how will this effect loverslab?

[Rederp]

The various powers-that-be don't want another Trump to get any traction through social media. That's why all the various big tech companies, "non-profits", and governments are in agreement that censoring the internet- social media and places like 4chan in particular- is a good idea.

 

Remember: the justification is not the reason.

 

How big wash the push for internet censorship before Trump? Sure, you had advertiser nonsense on youtube etc., but it was mostly fairly low-key by all but the most zealous political extremists ("Ban porn/hate speech!") or media companies ("Ban torrents/streaming/sharing sites!").

[nonusnomeni]

1 hour ago, Alkpaz said:

"A new bill in Singapore -- which had its first reading Monday -- would give the government sweeping new powers to crack down on so-called "fake news" and hit Facebook and other social media companies with big fines if they don't comply with censorship orders.

 

Under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill, it will be illegal to spread "false statements of fact" in Singapore, where that information is "prejudicial" to Singapore's security, public safety, "public tranquility," or to the "friendly relations of Singapore with other countries," among numerous other topics.

 

Individuals found guilty of contravening the act can face fines of up to 50,000 SGD (over $36,000) and, or, up to five years in prison. If the "fake news" is posted using "an inauthentic online account or controlled by a bot," the total potential fine rises to 100,000 SGD (around $73,000), and, or, up to 10 years in prison.

 

Companies such as Facebook, if found guilty of spreading "fake news," can face fines of up to 1 million SGD (around $735,000).

What exactly constitutes "a false statement of fact" is to be defined by the government, which can then choose to issue a demand for a correction, removal of the offending post, or to pursue legal action against the poster or social network."

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/02/asia/singapore-fake-news-intl/index.html

 

So not just the EU, but it is going around everywhere, it seems. 

truth is biggest enemy of political caste

[ToJKa]

Orwell must be spinning in his grave so hard that if we hooked him up to a generator we could solve the world's energy crisis!

 

(This joke is a shameless rip-off of: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-11-12) ?

[dagobaking]

On 4/7/2019 at 4:26 PM, Nexussuckstwice said:

Orwell first of all would condemn the Alt-Right and their bellowed Trump.

That's the irony.

 

Just like "The Handmaid's Tale", "1984" better describes the acts of "Democratic Socialists" than the people they attempt to criticize.

 

And this move by the EU is just another demonstration of that.

[Nexussuckstwice]

How is the weather in Moscow, comrade?

 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/04/dhs-fbi-say-election-systems-in-50-states-were-targeted-in-2016/

[nonusnomeni]

and result:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47800418

[dagobaking]

On 4/15/2019 at 12:05 PM, Nexussuckstwice said:

How is the weather in Moscow, comrade?

 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/04/dhs-fbi-say-election-systems-in-50-states-were-targeted-in-2016/

Is it really news to you that Russia tries to hack other countries?

 

There is no evidence that they achieved anything or changed one vote with their Facebook ads and comment bots that 5 year olds could spot.

[OH1972]

On 4/13/2019 at 5:48 PM, dagobaking said:

That's the irony.

 

Just like "The Handmaid's Tale", "1984" better describes the acts of "Democratic Socialists" than the people they attempt to criticize.

 

And this move by the EU is just another demonstration of that.

The irony is that you try to lecture others while your grasp of history is sorely lacking. 

[OH1972]

6 hours ago, dagobaking said:

Is it really news to you that Russia tries to hack other countries?

 

There is no evidence that they achieved anything or changed one vote with their Facebook ads and comment bots that 5 year olds could spot.

 

At least not for people who have no clue what reasonable evidence would look like and wouldn't even believe it if they had written testimony of someone pointing at specific information influencing their decision that was launched by Russia.

 

But yeah, launching false accusations and stirring up lynch mobs is totally cool.

 

And it's truly ironic that on a site like this, actions that have stirred violence against "freaks" and outsiders in many different countries are dismissed so nonchalantly. 

[dagobaking]

3 hours ago, OH1972 said:

The irony is that you try to lecture others while your grasp of history is sorely lacking. 

Please point out what I am missing, specifically?

 

Are these actions by the EU not nearly identical to a key aspect of the society in 1984? Does the EU not predominantly identify as Democratic Socialist in structure? Is that not what Orwell identified with?

