Live data from Hacker News

Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing

arstechnica.com

11–20 of 58 posts

Re: Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing

#11
post #2

Aside from the obvious everything that's troubling about the rise of white supremacist organizations, another question has been bothering me. Where's the line on what terrible things are morally just to do to terrible people? And what must those terrible people do to morally justify the actions taken against them? "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" , etc. free speech i…

Doxing white supremacists is hardly the same as going out and running them down. What are you suggesting here? These people go out in the street and burn crosses in front of families' homes. They absolutely should be doxxed.

I hadn't heard anything about these protesters in Charlottesville burning crosses in front of peoples homes. Do you have a link? And the OP never said doxing people is the same as running them down.

Re: Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing

#12
post #2

Aside from the obvious everything that's troubling about the rise of white supremacist organizations, another question has been bothering me. Where's the line on what terrible things are morally just to do to terrible people? And what must those terrible people do to morally justify the actions taken against them? "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" , etc. free speech i…

I'm also concerned about who determines that someone is "a bad person". In the recent Google memo, everyone condemned the author as a horrible person based on things he never said. People wanted him burned at the stake and were willing to believe absurdities to justify it. This sort of craziness happens all the time. Slate Star Codex has a post from 2014 where Scott points out that he was reprimanded for expressing relief at Bin Laden's death--a life lost is a terrible thing, even though he was a terrible person. Then a couple years later when Thatcher died, the same people who reprimanded him were celebrating in the streets and shrugged indifferently when challenged about their "a life lost is a terrible thing" philosophy. An angry mob triggered events that culminated in the forced resignation of two Yale educators who dared to (politely) suggest students could choose their own Halloween costumes. We use "Nazi" and "racist" and "misogynist" to describe people who dare point to inconsistencies in our social justice theories or rhetoric.

There are definitely very real bad guys out there, but recent events tell us in no uncertain terms that the moment the standard of proof is lowered, it will be abused.

Re: Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing

#13
post #2

Aside from the obvious everything that's troubling about the rise of white supremacist organizations, another question has been bothering me. Where's the line on what terrible things are morally just to do to terrible people? And what must those terrible people do to morally justify the actions taken against them? "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" , etc. free speech i…

I struggle with this too. I felt it especially during the "first wave", when the clip of Richard Spencer getting punched in the face was being circulated.

On the one hand, I wholeheartedly support free speech. I believe that any view should be able to expressed without fear of persecution, bodily harm, or death. Even those that constitute as "hate speech". I believe, at a fundamental level, that expressing views and putting them out will do less harm than keeping them repressed due to fear until they boil over into action.

However - I also believe in consequences. If you choose to be an alt-right/neo-nazi/*ist you must also suffer the consequences imposed by other people you are surrounded by.

I felt a sense of happiness and justice when Richard Spencer got punched. But I also felt like the attacker should have suffered consequences instead of being hailed as a hero. I was also disturbed by the general "he deserved it, and probably more" sentiment that was going around.

Re: Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing

#14
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doxing white supremacists is hardly the same as going out and running them down. What are you suggesting here? These people go out in the street and burn crosses in front of families' homes. They absolutely should be doxxed.

I hadn't heard anything about these protesters in Charlottesville burning crosses in front of peoples homes. Do you have a link? And the OP never said doxing people is the same as running them down.

https://www.google.com/search?q=charlottesville+cross+burnin...

I don't know what the OP is saying. Nobody's going out killing white supremacists either...

Re: Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing

#15
post #2

Aside from the obvious everything that's troubling about the rise of white supremacist organizations, another question has been bothering me. Where's the line on what terrible things are morally just to do to terrible people? And what must those terrible people do to morally justify the actions taken against them? "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" , etc. free speech i…

You might be interested in Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky.

TL;DR: enemies are people too.

Re: Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing

#16
Two quotes:

