[bgarbiak]

I remember the communism. Boy, you have no idea. And, frankly, your comparisons between EU clampdown on disinformation and hate speech (however effective or justified it is) to communism propaganda and to persecutions against its opponents - it is pretty offensive.

[FirmwareBurner]

>Boy, you have no idea.

Why? What did I miss?

>your comparisons between EU clampdown on disinformation and hate speech (however effective or justified it is) to communism propaganda and to persecutions against its opponents - it is pretty offensive

That's how boiling the frog works. Where do you think you'll end up if you give the government authority to decide what information is right or wrong for you to have access to?

What happens when Ursula v.d Leyen decides that her scandal involving the deleted email is "disinformation" and has a friendly judge call for it to be scrubbed from media and search engines?

You can't and should never blindly trust governments with them having your well being at heart. The main goal of a government is to stay in power, by any mean necessary in order to help those who finance their careers and campaigns.

If you can't see the slope between this speech police path and becoming an USSR-Light minus the gulags and executions, then maybe you're the offensive one.

[tpm]

> That's how boiling the frog works.

that's also how the slippery slope fallacy works

[FirmwareBurner]

Hitler seizing power and the Nazis invading Poland was also a fallacy. Until it wasn't. The NSA spying on everyone was also a fallacy. Until it wasn't. Go back in time and find other examples.

Any extreme powers you give the government to "keep you safe", they will eventually be abused, first against foreigners, political dissidents and whistleblowers, then against you.

History doesn't necessarily repat itself, but it definitely rhymes.

[mike_hearn]

Technically, "slippery slope" isn't a fallacy. It's just a name for the idea that one thing leads inevitably to another. It's not fallacious to extrapolate from past experience, even if that extrapolation turns out to be wrong.

[tpm]

I wrote "slippery slope fallacy", not just "slippery slope", for a reason.

[mike_hearn]

Arguing A->B is only a fallacy if no argument for the sequence is provided. A plausible argument was provided here based on prior experience of other governments. There's no fallacy if you just disagree on the probability.

[tpm]

No argument (not plausible, not probable, none) for the sequence was provided.

Communist revolution always precedes communist control of speech.