I think it was popularized in the USA by the first amendment
> FREEDOM of speech is a constitutional guarantee. But that doesn't mean it is absolute or not subject to some limitations
one important thing is that the burden of the proof is on the accusers.
it was "repopularized" because there were literally nazis killing people in the streets, you should be aware that being a nazi it's a crime almost everywhere in the western World (except US) and that nazi usually hide themselves behind the "you should prove that hate speech against the jews is a crime"
So the broader definition of freedom of speech AND the consequences is a consequence of nazis taking over the public discourse, not the contrary.
WTF happened here, my new comments are all flagged as dead, why???
I swear I have nothing to do with anything you are implying, why should I reply with a different account when I could have used this one? and BTW my comment had positive upvotes!
that's not me, why in the hell I am being punished for something I haven't done and had no reason to do????
please reverse your decision, you're making a big mistake here.
I have no idea why you assumed that's me, I haven't used my HN account after that comment and looked at it again only today.
I think it's the opposite, productivity is the GDP output over worked hours, in USA they work a lot more than in Europe on average, so their productivity is actually similar, not higher.
> A total of 100 million Petros will be sold, with an initial value set at $60, based on the price of a barrel of Venezuelan crude in mid-January.
Unfortunately we know that its purpose is raise cash because they can't repay their huge national debt.
Which is why every dictator loves cryptos if they can control them as they control state currencies.
The narrative can be shifted to we are all in this together, we live and die together.
If they'd allow bitcoins for the general population (they love them only for themselves) some would become richer, but the country as a whole would not benefit a bit from it.
And failing at that is something no politician can survive.
In Venezuela they haven't banned cryptos, they banned mining, especially if it's done on state funded electricity (for obvious reasons)/and because other cryptos compete with the state backed crypto, the Petro.
torrenting illegal material was already illegal, before Netflix.
and France is not Turkey, but no Germany either where the ban on illegal downloads actually works, because they will get you.
In my opinion cause and effect are reversed here: Netflix is going strong because there is a ban on torrents and sharing copyrighted material in general and it worked.
If it was the other way around, Netflix would earn peanuts.
Also, people get around a ban on torrents because there is no risk, the worse thing that can happen is that you won't watch a movie illegally.
Now think about using illegal money and the consequences...
> HADOPI is slowly dying.
again, wrong comparison.
How many people watch YouTube videos in China and how many would if it was not banned?
That's your benchmark.
Look at the ban on guns, where the ban exists the number of guns in people hands is very low.
If it worked as you said, where arms are banned people would use them illegally.
But instead they do not (again: generally speaking).
Think about prostitution, it's legal in Germany where the government estimates the real number may be as high as 400,000 almost 0.5% of the population.
In Italy, where it's practically illegal (it's complicated, but we can safely assume it is not legal as in Germany) the number is estimated at 100,000 or 0,15% of the population.
Bans do work, the fact that not all bans work the same way, doesn't mean that they don't work.
> Why politicians still think that if they ban something then it will magically go away?
because people don't like to go to jail
> "oh it's banned, I guess I'll stop using it then"
that's exactly what's gonna happen in Turkey though.
But even if it wasn't Turkey which is ruled by an autocrat, a ban would steer away casual users that usually means the thing banned won't succeed in the long run.
imagine if YouTube was banned in some country and the ban would stay even after public protests (admitting that public protests were allowed)
YouTube usage would immediately drop to a number very close to zero.
you can laugh about it, but fiat money will stay in charge