zlacker

>>daniel+(OP)
I know this legislation is in the EU, but in the US such a regulation seems to run up against the concept of free speech. What is the difference between these hypotheticals:

Case 1: I have a blog that takes a conspiracy-level, anti-tax position. In it, I say crazy things like, “The IRS is illegitimate and financial records are unnecessary.” From reading this, someone shreds all their financial documents. As far as I can tell, the blog is perfectly legal under the First Amendment.

Case 2: I am an open source maintainer of a home assistant program. It includes personal file management. Due to a bug in the software, an end-user’s financial documents are deleted.

The easiest distinction is that the conspiracy reader is taking an affirmative act of destroying their own documents. But, I think that’s less different than at first glance. The software user is setting up a computer system based on an open source program that may have bugs in it, and that causes a loss of data. The conspiracy reader is setting up a worldview based on information that may have bugs in it, and that causes a loss of data.

Why would the software bug be regulated, but the conspiracy falsehood not?

>>elicks+Nc
It's probably closer to releasing "open source blueprints" for a car (a steam engine is probably better) that explodes and kills it's occupants. Who is responsible for that? A better set of questions might be:

- Why does this person think they can release open source blueprints if they aren't qualified for what they design?

- Or, if a company used these blueprints to build a car, why didn't they do their due diligence?