French President Emmanuel “Toy Boy” Macron has recently taken measures to crack down on hate speech on social media. The French government now requires platforms such as Twitter to deliver offenders’ IP addresses to the police and the courts so they can be found and prosecuted, and remove the offending material tout de suite.
Many thanks to Ava Lon for translating this report from French TV, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
Video transcript:
| 00:00 | General absence of anonymity on the Internet would be very dangerous and would lead us | |
| 00:04 | towards examples that we wouldn’t want to see. However, he [Macron] gave a very clear example | |
| 00:08 | that is really something that — I hope — everybody will understand. That nowadays it is | |
| 00:12 | no longer acceptable that platforms that have the means to help the judicial system | |
| 00:16 | and the police identify a person who committed | |
| 00:20 | an online anti-Semitic crime take several weeks or several months before | |
| 00:24 | providing the information. IP address. It’s a technical term, but this ‘IP address’ | |
| 00:29 | is what Twitter has on every user who posts a message on their platform. | |
| 00:33 | It has to be possible to transfer it [i.e. the IP address] to the police as fast as possible, | |
| 00:37 | and to the justice system, so the person may be swiftly identified and prosecuted | |
| 00:41 | and finally sentenced. The second element which was signed today — | |
| 00:45 | since it’s good to find the person — you must punish him/her, you must go as far as possible, | |
| 00:49 | you must be able to file complaint as easily as possible. And in a couple of months it would become | |
| 00:53 | a reality: you could file your complaint on the Internet. If I’m being insulted | |
| 00:57 | on Twitter with a homophobic or anti-Semitic insult, I can file a complaint directly | |
| 01:01 | and the prosecution can begin swiftly. That, too, is very important. And finally, | |
| 01:05 | the responsibility of the platforms to make that content disappear. That content which is | |
| 01:10 | online: EVERY MINUTE that it’s online it’s causing damage to the victims. | |
| 01:14 | Therefore those platforms have to be made responsible for removing it as soon as possible. |
because they do not want to hear anyone but themselves, there will be no one to blame but themselves, when it all unravels into chaos
“…identify a person who committed an online anti-Semitic crime…”
They use anti-Semitic crime as an example not out of concern for the rise of anti-Semitism but because they believe that even the ‘populists’ will gladly accept that fighting anti-Semitism requires more policing of the internet.
Anti-semitic crimes? Aren’t those crimes committed by the left and their cohorts the Muslims?
I had to look twice to make sure it wasn’t just a parody, and I’m still not 100% convinced.
The way around this, of course, is to use a VPN service, which creates a temporary, pseudo IP address. You can even have it reflect a country of your choice. So if you live in France, you can use a VPN of, say, Germany or Austria if you want to have a hoot. Be sure the service you contract with discards user session records after a reasonable time, say 24 hours. Even the thought police, who as Orwell pointed out, were the only effective bureaucracy in the degenerate, totalitarian state a country like France has become, are unlikely to hie themselves over to every VPN supplier within 24 hours
Any recommendations?
I have no idea which VPN services are trustworthy.
Your research is as good as my research.
I use CyberGhost. Google, or Bing, or duckduck VPN services, read reviews, and make your own conclusions.
I find HMA (Hide My A**) simple and reliable with an extensive choice of proxy servers (I am posting this from the Vatican). I have little doubt that GCHQ and its equivalents around the world could track you down regardless but I would hope they have bigger fish to fry.
The search engines StartPage and DuckDuckGo claim not to keep information about searchers, unlike Google, and I have not come across anything to contradict that.
I heard from an expert in these things that Protonmail is a particularly secure email service.
As far as being tracked, one thing to look for is a no-logs policy. This means they do not keep logs of sessions, meaning after the logs are deleted, your IP address cannot be connected to the IP address you are using, nor to the particular session in question.
Apparently, another consideration is the EU directive DRD or Data Retention Directive. Make sure any VPN service you use does not come under the Data Retention Directive, which exposes your personal information.
Being an engineer, a logical investigation into itnA-msitimeS revealed a PARADOX : that sweJ appear to be behaviourally itnA-citimeS.
Under this new theory, the Paradox Logic indicates this :
“Given total government protection by Monsieur Macron and whoever else, sweJ will continue totally unchallenged, to carry out more and more extreme and increasingly itnA-citimeS behaviour (against themselves) under the guise of having a zero-tolerance policy towards itnA-msitimeS”.
What an interesting and fascinating theory, is it not?
There are many current examples, at play, now :
A) learsI v enitselaP
B) UK Labour Party
This has, in my research, been seen and can be evaluated within the new form of LOGIC called Cliodynamics.
My research indicates a deep root, 4 Billion Years Old, within DNA and RNA CODEX, where the relationship is Pythagorean ergo Mathematical in that the RNA is Base 4, the DNA is Base 8, that never will be resolved because resolution is not (and never was) the Process Purpose or Process Function. We have (possibly) totally misinterpreted the sum total of all history and everything.
Could we have this in English please?
One can always get one’s message over by using more moderate language. Only those that don’t want to know won’t be able to read between the lines – and those that don’t want to know will never matter.
I disagree with you. Ramzpaul did a video on this several months ago, and he very sensibly pointed out that a lot of the banning was arbitrary. This was akin to a totalitarian state, where arrests were arbitrary and not necessarily related to the severity of the thought-crime offense, if any existed at all.
Ramzpaul gave the opinion that this resulted in severe self-censorship. There were no rules to be followed, and no boundaries to steer clear of, so as a result, people say nothing at all.
This is analogous to the rat experiments carried out by psychologists, where random shocks leave the rat shivering in a corner, not moving anywhere.
My answer is to temper language not the message. What’s yours?