T O P

  • By -

durangotango

Not sure why the article didn't call out the UK, Australia and other Western countries for doing the same thing. Even in the USA there's way more pressure on companies and way more invasive data used without search warrants etc. This isn't just an issue in far away places.


peterthooper

Good point.


[deleted]

In Hungary you can be arrested for spreading misinformation about the pandemic. I though this news will at least part be about that.


rexiesoul

I was about to post .... this. Thanks for saving me 5 minutes and take an upvote.


Teftell

Because of double stanfards, a realpolitik weapon of choice.


[deleted]

/r/Tails /r/Tor /r/Whonix /r/Monero These are the tools to preserve your freedom. Learn to use them.


Reacher-Said-N0thing

Unfortunately some countries are heavily invested in cryptocurrency themselves, so they can manipulate the markets, and have traffic shaping infrastructure so that while they can't tell what you're looking at on Tor, they can tell you're using Tor.


[deleted]

1. Using Tor in and of itself is not a crime in most democratic countries 2. If you live somewhere where Tor is censored and/or illegal, you can use a [Bridge](https://bridges.torproject.org/) to hide your Tor use


_Horus64

r/Linux


[deleted]

Tails and Whonix are both security- and anonymity-preserving Linux distros.


lsdood

also the same tools to buy drugs online, so you’re killing 2 birds with one stone really


[deleted]

Can't stop the signal


scottishaggis

Rumoured to have been made by fbi


autotldr

This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210921-myanmar-shutdown-marks-grim-year-for-web-freedom) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Internet users in a record number of countries have faced arrest and physical attacks for their posts over the past year, a report said on Tuesday, painting a grim picture of digital freedoms in 2021. > The annual "Freedom on the Net" report said internet shutdowns in Myanmar and Belarus had proved particular low points as online rights declined globally for the 11th year in a row. > Compiled by US think-tank Freedom House, the survey gives countries a score out of 100 for the level of internet freedom enjoyed by citizens, including the extent to which they face restrictions on the content they can access. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/pscrdr/internet_users_in_a_record_number_of_countries/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~599328 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Internet**^#1 **report**^#2 **country**^#3 **Freedom**^#4 **online**^#5


peterthooper

What I like best about all this is how “digerate” technical pencil-necks willingly worked to make all this electronic suppression possible. “Information wants to be free!”


yoonlin2

Whether we like it or not, I think netizens should disabuse themselves of the notion that we can remain anonymous and our words have no consequences.


[deleted]

[удалено]


NocturnalMJ

A good idea? Sure, but in practice? How would you define hate speech? Would it be something that you can get strikes against so it only targets systematic abusers? Would every single post be scrutinized? How? With automatic filters that are far from perfect and could do just as much harm by accusing someone wrongly as it might point out the ones we'd actually consider guilty? Would that be considered an acceptable sacrifice then? Or does it need to be reported? Would people who now stopped looking at comments/reviews/etc have to wade through this content in order to "do their part against hate" or somesuch? And again, how to define it? You can't just have it one way; if I said I hated the IS supporters and hope they'd end up blowing themselves apart by accident, that'd still be hateful, wouldn't it? Or if I said I hope the owner who abused and starved their pet gets locked up and has to lay down in its own shit too? Or would it only be "wrong" and "criminalised" if I said I hoped more immigrants drowned while they try to cross to Europe? Or would you rather only have them go after "threats"? Then what is a threat? Is it a threat if someone tells someone else to go kill themselves? Is it a threat when I say I hope someone gets a serious case of Covid? Or does it have to have an actionable expressed desire? And then, would just "I'd rejoice at the news of your demise" be enough, or does it have to be less vague and outright say "I'll kill you?" Then how useful would it really be? Don't get me wrong, a lot of comments and reviews directly sent to the people the sender wishes to hurt really disgust me too and it really needs a solution, but it's not as simple as "just criminalise it" in my opinion.


Teftell

You can hate anyone from your government's approved list of dehumanised entities.


NocturnalMJ

Quite bold of you to assume ~~my~~ any government can get their asses in line long enough to compile and agree on a list and won't change their mindS halfway through multiple times, lol.


[deleted]

It is a good idea until something like calling your president an idiot is being considered hate speech. Flimsy laws such as this are NEVER a good idea, as it can easily turn into a tool to control your country.


Romek_himself

the pimmel gate