centers to seize servers tied to the Catalan government’s digital voting infrastructure.
2) GitHub Repository Takedown (2017)
Spain obtained a court order forcing GitHub to remove a repository that mirrored referendum voting code and site information, extending censorship beyond Spanish-hosted domains.
3) Rapper Convictions for Online Lyrics
Spanish rapper Valtònyc was convicted for tweets and lyrics deemed to glorify terrorism and insult the monarchy; he fled the country and fought extradition in Belgium for years.
⸻
France
4) Blocking of Protest Pages During Yellow Vests (2018–2019)
Authorities requested removals of Facebook pages and livestreams tied to the Yellow Vest protests, citing incitement and public order concerns.
5) Court-Ordered Removal of Election Content (2019 EU Elections)
French judges used expedited procedures under election-period misinformation law to order removal of allegedly false political claims within 48 hours.
6) Prosecution of Political Satire as Hate Speech
Several activists were fined or prosecuted for online posts targeting religious or ethnic groups in explicitly political contexts, even where framed as satire.
⸻
Germany
7) Mass Police Raids Over Social Media Posts
German police have conducted coordinated nationwide dawn raids targeting individuals accused of posting illegal political speech under hate-speech laws.
8) Removal of Opposition Content Under NetzDG
Platforms removed thousands of posts from nationalist or anti-immigration political actors within 24 hours to avoid heavy fines under NetzDG enforcement pressure.
9) Criminal Convictions for Holocaust Commentary Online
Individuals have received criminal penalties for online statements denying or relativizing Nazi crimes, even when framed in broader political debate contexts.
⸻
United Kingdom
10) Police Visits Over Controversial Tweets
British police have conducted “non-crime hate incident” visits to individuals’ homes over political tweets, creating official records despite no prosecution.
11) Arrests for Offensive Political Posts
Individuals have been arrested under public communications laws for posts criticizing immigration or religion in strongly worded terms.
12) Removal of Campaign Content Under Electoral Rules
Election regulators required digital platforms to remove or restrict political ads that failed to meet transparency requirements during active campaigns.
⸻
Italy
13) Enforcement of “Par Condicio” Silence Online
During mandated pre-election silence periods, online political content—including posts by candidates—has been ordered removed or fined.
14) Criminal Defamation Charges Against Bloggers
Italian bloggers critical of politicians have faced criminal defamation prosecutions for investigative posts during election cycles.
⸻
Finland
15) Conviction of Sitting MP for Facebook Posts
Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen was prosecuted for Bible-based comments posted online regarding sexuality and religion; although ultimately acquitted, the criminal process itself was lengthy and high-profile.
⸻
Sweden
16) Convictions for Anti-Immigration Facebook Posts
Swedish courts have convicted individuals for Facebook comments criticizing immigration policy when deemed “agitation against a population group.”
⸻
Netherlands
17) Criminal Case Against Opposition Politician
Dutch politician Geert Wilders was convicted (without penalty) for campaign-rally remarks later amplified online, deemed discriminatory.
⸻
Austria
18) Rapid Court Orders Against Political Posts
Austria’s updated online hate-speech regime enabled expedited court orders compelling removal of allegedly unlawful political speech within days.
⸻
Belgium
19) Prosecution of Political Party Messaging
Members of the Vlaams Belang party have faced legal sanctions for campaign messaging shared online deemed racist or discriminatory.
⸻
Switzerland
20) Criminal Fines for Referendum Campaign Speech
Swiss activists have faced criminal fines for online referendum messaging judged to violate anti-discrimination law during highly contentious votes.
See, the problem is, "obviously harmless" varies by person: if you think it is obviously harmless to ban an entire political party, which ostensibly won a legitimate election, and certainly had a lot of popular support... well then, of course we should also ban whichever current political party you consider most evil, right? And then the next most evil political party, and so on, until people have the freedom that comes from knowing only Good, Proper, State-Sanctioned Political Parties exist!
And of course, once it's illegal to agitate against violence, we just have to redefine violence: for instance, posting about Nazis puts them in danger, and they're all white, so clearly you're a racist for opposing Nazis.
These aren't hypothetical examples: the people defending Free Speech have watched these slippery slopes get pulled out again and again. Misgendering a trans person is a "hate crime", reporting on the location of gestapo agents is "inciting violence", protesting against the state is "terrorism"
And fundamentally, this is a lever that gets wielded by whoever is in power: even if you agree with the Left censoring Nazi salutes, are you equally comfortable with the Right censoring child mutilation sites (also known as "Trans resources")?
SURELY "child mutilation" is "obviously harmless" to ban, right?
Child mutilation is obviously harmless to ban of course. Though calling trans resources that is equally obviously disingenuous.
Maybe Americans should take a break from criticizing the EU and fix their own shit first. It's incredibly frustrating to constantly see far right goons swing around "freedom of speech" as if that term hasn't been a fig leaf for ages. In the US, if you do something that the powers that be dislike that is covered by freedom of speech, they'll manufacture something else to hit you with. At least here in the EU, when you get investigated for something that freedom of expression covers, you'll at least get acquitted eventually.
Yea every other use case beyond feeding the hysterical Epstein conspiracy machine has been totally worthless. All the consumers and companies paying real money for this tech must just be stupid.
On the other hand, providing more fuel for sweaty basement dwellers to invent fake stories about elite lizard people while trashing the civil liberties of thousands of random innocents contacted by this dude? I can think of no better use case.
Upvoting for making me feel sane. I don't understand the level of attention paid to this shit, and it makes the people invested in it seem orders of magnitude more perverted than the financier himself is purported to be.