2 hours ago, OH1972 said:

At least not for people who have no clue what reasonable evidence would look like and wouldn't even believe it if they had written testimony of someone pointing at specific information influencing their decision that was launched by Russia.

 

But yeah, launching false accusations and stirring up lynch mobs is totally cool.

Who is stirring up a lynch mob?

2 hours ago, OH1972 said:

And it's truly ironic that on a site like this, actions that have stirred violence against "freaks" and outsiders in many different countries are dismissed so nonchalantly. 

Can you be more specific about what you are referring to?

 

 

[DoctaSax]

27 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Does the EU not predominantly identify as Democratic Socialist in structure?

Actually, it doesn't, according to European definitions of socialism. Traditional socialist parties did in fact vote in favor of this bill though. Joined by centrists, and liberals (European definition: pro-business). Against were the greens and some ultra-left, and nationalists and some ultra-right - a rare occasion for them to agree on anything. Which only goes to show that nobody knows what's left- and what's right-wing anymore.

 

On that note, let's not go there. The traditional left-right divide is obsolete, and only serves to distract us with misplaced resentment.

[dagobaking]

3 hours ago, DoctaSax said:

Actually, it doesn't, according to European definitions of socialism.

S&D is one of the largest parties by itself and there are several smaller ones to the left. The "less left" party has produced leaders that are around the same as Bernie Sanders on health care, taxes, etc.

3 hours ago, DoctaSax said:

The traditional left-right divide is obsolete, and only serves to distract us with misplaced resentment.

It has definitely changed over time and by region. But, at this point, it should maybe be considered as part of a cyclical pattern. Like certain ideologies being attractive in theory. But, remind us of their flaws when they are tried again, which renews the opposing approach.

[iJaVaFx]

I't won't uk will migrate to usa until the censorship is removed..

 

[?????]

Uff im sure here are only bots or paid members... 

 

(joke...) 

[Jansen2]

On 4/17/2019 at 7:18 PM, DoctaSax said:

Actually, it doesn't, according to European definitions of socialism. Traditional socialist parties did in fact vote in favor of this bill though. Joined by centrists, and liberals (European definition: pro-business). Against were the greens and some ultra-left, and nationalists and some ultra-right - a rare occasion for them to agree on anything. Which only goes to show that nobody knows what's left- and what's right-wing anymore.

 

On that note, let's not go there. The traditional left-right divide is obsolete, and only serves to distract us with misplaced resentment.

 

Unfortunately the greens voted in favour of the articles here in Germany.

 

I'll be voting for the Partei der Humanisten in the upcoming elections myself. They were against the Articles and are in favour of a few other things I am also in favour of (allowing biomedical and genetic research for example and embracing new technologies as a solution to climate change rather than trying to turn us all into luddites).

 

#nieMehrCDU

[winny257]

50 minutes ago, Jansen2 said:

 

Unfortunately the greens voted in favour of the articles here in Germany.

 

I'll be voting for the Partei der Humanisten in the upcoming elections myself. They were against the Articles and are in favour of a few other things I am also in favour of (allowing biomedical and genetic research for example and embracing new technologies as a solution to climate change rather than trying to turn us all into luddites).

 

#nieMehrCDU

sorry in German

 

es gibt einen Punkt warum ich Sie nicht wähle, dieser Punkt ist für mich ausschlaggebend.
Sie sollten nicht Gott spielen, ich bin ein absoluter gegner der Genforschung. 
Natur und Menschen entstanden durch natürliche Evolution und nicht durch wirken einiger übermühtiger Wissenschaftler.
keiner kann vorhersehen was durch Genmanipulation in 50 Jahren sein wird.
vielleicht gibt es dann Menschen mit zwei Köpfen oder es gibt die menschheit überhaupt nicht mehr weil sie sich in Amöben verwandelt haben. 

