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

31–40 of 398 posts

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

#31

Post by dragonwriter »

imron wrote: post #25
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 d…

> Who decides on what is an isn't trash?

Every person or entity called in to relay material that isn't a regulated utility, arm of the state, common carriers, or otherwise deprived of or restrained in the exercise of free speech rights.

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

#32

Post by [deleted] »

imron wrote: post #25
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 d…

[deleted]

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

#33

Post by gthtjtkt »

It also had the opposite of its intended effect.

Millions of people had no idea Daily Stormer existed until GoDaddy, Google, and CloudFlare kicked them out. Each one only added to their growing pile of free publicity. I guess Google never Googled "Streisand Effect"? First Damore and now this.

Edit: Also kind of ironic that my comments are now being buried on HN because I posted some unpopular opinions. Maybe we should throw HN in the mix too.

Edit2: Aaaaand now I'm not even allowed to post. HN is at least predictable in their censorship tactics, if nothing else.

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

#34

Post by gggdvnkhmbgjvbn »

I find it odd that websites seem to either harbor a slowly growing extreme right wing, or choose to seek and destroy it.

It seems like the extreme rights' method of gaining control is to be provocative while the extreme left lobbies admins to remove the provocateurs (see: reddit, youtube). This ends with the tech companies complying with the left. Why isnt it the other way around?

Edit: apparently today okcupid banned a nazi as a publicity stunt. Maybe im looking too much into this

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

#35

Post by tjr225 »

NaliSauce wrote: post #26
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.

It's really not.

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

#36

Post by averagewall »

Why are big companies banning this? Surely Google, GoDaddy and Cloudflare, even Spotify aren't going to be hurt by any public backlash. GoDaddy is already widely despised as a bad actor. I can understand a small startup at risk of being destroyed by an internet mob for supporting Nazis, but not these.

Are they afraid of legal consequences? Aren't they safe to just wait till the police asks them to take it down before doing so?

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

#37

Post by gormo2 »

If recent events have shown anything, it is that we need to do a lot MORE to stop neo-Nazism. I'm not saying doxx all neo-Nazis and whites, supremacists. But we need to name them. Make them known.

Don't support their businesses. Don't let them have domains or websites. Kick them off Google platforms, Facebook, even OKCupid. All private companies need to take action now and make sure none of them can use the internet to spread their hate, or really use any service.

I think it is time to organize contacting car dealerships working next to deny selling any automobiles to them. Eventually we can get the DMV to deny licenses to these dangerous individuals, or at least put them on a registry so the feds can check in on them.

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

#38

Post by Numberwang »

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…

Even 'racist' music can be tricky business. There are lot's of Swedish and Polish metal bands that would call themselves 'nationalist' but have a great 'nazi' following for example.

I enjoy some of these bands and would not want them censored. Just as I would not want Shakespeare plays to be censored either.

Keep downloading your music and your movies. You will never be able to trust your streaming services.

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

#39

Post by wu-ikkyu »

tommynicholas wrote: post #21
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, bu…

What does it say about our system that we have relatively more corporate overlords than government overlords?

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

#40

Post by Fifer82 »

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…

I was pretty embarrassed by it all to be honest. Nothing makes me cringe more than everyone responding ultra PC. It is bad enough with the commoners, but it is a disgrace when companies get involved with PC statements for no other real reason than to favor the brand.

I may be the same as you only I was a 90s rap kid, the entire directory of music I have collected since the 00s could be considered violent and hateful.

Post reply on HN