And he's dead and he's been dead for a long time, and people still paying daily attention to this are being played for laughs and having their rage strip-mined.
He is but everyone else who participated is very much alive and yet to face any accountability and justice. Do you genuinely not understand why people would be outraged that "leaders of the free world", namely Trump and the rest of the US government that's been keeping a lid on this, are just a bunch of unaccountable sex-trafficking pedophiles?
Whatever is left of the western social contract is disintegrating in front of us and the reaction of our societies has been extremely mild if anything - there should be mass protests over revelations of this magnitude.
Who? Most of the people "named in the Epstein files" are guilty in public of consorting with a guy with a lot of money and not much else. Pretending they're all perverts is one-handed behavior. If you think any of this is unique or exceptional or worthy of mass protest? then I think you should read closer, because you've been had for a fool.
And that's the direction the conversation always turns. You literally don't have any influence over that, neither do I. We have judges for that. The man died 7 years ago now, and the ongoing drip-feed of additional salacious information is transparently only still happening to piss you off and make sure you stay mad. Holding the perpetrators responsible here is not my job, and it's probably not yours, and I personally don't enjoy reading about these crimes for fun as much as the front page of HN apparently does.
Half the time it's all there is to do on this text-based website, which is most of what I'm complaining about. I can read in peace just fine but there are stupid vibe-coded rape inspection projects on the front page here every single day. I think pretending you are all titillated about the same as the Facebook audience you pretend to be above is worse. Let's make a rape gmail! let's make a rapebook! How many ways can we present the rape in the most exciting way! It's disgusting to pretend it's about investigation, it's about enabling private pervert detectives.
Yeah I know, you wrote that reading about trafficking children is a hundred times worse than trafficking children, that is why I pointed out what you wrote
How is anything you mentioned in this response worse than trafficking children? Like I would imagine that trafficking children would be the worst possible thing, can you explain how it is not actually that bad? Like if you could start a sentence with: “This instance of child sex trafficking is not nearly as bad as somebody reading about it online and posting because: “
No shit. Do you like talking about child rape every day? Is that fun for you? Are you tickled seeing "CHILD RAPE UPDATES" in 72-point second coming font over your morning coffee?
No, I don't, but as an adult in a democracy I have an obligation to address harms done to my countrymen, especially insofar as they're perpetrated in collusion with my government.
I do not like it. It is not fun for me.
But sometimes, as an adult, you have to do the responsible thing, and not stick your head in the sand.
Frankly, I'm disgusted that you're blind to this, and can only imagine that people only care if they are "tickled."
Your indifference only facilitates the perpetuation of harm. Pathetic.
I wasn't blind to this many years ago when it came to light. I'm indifferent now when it doesn't matter, and disgusted when my countrymen are so easily distracted by bait. You are distracted, wasting your time, and convinced into thinking you aren't. Jerk off every single day thinking that being enlightened matters. "Blind" lol, how many times x day should I cum defending this?
Parent painted a very logical sequence of events that concluded in reduced prices. Can you provide similar reasoning for why you believe this law will increase costs?
Are you arguing against yourself to provide an example of why this law is bad…or do you actually want to force people to eat rotten/spoiled food?
You seem to provide a great example of why Eurocrats regulating a highly efficient market will not cause the desired outcome…due to reality.
> Agriculture has a high environmental and carbon footprint.
Yes, keeping 8 billion humans alive does have non-negligible energy costs. Again I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or if you’re an anti-human environmental terrorist.
If you actually care about agriculture emissions though, population decline will cause this to go down faster than any Eurocrat will with silly laws based on some clickbait news article they read about an industry they understand nothing about.
The US has needed to raise taxes for decades given the level of spending the federal government does and constant "relief" packages that everyone now expects the minute there's a downturn.
The runaway deficit is a massive problem now given the age of 0 interest rates is over.
So what's astonishing is, whether you like him or not, the Orange man actually got the American public to accept what is defacto the largest tax increase in decades.
Unfortunately, they immediately spent that money too on the promise of persistently high growth in the world's richest economy. I find that unlikely over time, but time will tell.
Seems every large Western country is currently hell bent on finding out what level of deficit spending results in societal collapse.
> What's astonishing is, whether you like him or not, the Orange man actually got the American public to accept what is defacto the largest tax increase in decades.
What does it mean "got the public to accept it?" The public had no say and these are probably illegal. On top of that, he probably literally does not know that these are effectively taxes on consumers (i.e. he believe his own bullshit).
This was a huge part of the platform that the US overwhelmingly voted for in the last election. People wanted this.
Yes, I'm sure he believes his own bullshit, but ironically, its bullshit that the US actually needed to pull (tax increases). Modern democracy has proven totally incapable of not stealing the future from its children.
They voted thinking tariffs are a fee charged to other countries for the privilege of selling to us.
But I also agree that getting an advanced electronic device landed to my door for $5 was an unnatural economic state and something should have been done. Not unilateral 100%+ tariffs, changing weekly, with bonus rampant insider trading. We elected the worst possible person for that important job.
“They wanted this” but the people who voted for this did not have the mental capacity to sort fact from fiction with respect to tariffs. So this falls flat.
He successfully raised taxes on poorer Americans while providing an even larger tax cut to the richest Americans. He also gutted the enforcement arm for said tax collection.
Netting it out, it’s a loss in revenue that disproportionately helps the richest and taxes the poor while making the government revenue decline. While also making the US dollar decline, multiplying the losses.
He is currently prepping to overthrow his local Pizzeria while the rest of us argue as if social media even exists anymore (it doesn't, it's just algorithmic TV now).
reply