Intelligentestes Wesen dieser Erde * eine Amöbe* 

[Jansen2]

2 hours ago, winny257 said:

sorry in German

 

es gibt einen Punkt warum ich Sie nicht wähle, dieser Punkt ist für mich ausschlaggebend.
Sie sollten nicht Gott spielen, ich bin ein absoluter gegner der Genforschung. 
Natur und Menschen entstanden durch natürliche Evolution und nicht durch wirken einiger übermühtiger Wissenschaftler.
keiner kann vorhersehen was durch Genmanipulation in 50 Jahren sein wird.
vielleicht gibt es dann Menschen mit zwei Köpfen oder es gibt die menschheit überhaupt nicht mehr weil sie sich in Amöben verwandelt haben. 

Intelligentestes Wesen dieser Erde * eine Amöbe* 

 

We've been influencing our own evolution since we first mastered the use of fire; we could survive harsher climates that we aren't physically suitable to inhabit, we didn't "evolve" the ability to live outside of our native savannahs, we invented the tools to do so. By observing and manipulating strains of plants we have created cereals and foods to sustain us beyond what nature could otherwise do; Bananas are not a natural creation, we altered their evolution and created a superfood from them, one that if we do not look to altering genetically is very likely to die off; neither evolution nor any god created it, we did, and no evolution or god will fix it only we can. The grains we eat on a daily basis are the result of generations of slow genetic manipulation, both unknowingly and knowingly. The livestock we consume and use to fashion our clothing are again the result of generations of manipulation, neither evolution nor any god created this or this or this or this, we did.

Through medicine we have developed vaccines and cures that allow us to overcome illnesses that if "left to God" would see mothers and infants die in childbirth or very early in life at a far higher rate than we do today; in some cases those vaccines/cures are directly the result of genetic manipulation, either using older methods of breeding strains of a virus/bacterium or the newer methods where we are directly editing them. How can you be against that?

 

If humanity doesn't "play God" who will?

[winny257]

16 minutes ago, Jansen2 said:

 

We've been influencing our own evolution since we first mastered the use of fire; we could survive harsher climates that we aren't physically suitable to inhabit, we didn't "evolve" the ability to live outside of our native savannahs, we invented the tools to do so. By observing and manipulating strains of plants we have created cereals and foods to sustain us beyond what nature could otherwise do; Bananas are not a natural creation, we altered their evolution and created a superfood from them, one that if we do not look to altering genetically is very likely to die off; neither evolution nor any god created it, we did, and no evolution or god will fix it only we can. The grains we eat on a daily basis are the result of generations of slow genetic manipulation, both unknowingly and knowingly. The livestock we consume and use to fashion our clothing are again the result of generations of manipulation, neither evolution nor any god created this or this or this or this, we did.

Through medicine we have developed vaccines and cures that allow us to overcome illnesses that if "left to God" would see mothers and infants die in childbirth or very early in life at a far higher rate than we do today; in some cases those vaccines/cures are directly the result of genetic manipulation, either using older methods of breeding strains of a virus/bacterium or the newer methods where we are directly editing them. How can you be against that?

 

If humanity doesn't "play God" who will?

http://www.umweltinstitut.org/themen/gentechnik/risiken-und-nebenwirkungen.html

 

wenn du willst zeige ich dir mehr, insbesondere Berichte aus den USA, wo Genmanipulierte Nahrung bereit schwerwiegende Folgen vieler Menschen (Gesundheitlich) zur folge hat. 

[Jansen2]

Those websites are the reasons I skip most unsourced publications and generally only read the actual peer-reviewed papers; anecdotal reports of people suffering ill health from genetically modified crops aren't believable, it shows ignorance of the actual science behind it all.

 

Genetic modification is not at fault; it's the patent/copyright laws in the US that are.

[winny257]

11 minutes ago, Jansen2 said:

Those websites are the reasons I skip most unsourced publications and generally only read the actual peer-reviewed papers; anecdotal reports of people suffering ill health from genetically modified crops aren't believable, it shows ignorance of the actual science behind it all.

 

Genetic modification is not at fault; it's the patent/copyright laws in the US that are.

ich hoffe daß überzeugt dich.
wissenschaftlicher Bericht.

 

https://chomps.com/blogs/news/can-eating-gmo-foods-make-you-sick

 

ein gutes, Gott sei Dank sind genmanipulierte Lebensmittel in Deutschland VERBOTEN. 

[Jansen2]

31 minutes ago, winny257 said:

ich hoffe daß überzeugt dich.
wissenschaftlicher Bericht.

