[pjerem]

> We are very fast approaching totalitarianism here in Europe.

That's false

> There is basically no free speech anymore

That's a far right narrative and that have never been as false as today given how much we are now unfortunately allowing far right bullshit.

> they want to even track and control our private communication.

Some executives wants it yes, but this still have to be voted by the European parliament, which is democratically elected and which already voted this [0] . Friendly reminder that European elections are on 6-9 June 2024.

0: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/historic-agreement-on-child...

[zrn900]

> That's false

https://www.democracynow.org/2024/4/16/germany_palestine#:~:...

Like in all capitalist countries: Youre free in Europe as long as you don't pose a risk to the ruling class or oppose the ongoing foreign policy. If you do, there are many ways to repress you.

That is why things like this chat spying thing are dangerous. They increase the amount of surveillance and control. All it takes for it to be used for another purpose than fighting pedophilia is a new administration coming to power in a few years and deciding to do so.

[impossiblefork]

>That's a far right narrative and that have never been as false as today given how much we are now unfortunately allowing far right bullshit.

You say so, but is it true? If it were obvious, it'd be faster to say the explanation of why it were obvious than to describe as you have. You'd instead be able to say something like 'we have the first amendment, and there aren't any exception-- we don't do anything like that fire in a crowded theater stuff from WWI', and then you'd be done, and you'd have done it in a way that's certain.

I don't think it's obvious at all, and it may well be false.

[mijoharas]

What evidence do you have to say that free speech is gone?

If you're making an assertion you need evidence, for someone to say "that's not true" in response providing the same amount of evidence is fine.

[impossiblefork]

I don't actually say that we don't have free speech but rather that you never gave an argument that it isn't, and then I followed that up with that isn't obvious that we do have freedom of speech in practice.

There was the recent Varoufakis thing, there's all sorts of weird corporate censorship on the web, there's these laws about offensive speech in the UK, there's that weird thing where a politically controversial newspaper run by a Swede in Estonia had its bank account frozen (it was eventually unfrozen after a lawsuit, but that took time, and harassment strategies can harm a publication just as bans can), these arrests of anti-monarchy protestors in the UK-- all that stuff about blank protest signs etc.

There's so much weird stuff that it's not obvious that we have freedom of speech. We might, but I am personally not totally sure of the total situation, taking everything into account.

[mijoharas]

That's fair enough, and while I think we do have free speech I respect you saying that it's not obvious, and it's very possible I'd think the same on digging into the things you reference.

However, the main point I was making is that a refutation without evidence is a valid response to a statement made without evidence (which is what the comment you replied to was).

Having a higher burden of proof doesn't make sense to me.

[EDIT I just reread your comment, and noticed you said "you". I just wanted to point out it was someone else you were replying to before]

[impossiblefork]

My comment isn't complaining about a refutation without proof, but a refutation which claims something which if it were obvious would be shorter and simpler than the refutation.

An assertion without proof. You can deny it, but you can't respond with any essay about how the assertion is reprehensible.

[wrboyce]

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence” – Hitchen’s Razor

[snapcaster]

Don't a bunch of european nations have free speech laws and restrictions?