They are tied, because the other two freedoms are intrinsically linked to the first. If a thought is not permitted to be expressed, then it is, for all intents and purposes, prohibited.
Consider how often you forget something. I write things down to remember them. If that thought, expressed, were considered criminal, then it becomes a limitation also on thought itself.
calls to violence, hate speech, and medical misinformation in the name of protecting its citizenry. I don’t think it can ethically suppress other kinds of expression, especially political express, most especially criticism of the government.
…and yet political expression and both “calls to violence” and “hate speech” are overlapping. Is a call to revolution not the ultimate criticism of the government? (but also inherently violent?)
Who gets to decide what is hateful, violent or misinformation? How do we prevent the tools used to regulate dissemination of these types of expression from being applied against other things, or the definitions of the terms from being changed/drifting over time? (Consider for instance statements regarding transgender individuals somehow getting covered by medical disinformation laws…)
I think a voluntary community, however, can ethically set much narrower limits on expression within community space.
I agree, I think this could be applied even regarding non-voluntary spaces.
However, if a forum has a sufficiently large number of members amongst the population, I believe it should be considered a public space (and have these freedoms apply), hence taking away the power of controllers of large platforms to dictate/limit/direct the public discourse.
should have the ability to restrict hate speech and threats of violence
Who decides what is considered hate speech and threats of violence?
The rest of your comment indicates you’re aware of the vagueness of these terms (and existing instances of regulatory abuse).
IMO any sufficiently large online platform should constitute a public space for purposes of these freedoms, essentially removing the ability of individual organizations to direct public discourse through platform ownership.
This is what inevitably happens when freedom of thought, speech and expression is limited for essentially any reason. Once the tools are in place, they will be used, abused and inevitably end up in the hands of someone you disagree with.
Doing something that gets your org banned by a government that isn’t even the one you’re protesting seems not only ineffective but counterproductive to me.
Censorship laws in the UK are quite dystopian, but even in less authoritarian countries, this kind of action would result in serious consequences.
that equipment was being used to further a genocide against the Palestinian people.
[Citation needed]
Finding out part of fucking around.
Countries don’t usually take kindly to people or organizations that break into military bases and vandalize equipment.
That first bit always feels so false and icky. Like, no I didn’t open up chatGPT to have my butt licked every other sentence. I just need the syntax for X or Y, and no I’m not delving into interesting depths of typescript. I’m monkeypatching the code to make a certain thing work and probably leaving a trail of wanton destruction behind every step I go.
It’s possible to reduce the privacy issues by using APIs with a local frontend. Given that APIs usually cater to companies instead of end consumers they actually have simple opt-outs for information logging.
Requires a bit of know-how, and you’ll be paying for your llm per use (not that bad actually, I’ve personally averaged <10$/yr in api costs) but at least you get to have all your personal issues on your local device instead.
For a chatGPT-like experience you probably want the ooga booga web generation ui but there’s others too.
Tehran Times is completely untrustworthy in this context, they’re - essentially a propaganda outlet for the islamist theocratic regime in Tehran. Given that they make such an absurd claim and that it hasn’t been independently verified - this is likely false.
See link below regarding Tehran Times:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran_Times#cite_note-regime-1
No, no we did not. Actions by a state doesn’t justify collectively dehumanising an entire population. Gazans didn’t become inherently evil because Hamas did October 7, Chinese aren’t inherently evil because of the Uighur Genocide, Russians aren’t inherently evil because of the invasion of Ukraine…
where they are stuck picking up the tab for people who never contributed to the local economy and are now draining it of resources
Pensions in the EU are entirely different from how it works in the US. I don’t know how it is there, but here it is the nation you worked in that coughs up the pension money. Additionally, from what I’ve heard from retirees who did move to Spain, they have to pay income tax on their pensions to the Spanish government which means that these people would actually be contributing to the state coffers similarly to someone who was working. So, in other words you have money coming in from abroad, being contributed in taxes and spent on goods & services locally, boosting the economy.
Besides, the people who can afford to move abroad for retirement usually are the wealthier sort, so not the burden you make it out to be.
Had a quick look at their statements. The IRGC claimed to target “IDF C4I, along with a military intelligence facility located in the Gav-Yam Technology Park”.
The edge of the technology center area is 1.2km from the location of the missile strike, which seems to have been the main hospital building of the medical center. Whilst I don’t know where in the tech center area the “intended” target is, this puts the hospital area as a whole at a distance of 900m-1.5km. This is within the CEP (circular error probable) for some of Iran’s ballistic missiles, but at least from a cursory search they appear to have armaments with enough accuracy to not risk hitting the hospital when aiming at their supposed target and sufficient range to hit Israel.
Every European nation has to deal with waves of retirees leaving the work force. It’s no excuse. The general solution is increasing retirement age & per capita productivity whilst cutting down on government spending in other areas unless they fancy debt financing. Different GDP strengths is exactly why it’s a % goal rather than an absolute amount to keep things fair.
Now that isn’t a reply I expected considering how well established this particular narrative is in the mainstream.
But here you go, a well sourced academic article on the topic:
Duh. OP asked about the position world leaders hold on the topic, not The Entire History of Everything™. Hence, the latter was cut for brevity.
Here’s the short version (yes, this is incomplete because even writing this is a small essay. If somebody feels like adding context please do so), to answer your question on the background to their statement & position. The position is fairly common outside Lemmy at least.
History, history, history… (very long story)
2022: Israel was working on normalizing relations with the Arab countries. Things are relatively peaceful in the ME, albeit pretty shit for Arabs in Gaza & WB, not a warzone though. This succeeding would have been a threat to the Iranian network of terrorist organizations (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, groups in Syria such as the IRGC).
Iran pushes forth October 7 to reignite tensions, training Hamas operatives & such.
Hamas attacks Israel on Oct. 7 kicking off the war - other Iranian proxy groups soon join in. Initially there is no direct conflict between Israel & Iran.
2024 april - IDF strikes the Iranian consulate in Syria to take senior officers in the Hezbollah chain of command and assassinates several others. Iran retaliates with missiles against with strikes against Israel proper.
After that, tit for tat strikes in increasing magnitude and escalations which have culminated in the current situation. No, it was not surprising, this conflict was always fundamentally between Israel & Iran and has been slowly escalating for a long time.
It’s a finnish gov:t newspaper reporting on a gov:t study.
Here’s the link:
Yes on all accounts - I think freedom of thought and expression are linked to a great extent. We form and develop thoughts and ideas by expressing and discussing them, especially when it comes to more advanced concepts that benefit from group insights.