Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by Anchor » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 1:37 PM UTC

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)…

If their hateful conduct and ideas are hidden from you, how will you know to fight back?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

We should not be afraid that our ideas will lose if all sides are heard. We must win this war of ideas, there is no other way. But we cannot win unless we can point to what is wrong with their ideas. For us to achieve that, they must not be hidden.

It seems that history did not end. Every generation has to win their incarnation of this war, again and again, unfortunately. The beginning of our struggle is drawing nearer and nearer.

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

#62

Post by 5040 » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 1:37 PM UTC

averagewall wrote: post #36

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…

It may be that they are worried about getting punished by advertisers in the future. Youtube took a hit when news stories started claiming that extremists were making money off videos on the site.

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

#63

Post by YCode » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 1:37 PM UTC

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'm not sure this kind of policy even has whatever the intended effect is, seems how it appears to be a reaction to Charlottesville events.

Take "music that incites racism" (what do you put into Pandora to get that genre?) for example. If you have users listening to it (because before Charlottesville you thought it was okay!) and you remove it telling them their music is basically banned aren't those users just going to listen to it someplace else and feel more empowered by its message?

The more persecuted these groups feel online, the more justified they will feel in their real-world actions.

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

#64

Post by Bjartr » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 1:37 PM UTC

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.

Would enforcing freedom of speech on companies that people communicate over mean any kind of moderation would be in violation of that?

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

#65

Post by lallysingh » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 1:38 PM UTC

gggdvnkhmbgjvbn wrote: post #34

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 banne…

The extreme right is mostly underground, and stay on these platforms a long, long time quietly. Only when they start getting loud and provocative do they get a response. They stay and thrive on these platforms until then.

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

#66

Post by jawbone3 » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 1:38 PM UTC

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…

Facilitating the organisation of neo nazis is likewise dangerous, to the point that people die regularly. That is the other, just as real danger, that you are trading the dangers of censoring eminem with.

There is also the fact that all these companies already have arbitrary censorship in place, so this isn't an argument about the principles: that one is long lost. This is an argument about the existing excemption racism has.

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

#67

Post by corobo » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 1:38 PM UTC

colanderman wrote: post #46

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…

If music streaming services should not be free to police their content, what about text hosting services (i.e. forums)? What about record labels, should they be forced to sign acts they find offensive (protected classes aside)? Not arguing one way or the other but "music streaming services" is not too different from many other services which people expect to police content. Perhaps considering whether the company hol…

They absolutely should be free to police their content. They should be free to police the content, not external pressure.

Bear too in mind they are removing content. Before this blew up in the media, did they have a problem hosting the stuff they're now removing?

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

#68

Post by mantas » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 1:38 PM UTC

celticninja wrote: post #55

mantas wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Surely you can be free to say whatever you want but a business doesn't have to do business with you. For example I could wear a Nazi T-Shirt with "Hang all Niggers" emblazoned in it, and a shop could quite rightly refuse to admit me to their store or refuse to serve me if I did go into their store. So why is it different for Google or Facebook to say "we don't want you as a customer"?

That's what I'm saying. If it was truly freedom of speech, a shop couldn't refuse to serve you either.

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

#69

Post by falcolas » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 1:38 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #28

mantas wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Usually because that's the only place it's really codified into law or any other legitimate document in the US. The Supreme Court has limited the scope of the first amendment, but that's all just implicitly codified via past decisions and opinions - a less discoverable format I've yet to find.

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

#70

Post by koolba » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 1:38 PM UTC

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…

> While I definitely don't support the people they're booting off...

A bit off topic but how many bytes are spent on prefaces like this on responses to this topic?

I assume that the vast majority of people on the planet don't support Nazis or anything related. I find it interesting that any discussion of them has to include that line lest the speaker/writer be labeled as one (which happens quite a bit anyway but that's a different topic).