This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 74%. (I'm a bot)
> With growing dangers from far-right extremist groups and torrents of threats against politicians, Germany is set to toughen online speech laws and tighten the screws on social networks.
> "In future, those who make threats or spread hate online will be prosecuted more toughly and more effectively," Justice Minister Christine Lambrecht said on her ministry's website.
> On top of the new reporting processes, Berlin wants to toughen potential sentences, including up to three years in prison for online death or rape threats.
> Especially in recent months, the spread of anti-Semitic messages online - including a bizarre screed written by the perpetrator of an attack targeting a synagogue in the eastern city of Halle in Octboer 2019 - has also grown.
> "Inhuman spreading of hate and threats online lower the thresholds" to violence, she added.
> Ministers' plans have not gone unopposed in Germany, where debate is fierce between those who value online anonymity as a shield against the state and those who see unregulated online spaces as a threat.
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: threat^#1 online^#2 politician^#3 attack^#4 Minister^#5
Post found in /r/worldnews and /r/fuckthefarright.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
Hi Thomas and CIG crew!
I've been following CIG since I was an undergrad in 2013 and found your advice so helpful when it came to managing my stress and trying to figure out what I wanted to do professionally. Fast forward 5 years, I'm about to graduate from a niche program in rehabilitation medicine and I want to give back to my small community of professionals and update some of our more antiquated presence on the internet with a more comprehensive, and helpful resource so that we build a supportive community. It's just me working on the blog right now but I want to expand and cover more ground on various topics that other people might have more expertise in. The sheer workload involved in editing videos and site management is also getting to me. I was wondering when you started considering CIG as a business more than a personal project, and how you tackled ways to build credibility with your readers while simultaneously building a network of people who can contribute their time. I'm really passionate about what I do and my advisers are enthusiastically supportive, and I can really see this growing into a creative and helpful online resource, but I think I need some help. Any advice based on your own experience? Advice from anyone else reading this thread is also much appreciated!
I really appreciate your time and all of the help you've given me the past few years. Was really happy to see you on Crash Course too!
Thanks!
The law can (at least in some countries) forbid social networks (and other online communities) from hosting some forms of speech, for example hate speech and threats. The goal of such laws is not to ban the substance of the speech, but rather its form. Ideally, any kind of idea or statement could be expressed as long as it is done in a civil manner and without harm. Still, bias can appear through the definition of what is "civil", effectively opening the door to banning a specific type of substance. So this is already a fine line to thread.
Considering banning speech based on its "veracity" is a whole new step. The truth is no easy thing to find, and the entire profession of journalism consists in trying to uncover it. The diversity of reports (and their various political affiliations) shows that we can't formulate a single, satisfying, "truth". As long as this is the case, it is paramount that people have access to all variations of reports. Banning some variations and allowing the publication of only one given truth is a practice typically used by totalitarian states.
Some statements are so factual in their formulation (e.g. a claim that a murder has took place in some place at some time) that it is reasonable to consider that they're not up to any interpretation, and that they must simply be either true or false. I agree with this impression, however I believe that regulating the publication of such facts brings risks that aren't worth the benefits (the benefits in question are that people are better-informed). In fact I believe the benefits are very short-sighted whereas the risks are dangerous on the long-term.
The first risk is the introduction of bias in the implementation of the regulation. To create such regulation, you first need to define what is factual and what is not. Factual things are statement that can either be true or false and about which you want to ban false statements. Non-factual things are higher-level reports that are up to interpretation and should not be regulated for reasons explained previously. Unfortunately, what is factual and what is not is itself a consideration up to interpretation, such that the sole act of basing a regulation on a given interpretation would already a ban on other interpretations of this question. In practice, the political party having the control of the said regulation could model the definition of "factual" to put in it things that could be argued are actually more subtle.
The second risk is nurt
... keep reading on reddit ➡I am saying that '24' hour market's still expect people to drive 15 or 20 miles in dangerous weather to make it to work. Also alot of these people dont have cars that can handle roads at their best some even need to drive on roads that never get attention. How do you justify this?
Previous post on here about how my dad is.
To sum it up: my dad is loud, attention-seeking, possibly a narcissist [and possibly diagnosed - my mom says he was either diagnosed with NPD, BPD or bipolar back in the 2000s but doesn't remember], embarrassing in a not cute way and just kind of terrible. He's also verbally and emotionally abusive to my poor mother on a daily basis and was recently very abusive to me a few months ago when I reached out to him in a time of emotional distress. He made my childhood sad.
I am getting married this fall in a small, family-only ceremony in my backyard. For the first three months of my engagement, I knew a big wedding would be bad news and something I absolutely didn't want because it's not who I am (also, this is a factor) and my dad would absolutely cause a scene because of who he is as a person. After asking my fiance to consider courthouse or elopement, we settled on a small immediate family only ceremony in the backyard, restaurant after, no cake, and then a small trip near the house before embarking on a bigger honeymoon later on. Okay. We also decided to find a day-of coordinator despite the small size of the wedding to help keep things in line, one of those possibly being my "loose cannon" father.
My family is poor and has never thrown any parties, the only two family events my fiance has been to were funerals. Meanwhile, his family is well-off and throws several parties a year and has frequent large family vacations. The dynamics of our families are completely different and I am still getting over the culture shock I entered into. We are even planning an "extended family reception" next summer for our wedding so fiance's extended family can have wedding cake with us, and my parents are tentatively invited to that. I already want to call it off.
Here we get to the point of the story. Unfortunately, my father-in-law to be, who I'll just call FIL here, was diagnosed with terminal cancer two weeks ago. We are all in shock, we are all devastated, and we have all been dealing with it and spending time with him. The day me and my fiance were told, I told my MIL I'd be letting my parents know. My parents sent their love and prayers. I casually updated them on FIL's status and we recently moved up th
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Introduced: Sponsor: Sen. Michael Crapo [R-ID]
This bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Finance which will consider it before sending it to the Senate floor for consideration.
Sen. Michael Crapo [R-ID] is a member of the committee.