 

https://chomps.com/blogs/news/can-eating-gmo-foods-make-you-sick

 

ein gutes, Gott sei Dank sind genmanipulierte Lebensmittel in Deutschland VERBOTEN. 

No, it's an opinion piece using second hand information without linking to any peer-reviewed studies. It doesn't give any reason on why genetic modification should be banned, it's literally just another unsourced, biased scare piece designed to get you to buy their dried meat snacks. Bizzare choice of an article to link to.

As I said, Monsanto's use of genetic modification to protect it's monopoly is not a reason to ban humanity from eliminating the plagues that afflict us.

The misapplication of laws does not negate the benefits of genetic modification.

As for food, I eat bio myself, I'm also an environmentalist; that's why I'm voting for Die Humanisten. Ban GMO from the food chain, don't ban the technology just because you're scared of the future.

 

There's little point in us discussing this further though; I can't be convinced by fear-mongering and you can't be convinced by science, we can only vote and do our democratic duty  

[Miss AshleyJ]

We have been modifying plants and animals to fit our needs for eons. genome engineering just lets us do it faster. The next time you eat something made from corn, remember that before humans, corn was no bigger than the grass outside (that's currently wreaking havoc with my allergies...)

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/fruits-vegetables-before-domestication-photos-genetically-modified-food-natural

 

 

 

I am all in favor of limits (I don't want a real life Khan Noonien Singh running around as much as the next person), but there is a usefulness in it.

 

For example, as I've said in the past, I'm transgender. I would love one shot that simply re-wrote my DNA to produce estrogen instead of testosterone vs. actually having to take hormones or loose my genitals (I intend to keep my bits, I actually want people to call me a shemale.)

[winny257]

1 hour ago, Jansen2 said:

No, it's an opinion piece using second hand information without linking to any peer-reviewed studies. It doesn't give any reason on why genetic modification should be banned, it's literally just another unsourced, biased scare piece designed to get you to buy their dried meat snacks. Bizzare choice of an article to link to.

As I said, Monsanto's use of genetic modification to protect it's monopoly is not a reason to ban humanity from eliminating the plagues that afflict us.

The misapplication of laws does not negate the benefits of genetic modification.

As for food, I eat bio myself, I'm also an environmentalist; that's why I'm voting for Die Humanisten. Ban GMO from the food chain, don't ban the technology just because you're scared of the future.

 

There's little point in us discussing this further though; I can't be convinced by fear-mongering and you can't be convinced by science, we can only vote and do our democratic duty  

Center for Food Safety ist das gleiche wie Stiftung Warentest bei uns, diese Leute haben viel Macht.
sie sind durchaus in der lage rechtliche Schritte einzuleiten und sie entscheiden, ob ein Produckt lebt oder stirbt.

 

jetzt ein wichtiger punkt, du glaubst doch nicht ernsthaft das die reichen Säcke (Millionäre, Multimillionäre oder Milliardäre) sich von GEN Food ernähren?
diese Nahrung ist für normale Bürger vorbehalten, die können ruhig den Löffel abgeben, es gibt ja reichlich von ihnen! 

[Jansen2]

You're confusing that group with the FDA. That group you're mentioning are a political advocacy organisation with a biased agenda driven approach it seems to their work while the Stiftung Warentest organisation was established by the federal government to be impartial and unbiased. The FDA are the organisation in the US responsible for allowing or disallowing anything americans put on or in themselves but afaik (I'm not american) they don't do anything like measure the durability and "usefulness" of a product or service.

It's unfair to associate Stiftung Warentest with a lobbyist organisation, you're undermining their work and the basis for their existence by doing so.

[winny257]

37 minutes ago, Jansen2 said:

You're confusing that group with the FDA. That group you're mentioning are a political advocacy organisation with a biased agenda driven approach it seems to their work while the Stiftung Warentest organisation was established by the federal government to be impartial and unbiased. The FDA are the organisation in the US responsible for allowing or disallowing anything americans put on or in themselves but afaik (I'm not american) they don't do anything like measure the durability and "usefulness" of a product or service.

It's unfair to associate Stiftung Warentest with a lobbyist organisation, you're undermining their work and the basis for their existence by doing so.

No, I meant this organization.
CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY (CFS)

https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/about-us