Quote from: suchmoon on August 20, 2018, 08:37:20 PM

Only if you promise to reply with huge walls of text from conspiracy sites of home-schooled "lawyers"

Appeal to authority is not an argument. Its a trolling tactic that attempts to obfuscate that you really dont want to respond to the logic presented.

You got your moronic ass whipped and ran away from the arguments.

Quote from: suchmoon on August 20, 2018, 08:37:20 PM

huge walls of text from conspiracy sites

So Techdirt.com is a conspiracy site when they are citing Stanford's Center for Internet and Society?

Quote from: Shelby_Moore_III_ on August 20, 2018, 06:45:39 PM

Dimwit, here is one example of the specific way that GDPR forces tech companies to ban hate speech because the law can put them into a liability quandry:[/size]

Quote from: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151029/07290832661/how-eus-proposed-new-privacy-rules-will-be-tool-massive-censorship.shtml

And that's not all that's dangerous about the current rules. They also deal a huge blow to anonymous speech and privacy:

Quote

A second glaring problem with the GDPR process is its requirement that companies disclose the identity of the person who posted the content, without any specified legal process or protection. This is completely out of line with existing intermediary liability laws. Some have provisions for disclosing user identity, but not without a prescribed legal process, and not as a tool available to anyone who merely alleges that an online speaker has violated the law. Its also out of line with the general pro-privacy goals of the GDPR, and its specific articles governing disclosure of anyones personal information -- including that of people who put content on the Internet.

Yes, that's right. In an effort to protect privacy, the drafters are so focused on a single scenario, that they don't consider how the process will be abused to weaken the privacy rights of others. Want to know who said something anonymously that you don't like? File a privacy complaint and the service provider is just supposed to cough up their name. Again, given how often we've seen bogus defamation claims made solely for the purpose of trying to identify those who speak anonymously, this is a major concern.

Are you not capable of comprehending how the above requirement of the GDPR law could cause a large company to decide its easier to just ban hate speech from their websites rather risk some loose canons dragging them into complex domino effect liability outcomes of the requirements of the law.

The large companies legal departments see the writing on the wall and have decided to favor caution over free speech.