EU has always been more "nanny state" then US. EU voters IMO seem to believe that principle of their government is "keep the peace and tranquility" and if that means restricting speech to do so, they are ok with that decision.
It is a joke, heavily sarcastic ("common-sense tech control"), but there is a grain of truth.
It's inspired after all the victory laps HN had about the EU's moral superiority after GDPR, sideloading, USB-C, not being America in 2024, only for this to shatter all illusions.
Flagged now, but HN has always been terrible at anything not delivered in a mundane tone of boredom.
HN appears very pro-EU in the mornings because that tends to align with the afternoon in much of Europe, just like how you tend to see more China or India content in the evenings when it's morning-afternoon in those markets. I also see more American political content around 5am-7am PT because that appears to be the time of day when EST and CST is at work.
All the timezones basically converge around 7am-11am PT though.
> HN has always been terrible at anything not delivered
Nah, you're being dishonest. Your "joke" doesn't really make sense though, the US clearly IS turning into a fascist state and whether or not another group has similar politic is legitimately completely irrelevant.
> Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr suggested Jimmy Kimmel should be suspended and said, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,”
Didn't trump post truths about firing Kimmel and Colbert? this seems to be a pattern
> Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences,
This is true, but the 1st amendment applies to the government - when the government is limiting speech, it is time to be concerned–especially given trump's track record (attempt to usurp Biden with Jan 6th, political violence comments, "jokes" about a third term, etc.)
We're having to point out almost the same guidelines that we did just a few months ago:
Please don't fulminate.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
You can't comment like this on HN, no matter who or what you're commenting about. HN is only a place where people want to participate because others make the effort to keep the standards up. Please read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them if you want to keep participating here.
Edit: looking at your posting history, you it appears you are using HN primarily for ideological battle, which is against the intended purpose of HN. We have to ban accounts that keep up this kind of activity, so please make an effort to use HN as intended in future.
His mother openly says he was left-wing; the governor said he was left-wing; he has a sexual relationship with a male transitioning to female who is also a furry; he cites Bella Ciao on the ammunition; has a "Notices bulge" meme reference also on the ammunition; and you're telling me there's no evidence?
Duh, he’s a leftist; and the fourth violent one the right wing can name from the last year alongside Ryan Routh, Thomas Crooks, and Robin Westman. Denial doesn’t solve problems.
Full stop? Lol. The right-wing groyper theory is completely dead. Tyler Robinson is a leftist who killed in the name of his leftism. None of the evidence contradicts it.
What evidence do you have that he "killed in the name of his leftism?"
As far as I know, there is no evidence of a specific "leftist" motive and no connection has been found to "leftist" organizations. Bear in mind that many Christians were opposed to Charlie Kirk's politics, and right-wingers didn't feel he went far enough. So that alone isn't evidence of "killing in the name of his leftism."
The memes aren't hard evidence either, since they're just memes.
This article appears to be about another person, I was asking about the person who shot Charlie Kirk. I know you only see an undifferentiated mass of "radical violent leftists" in your head but people actually are individuals and can have individual motives even when performing similar actions. Kirk's shooter did actually use memes, 'ANTI-ICE' as far as I know isn't a meme.
Also I thought you were leaving the thread. Here, let me show you how to actually do that.
Are you in the habit of just making shit up as you go?
>The EU has no real free speech protections
Yes they do[1] and even certain EU bodies expect that the law as proposed will likely be invalidated by courts[2].
>and many countries have been developing increasingly aggressive speech laws and police.
I'd say invasive, rather than aggressive, but yes. This has always been true and will likely always be true. Governments try to expand their own powers. News at 11.
>You can be arrested or fined for speaking objective truths in countries like
Name a country in which this doesn't hold true. Revealing classified information, trade secrets, court-protected information, doxing, obscenity, ..., will get you in trouble in many places.
>like Germany or the UK
The UK isn't even in the EU anymore. In fact while they still were in the EU, the ECJ ruled parts of their Investigatory Powers Act unlawful[3]. I don't know how that adds up with the picture you're trying to paint.