"But you are, perhaps, ready to ask, "What has this to do with the perpetuation of our political institutions?" I answer, it has much to do with it. Its direct consequences are, comparatively speaking, but a small evil; and much of its danger consists, in the proneness of our minds, to regard its direct, as its only consequences. Abstractly considered, the hanging of the gamblers at Vicksburg, was of but little consequence. They constitute a portion of population, that is worse than useless in any community; and their death, if no pernicious example be set by it, is never matter of reasonable regret with any one. If they were annually swept, from the stage of existence, by the plague or small pox, honest men would, perhaps, be much profited, by the operation.--Similar too, is the correct reasoning, in regard to the burning of the negro at St. Louis. He had forfeited his life, by the perpetration of an outrageous murder, upon one of the most worthy and respectable citizens of the city; and had not he died as he did, he must have died by the sentence of the law, in a very short time afterwards. As to him alone, it was as well the way it was, as it could otherwise have been.--But the example in either case, was fearful.--When men take it in their heads to day, to hang gamblers, or burn murderers, they should recollect, that, in the confusion usually attending such transactions, they will be as likely to hang or burn some one who is neither a gambler nor a murderer as one who is; and that, acting upon the example they set, the mob of to-morrow, may, and probably will, hang or burn some of them by the very same mistake. And not only so; the innocent, those who have ever set their faces against violations of law in every shape, alike with the guilty, fall victims to the ravages of mob law; and thus it goes on, step by step, till all the walls erected for the defense of the persons and property of individuals, are trodden down, and disregarded. But all this even, is not the full extent of the evil.--By such examples, by instances of the perpetrators of such acts going unpunished, the lawless in spirit, are encouraged to become lawless in practice; and having been used to no restraint, but dread of punishment, they thus become, absolutely unrestrained.--Having ever regarded Government as their deadliest bane, they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations; and pray for nothing so much, as its total annihilation. While, on the other hand, good men, men who love tranquility, who desire to abide by the laws, and enjoy their benefits, who would gladly spill their blood in the defense of their country; seeing their property destroyed; their families insulted, and their lives endangered; their persons injured; and seeing nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better; become tired of, and disgusted with, a Government that offers them no protection; and are not much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose. Thus, then, by the operation of this mobocractic spirit, which all must admit, is now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark of any Government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed--I mean the attachment of the People. Whenever this effect shall be produced among us; whenever the vicious portion of population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision-stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure, and with impunity; depend on it, this Government cannot last. By such things, the feelings of the best citizens will become more or less alienated from it; and thus it will be left without friends, or with too few, and those few too weak, to make their friendship effectual. At such a time and under such circumstances, men of sufficient talent and ambition will not be wanting to seize the opportunity, strike the blow, and overturn that fair fabric, which for the last half century, has been the fondest hope, of the lovers of freedom, throughout the world."

Abraham Lincoln, Lyceum address

The next quote is from A Man for all seasons.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

If we have learned anything from Trump's election, it is that people who we may think unlikely to come to power, can come to power. If we tear up our principles of free speech and rule of law to after the Nazis, what will we hide behind when would be authoritarians come to power? The principle of free speech is what allows people to protest Trump and for newspapers to criticize him. The rule of law makes the police protect even those protestors they disagree with from violence. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Re: Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing

#17
post #2

Aside from the obvious everything that's troubling about the rise of white supremacist organizations, another question has been bothering me. Where's the line on what terrible things are morally just to do to terrible people? And what must those terrible people do to morally justify the actions taken against them? "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" , etc. free speech i…

I personally believe people should be allowed to say whatever they want, and violence is never acceptable as a response. We've been preventing hate groups from having a platform for decades, and recent events are only giving them one. It is law enforcement's job to enforce any laws that are broken by actions of individuals, within these groups or otherwise, and the justice system's job to prosecute them to the extent of the law.

Trying to silence words that some may find offensive is a slippery slope, because no matter who you are or what you say, there is always someone that will be offended by it. Attempting to win hearts and minds through civil discourse, and accepting the reality that some people will always be unreachable, is IMHO the only way to move forward without irreparably dividing our society, because "A house divided against itself cannot stand".

Hate only breeds hate, and there will always be naturally evil people. Ignore the haters' speech, and keep preaching love an respect. Those that can come around will, and those that can't won't have a voice unless we give it to them.

Re: Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing

#18
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doxing white supremacists is hardly the same as going out and running them down. What are you suggesting here? These people go out in the street and burn crosses in front of families' homes. They absolutely should be doxxed.

I hadn't heard anything about these protesters in Charlottesville burning crosses in front of peoples homes. Do you have a link? And the OP never said doxing people is the same as running them down.

Check this video out. https://youtu.be/P54sP0Nlngg

Re: Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing

#19
post #2

Aside from the obvious everything that's troubling about the rise of white supremacist organizations, another question has been bothering me. Where's the line on what terrible things are morally just to do to terrible people? And what must those terrible people do to morally justify the actions taken against them? "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" , etc. free speech i…

This is a hard question. For me there are a couple of thoughts in my head that are not yet fully formed into a single, coherent philosophy:

1. If you're advocating for the systematic oppression of others based on characteristics they were born with (vs. actions they've taken), then I support efforts to remove your veil of anonymity that allows the rest of the world to engage with personally you based on your known behavior. I do not want to do business with, hire, or otherwise support someone who would deny the same to others for reasons steeped in racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, etc.

2. If you're advocating for violence against others, then I support efforts to remove your veil of anonymity. We should not tolerate physical acts and threats, even levied at those we find repugnant.

3. I strongly believe corporations should be able to make decisions that reflect their corporate values, provided those values are transparently and clearly articulated and don't single groups out based on characteristics they have no control over. Disallowing sites that promote the oppression of others can apply to anyone who has full control over the views they put out into the world. Alternatively, refusing to cover birth control in health plans can apply only to women who had no control over their sex, and are the ones that carry the burden of gestation. This is an unrefined view that requires more consideration on my part, and I am indeed cognizant of a potential slipper slope (fallacy or no).

All of the above is complicated by the fact that the Internet has a long - possibly unending - memory while people possess a capacity to change. I have no doubt many of the younger marchers this past weekend will come to regret their presence there. I don't know what to do about this.

This is half-baked thinking at the moment. It probably doesn't help. To respond to the other commenter: I do not support torture, even if I had a reasonable suspicion that the result would leave to many lives saved. I'd rather 100,000 people die in a world without torture than 50,000 people die in a world with it.

Post reply on HN