I'm the first to admit that defining defining the limits of someones freedom can never be without problems. Yet they need to be defined, because you can't have that freedom at the cost of someone elses freedom.

I even went through the examples and commented on which of those I see as a problem, too (Pimmelgate) and which I don't see as a problem (cases of simple and clear insults). That's simply blown out of proportion.

Maybe because someone is doing exactly what you said I was doing: Pointing at someone elses problem to make your problem look smaller....

I have good news for you: You can.

But no fair and meaningful political debate or discussion (what is the actual goal freedom of speech needs to protect) can come from insults or hate. Sou you need to do it without those.

Good news again: In Germany facts aren't slander or libel either.

How do you get to that estimation? Population divided by 8,000 fails short as you can follow more than one "influencer" and creators themselves can follow others. So the maximum for followed people in a userbase of x would be x-1, if everyone followed everyone else.

That's why freedom of speech was defined in greater detail in the German constitution than the US constitution.

It was written having in mind that Hitlers rise to power was based on spewing hate speech under the cover of protected free political speech. That's why insults and hate speech never were covered by free speech rights.(*) But still free speech and political speech have a high level of protection even after enforcing anti-insult laws.

But of course this also requires some level of detail in each case. For example:

"X is lying" is usually at least a constitutionally protected opinion, if not even an additionally protected provable/disprovable factual claim.

"X is a Lier" while sounding really similar however, is a derogatory statement about a persons character. But given enough context and evidence, it may be elevated to a valid opinion.

To sum it up: You still can say everything under constitutional protection. But you are required to think about HOW you say it. And if you can't saying something without insults or threats of violence, you probably should't say it.

(*) implementation details: The constitution doesn't mention free speech by name, but splits it up into freedom of thought, freedom of opinion and freedom of expressing them.

It's almost ironic that this is reported the same week as journalists in the US getting visits from FBI agents for reporting about security concerns with the new Air Force One....

Formally, what's happening in Germany is enforcing existing laws against insults, libel and slander. I don't think any of these are legal in the US either. And I think it's a low bar to exercise your right to free speech, to do so without those.

It could even be argued that keeping insult and hate speech out of free/political speech will protect it. (Although it is debatable in which cases something can be protected by limiting it)

It's in the details of each case.

And I have to agree with the Article in one of the mentioned cases. While most of the cases boil down to simple misdemeanor cases of insults. Slap on the wrist like a speeding ticket. "Pimmelgate", however, is different. Raids were ordered by the state secretary (who was insulted) AFTER all necessary evidence has been gathered, the suspect admitted and the 1000 (or whatever a "dick" is worth these days)(*) was ready to be written. In a clear abuse of power, Andy Grote wanted to send message by having that guys apartment trashed.

So that case is a scandal in its own right, but not representative of the state of free speech in Germany. Each SLAPP case is a bigger danger to it.

(*) Update:
Before the raids happend, the suspect even has been told that his case will be dismisses because of its minor nature.
Source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
containing another example of someone thinking rules apply only to other people.

But to be fair: Airplane belts with the lift-to-release are different from car belts

It makes sense to target frequent fliers first as multipliers. But the more the better. So the barrier should be as low as possible and you probably won't need a full 8 hours training. And it probably would scare people who are already afraid of flying. But each time you have to wait at an airport jump down an emergency slide could be a fun activity that improves safety.

There should be opportunities to train for evacuations, also for passengers. But of course in a non-scaring way. You could use gamification for that. Fut a mock cabin in major airports, and if you have an hour to kill (which may happen due to delays or unplanned layovers) fill it up and make them try to beat todays highscore at evacuation time.

You could offer different levels (with/without life vests, darkness. The key is to make it fun. Like driver safety trainings. There is not much that you do there (at tleast the ones we are organizing) but it's so important for anyone to experience the feeling of slamming your brakes completly at least once. Most people are afraid to do it the first time. Knowing how hard you can (and need) to steo on the brake could make a big difference in an actual situation.

So give people a chance to try out emergency procedures.

Weren't CCTV - with or without AI support - cameras expected to stop crimes? Turns out they can't even wake up a dozed off passenger. Even with AI, talkback and live operator.

Well, usually we call countries where every house has to have its own independent power supply 3rd world country....

It's different if you have to have it to help support decentralication in an otherwise working power grid, or if you have to have it because of an unreliable power grid.

To be fair, the damage from the "attack" in Berlin was minor. But it happend at the very bottleneck where power for half of the city had to be routed through.

Any normal city (that was not divided for 50 years or is very remote) would have redundant feeds that could have taken over much faster.

The powergrid there is still divided in east and west

But are you DOING it?

Things that aren't automated won't happen.

Plus, drives are expensive. You can't buy a new one every week and send just them to your friend for storage. A new one. Each week.

This could be more than a publicity stunt. This could be part of a backup strategy, if properly scaled up. Github and those other cloud services are trying to get small and middle software businesses to ditch their own infrastracture in favour of their cloud services. At a slightly higher price, but for more flexibility.

But what about backup?

That sounds like a solution! for another 10 bucks per month, have them burn two CDs of your repo. label them and put it an a labeled envelope, and have them mailed to your office and a trustworthy 3rd party and a showbox is your backup strategy. 1 online, 1 onsite, 1 offsite.

In that case, it's as fair as any court hearing. No one knows who owned what and when.

If you have a arbitrary outcome anyway, you can at least have some fun.

To be fair, as we have learned from Dr. Strangelove, to use superior military capabilities as a deterrent, you can't keep them secret.

So over- AND understatement could be part of a valid strategy.

I guess the stable genius is using subliminal, liminal and superliminal messages....

Well, not my definition. Pure coincidence I was just listening to an interview with a researcher on alcohol related diseases and he said checking if it's addiction or just "regular" abuse is the first step if you want to quit as that decides the best way to do so.

I'm pretty sure it is a bit more complicated than that simple statement, but the definition of addiction are withdrawal and overpowering cravings that make quitting not just a simple decision.

IMHO that's a good working definition, though probably oversimplified. I'm sure there is much more fine print there like if you can recover from addiction at all or are "just" on an yet uninterrupted but still temporary streak of soberness.