Thread

1. laybak · 1790806804 · focus · HN ↗

   the Singaporean government is often described as having a "parental" approach. I guess this move would be on brand

   1. vovavili · 1790809717 · focus · HN ↗

      It's also known as being one of the very few countries actually capable of using state capacity to overcome serious social and economic problems. Godspeed.

      1. jb1991 · 1790811593 · focus · HN ↗

         It's also known as being one of the very few first-world countries actually without basic freedoms, like free speech, freedom of the press, etc.

         1. JumpCrisscross · 1790811765 · focus · HN ↗

            > basic freedoms, like free speech, freedom of the press, etc.

            How is that going for us in the west?

            Like, I believe in these rights. But I also think we should be open to questioning them when we’ve got anti-vaxxers and Holocaust deniers finding popular purchase among an increasingly and proudly illiterate population.

            1. jb1991 · 1790812272 · focus · HN ↗

               The net effect is ultimately positive. Societies are healthier in many ways when people are free to speak their mind.

               1. JumpCrisscross · 1790823617 · focus · HN ↗

                  > net effect is ultimately positive. Societies are healthier in many ways when people are free to speak their mind

                  This is currently not empirically sustained. I hope it will be, in the long run. But if Americans and Europeans keep voting for far-right and -left wing idiots, and China and its similars take the mantle of technological and scientific development, there is a real argument that Enlightenment values don’t apply perfectly in a world with social media and AI.

            2. jb1991 · 1790812388 · focus · HN ↗

               Humans are messy but long-term nothing good has ever come from repression.
            3. alex43578 · 1790812422 · focus · HN ↗

               The stupidity of some shouldn't be an argument against the rights of everyone.

               1. jacquesm · 1790818289 · focus · HN ↗

                  Until the stupid are in the majority and start curbing your rights. That's one of the main problems with freedom of speech and with democracy as well: they both contain the seeds of their own undoing.
               2. JumpCrisscross · 1790823513 · focus · HN ↗

                  Why not? If every society that embraces a right fails in a similar way, that right should be open to being debated. In a world with social media, I’m not convinced American First-Amendment style (in its ideal form) free speech is as unquestionably good as I once thought it was.

                  1. jb1991 · 1790824488 · focus · HN ↗

                     > If every society that embraces a right fails in a similar way

                     which societies, which failures, which "every" are you referring to, exactly?

                     1. JumpCrisscross · 1790840282 · focus · HN ↗

                        > which societies, which failures, which "every" are you referring to, exactly?

                        I'd argue American society is currently failing. We're losing wars. We're racking up debt. We're destroying our institutions. A decent fraction of the population not only expects civil war, but cheers it on.

                        Meanwhile, in Europe, a similar vein is consistently emerging across the continent. It's done better at resisting. But in part through policing speech.

                        1. alex43578 · 1790844645 · focus · HN ↗

                           Do you think Europe is being successful by those metrics?

                           They're racking up debt too, with worse means to pay it back, they've destroyed both their institutions and their culture via mass migration of unskilled and dissimilar peoples, and they couldn't even fight a war because they can't field the firepower of one US state's national guard base (much less "lose" it, in the ways that people mischaracterize the US's recent conflicts).

                           Europe is a distant third in an increasingly multipolar world that will be shaped by the US and China, reliant on the US's increasingly fickle protection from Russia; aging, fading, and losing identity. Their core industries like automotive have already lost to China, their power costs are skyrocketing, their technology (outside of some gifts from the US like ASML) lags the US across the frontiers, and there is deep divides across the continent.

                           But hey, at least they are protected from misgendering a "woman" with a beard or mentioning the identity of a criminal.

         2. broodbucket · 1790812290 · focus · HN ↗

            Australia doesn't have those either, despite many people assuming we do (including most people who live here).

            1. Der_Einzige · 1790817914 · focus · HN ↗

               Australia, New Zealand, and the UK are all competing with each other on who can be the most authoritarian anglo nation. "Oi, you got a loicense for that opinion M8?"

               1. broodbucket · 1790820447 · focus · HN ↗

                  The UK are at least vaguely equal opportunity authoritarians, and their police will arrest both the angry dad posting on Facebook about immigrants and the pensioner peacefully protesting in support of Palestine all the same
            2. aprilthird2021 · 1790831752 · focus · HN ↗

               They have much more than Singapore tbh
         3. rahimnathwani · 1790817400 · focus · HN ↗

            UK? France? Germany?

            1. jb1991 · 1790817629 · focus · HN ↗

               France has a constitutional right to free speech since at least the 18th century, not sure what you mean. There is a Declaration of the Rights of Man, which is still part of France's constitution. France is also bound by the EU Convention on Human Rights. Why would you compare France to Singapore in this regard? That's strange.

               1. rahimnathwani · 1790818260 · focus · HN ↗

                  Google any of these terms to see examples of people who were actually fined for speech in France, after 1950, and well after the 18th century:

                  - Hervé Eon Sarkozy fine

                  - Éric Zemmour 3000 fine

                  - bardot degenerates 20000

                  - Je me sens Charlie Coulibaly fine

                  None of these were threats or incitement to violence. Just insults.

                  And you talk about a constitutional right to free speech since the 18th century, but mocking Catholicism could be prosecuted until 1881 (i.e. in the 19th century).

                  1. jb1991 · 1790824422 · focus · HN ↗

                     it's perhaps debatable, but the European (and French) legal frameworks do not recognize hate speech as protected free speech, so I suppose the concern (e.g. in the Bardot case) is if it was hate speech or not. Americans also do not support hate speech, though perhaps the way these are handled legally are different. I don't think this kind of exception is fairly applied to discredit what I wrote.

                     1. rahimnathwani · 1790825299 · focus · HN ↗

                        I said France does not have free speech, and gave an example of someone who was fined for holding up a small sign with the words "Casse-toi, pov'con" ("Get lost, you sad jerk").

                        If someone in France is not free to hold a sign that says "Get lost, you sad jerk" then France does not have free speech. That sign contains only words. It does not create any threat. It does not incite anyone to take illegal and/or violent actions.

                        You say "I don't think this kind of exception is fairly applied to discredit what I wrote" but I'm having trouble following your reasoning.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.