Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 398 posts

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#21

Post by tommynicholas »

bedhead wrote: post #2

It's increasingly uncomfortable to realize that a handful of tech companies are in many ways more powerful than the government. I don't like the direction anything is headed in.

I agree, in that it sucks that it's a literal handful, but on the flip side it's nice to know the government is set up in such a way that it isn't by default the most powerful entity in every imaginable way. The people themselves, private companies, etc have a chance to be more powerful than the government in a variety of ways.

I'm a pro-government liberal who is extremely wary of the power of global corporations, but I still take some solace in what this says about our system.

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#22

Post by protomyth »

lawless123 wrote: post #11
tomp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's nothing stopping these maniacs from starting their own intermediaries to host the content(trash) they want to peddle. Why couldn't you say the same about net neutrality?

Are we all incapable of discerning what is and what isn't acceptable?

Well, since YouTube deleted evidence of war crimes, I would say yes we are incapable.

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#23

Post by mantas »

salimmadjd wrote: post #9
bedhead wrote: post #2

It's increasingly uncomfortable to realize that a handful of tech companies are in many ways more powerful than the government. I don't like the direction anything is headed in.

Agreed! The initial intent of 1st Amendment was to protect the public against tyranny of the government. However, when entities like Google, Apple, FB have such impact on the population and spread of information, they can become the "great firewall". This is very dangerous and google should not be in the position to become the thought police.

It's even more frustrating when people supposedly loving freedom say that freedom of speech was only meant to protect from government and private companies can discriminate as they wish.

I'm 99.99% certain if freedom of speech was formulated today, it would include private companies as well.

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#24

Post by danarmak »

lawless123 wrote: post #11
tomp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's nothing stopping these maniacs from starting their own intermediaries to host the content(trash) they want to peddle. Why couldn't you say the same about net neutrality?

Are we all incapable of discerning what is and what isn't acceptable?

We are all incapable of coming to a consensus about what is acceptable. This is pretty much the same as saying there are always disagreements in politics.

Whatever you permit to be used against your opponents is certain to be used against your friends as well.

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#25

Post by imron »

nxsynonym wrote: post #4

>"Because internet intermediaries, especially those with few competitors, control so much online speech, the consequences of their decisions have far-reaching impacts on speech around the world." Maybe it's just me but I think enabling hate-speech and bigotry is much worse than failing to maintain 100% neutrality. There's nothing stopping these maniacs from starting their own intermediaries to host the content(trash)…

> There's nothing stopping these maniacs from starting their own intermediaries to host the content(trash) they want to peddle.

Who decides on what is and isn't trash?

The article states "And music streaming services offered by Google, Deezer and Spotify have said they would remove music that incites violence, hatred or racism."

Does this mean they will remove things like 'Fuck tha police' or 'Smack my bitch up'?

I don't like such music and would consider it trash, it also falls quite clearly under inciting violence and hatred.

As much as I don't like that music though, I like even less having a handful of companies being the arbiters of what content is and isn't available.

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#26

Post by NaliSauce »

nxsynonym wrote: post #4

>"Because internet intermediaries, especially those with few competitors, control so much online speech, the consequences of their decisions have far-reaching impacts on speech around the world." Maybe it's just me but I think enabling hate-speech and bigotry is much worse than failing to maintain 100% neutrality. There's nothing stopping these maniacs from starting their own intermediaries to host the content(trash)…

>bigotry

>intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Quite an ironic comment.

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#27

Post by CamTin »

tomp wrote: post #10
nxsynonym wrote: post #4

>"Because internet intermediaries, especially those with few competitors, control so much online speech, the consequences of their decisions have far-reaching impacts on speech around the world." Maybe it's just me but I think enabling hate-speech and bigotry is much worse than failing to maintain 100% neutrality. There's nothing stopping these maniacs from starting their own intermediaries to host the content(trash)…

> There's nothing stopping these maniacs from starting their own intermediaries to host the content(trash) they want to peddle. Why couldn't you say the same about net neutrality?

Without ISP-level neutrality, the opposite would be true. Here's the scenario in that case:

1) Google, Facebook, Twitter, CloudFlare, GoDaddy, and a few other actors ban a certain flavor of hate speech.

2) The pro-hate-speech crowd tries to start their own "Facebook for white nationalism" but can't, because they don't have "premium" peering arrangements with all the eyeball ISPs.

3) There is no step 3, it's game over.

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#28

Post by lmm »

mantas wrote: post #23
salimmadjd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed! The initial intent of 1st Amendment was to protect the public against tyranny of the government. However, when entities like Google, Apple, FB have such impact on the population and spread of information, they can become the "great firewall". This is very dangerous and google should not be in the position to become the thought police.

It's even more frustrating when people supposedly loving freedom say that freedom of speech was only meant to protect from government and private companies can discriminate as they wish. I'm 99.99% certain if freedom of speech was formulated today, it would include private companies as well.

> I'm 99.99% certain if freedom of speech was formulated today, it would include private companies as well.

Freedom of speech already does. Unfortunately Americans tend to conflate the broad concept with the US First Amendment.

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#29

Post by moron4hire »

corobo wrote: post #13

While I definitely don't support the people they're booting off I do have to agree with the EFF here. For example, "And music streaming services offered by Google, Deezer and Spotify have said they would remove music that incites violence, hatred or racism." Now these services have put it out there as policy someone has to define what's violent, hateful or racist in music. Racism? Ok nobody's really going to bat an e…

It's Tipper Gore vs. Frank Zappa all over again.

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#30

Post by rdtsc »

nxsynonym wrote: post #4

>"Because internet intermediaries, especially those with few competitors, control so much online speech, the consequences of their decisions have far-reaching impacts on speech around the world." Maybe it's just me but I think enabling hate-speech and bigotry is much worse than failing to maintain 100% neutrality. There's nothing stopping these maniacs from starting their own intermediaries to host the content(trash)…

Are you sure they are stopping just maniacs and crazies? Do you trust them? I don't know, maybe growing up in Soviet Union made me skeptical of "let us censor this for you to keep you safe" claims.
Post reply on HN