261–270 of 1001 posts
I have read many of the threads here, and I think it boils down to this: do businesses (NOT THE GOVERNMENT) have the right to choose what content and customers they serve? Further, does it matter if they are a hosting provider? A network provider? A telephone provider? Can those providers cancel you if the company doesn't like what you say or are? This is tough: I honestly don't know if freedom of speech needs to be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This wasn't roadrage, it was murder. Now get off your fake high horse I'm attempting to prevent the cheapening of the term "terrorism", not adjusting my positioning on my high horse. Its a hate crime, not terrorism. > Think of that one murder as a free sample of what is to come if these people get their way. More of this will come regardless if these people get their way. Protests, tweet storms, and tearing down Co…
> Its a hate crime, not terrorism. I'm not sure that it's any more or less 'terrorism' than the vehicular attacks by Islamists in Europe. How would you describe those?
Premeditated violent acts designed to strike fear into the local populace. Far different then an angry protestor getting in his car to hit other protestors. I would even go so far as to say that most people will continue to think they're safe as long as they're not at a protest (whereas Islamic terrorists in Europe want everyone to feel unsafe everywhere, all the time).
The act in question was rage plain and simple, not an act designed to spread fear. Terrorism, by definition, is a violent act designed to express and spread terror in a populace, therefore I don't believe it warrants that definition.
It seems like there is no free speech on internet: because free speech is controlled by corporations and the loudest people on social media. So there will be no ISIS websites, no Daily Stormer websites, etc.
That is how it is.
I get the whole "companies can choose not to host whatever they want" argument, but in order to do anything on the internet, you have to interact with companies. If I want to run my own website, I need an IP address at the minimum, and ISPs are free to cut off my internet service if they don't like what I'm hosting. In a public setting, if people don't like what I'm saying, they can't force me to be quiet (generally)…
No one who supports Trump or Daily Stormer are likely not applying nearly as much inductive reasoning to their decisions as you are in this comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There will always be companies that care more about making a buck than anything else. For years spammers and malware authors have been able to find hosting without issue, and taking them down has been a serious pain in the ass. All these nazis need to do is rent a server in russia (where they've moved their name server) and they will be fine. The idea that companies like Cloudflare should help support sites like this…
>The idea that companies like Cloudflare should help support sites like this is nonsensical. It is your framing of the idea that's nonsensical. Infrastructure companies should not need to police all their services. Heck, they shouldn't police their services. That is what real police and courts are for. As an analogy, should AT&T monitor calls and terminate service for customers using racist slurs? Now, a lot of peopl…
Lots of private companies wouldn't want that (and AT&T butted heads over it).
Personally I think Facebook is already over that line, when you have the eyeballs of about 1/7th of the planet you are already a potential threat that should have government level oversight, in a democracy, you control the eyeballs you control the politicians.
I have read many of the threads here, and I think it boils down to this: do businesses (NOT THE GOVERNMENT) have the right to choose what content and customers they serve? Further, does it matter if they are a hosting provider? A network provider? A telephone provider? Can those providers cancel you if the company doesn't like what you say or are? This is tough: I honestly don't know if freedom of speech needs to be…
This is just the latest in a string of examples like this. The Christian bakers / gay wedding cakes is one example. But people being booted off services like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Patreon are others. We ought to have the right to exclude people from our own private spaces, our own private clubs, and our own private businesses (freedom of association). However, at what point (and at what scale) does our priv…
Will we ever be at a point where a VoIP call is filtered because the service doesn't want to transmit what you're saying?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I'm one of those folks that believe that everyone, equally, deserves to be able to express their thoughts, beliefs, and beliefs regardless of whether I agree with them. This was big when I was growing up too. KKK was always used as an example. No one liked what they had to say, but as Americans, we felt we were obligated to protect their ability to say it. You know, principles and all.
> No one liked what they had to say, but as Americans, we felt we were obligated to protect their ability to say it Their right to say it. Their ability to say it is a different thing.
> Did not go well. And you're telling me this, why? > We should be careful to a) not call everything Nazi Oh I see, that's why. Well, you should be careful to c) not confuse me with anyone else.
For those who downvote me: so you're actually believing I call "anyone I don't like" a Nazi? How fucking pathetic is that? And no I don't care about the votes, I just want you to stop and realize how incredibly dumb that is. This is a kindergarten level of discourse on a subject that ranks amongst the most important that even exist. edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_St%C3%BCrmer That's where names like "Daily S…
I think the sentiment GP is trying to communicate is that many seem to throw the label out there without any further investigation as to whether its justified.
As for the downvotes, it might be because your comment came across very hostile.
Also, I agree that it's easy to see that the Daily Stormer is neo-Nazi type stuff.
> The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology. For those interested in more info behind this statement[0]: In a post, [The Daily Stormer] site’s architect, Andrew Auernheimer, said he had personal relationships with people at Cloudflare, and they had assured him the company would work to protect the site in a va…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gee, I hope my site doesn't happen to anger him in some way.
There are few things worse than nazis. Just make sure your content is better than fascist propaganda and you should be good.