Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.co.uk

71–80 of 398 posts

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

#71

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 shoul…

Why do you think that's why you're being buried?

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

#72

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 shoul…

I think the attention is good. Normal people think of Nazis as 1930s/40s Germans. Now many of them know that it also includes modern Americans.

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

#73

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…

> Why are big companies banning this? Surely Google, GoDaddy and Cloudflare, even Spotify aren't going to be hurt by any public backlash Because they are owned and run by humans with moral values, not financial return maximizing automatons?

The Stormfront is a well known FBI honey pot. Why would people with "moral values" try to interfere with the FBI trying to infiltrate and arrest nazis?

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

#74
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's the 1970's all over again... https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-sp... We seem to keep forgetting what "Freedom of Speech" means. [Update: Added Chomsky quote] "If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky

But that was the state stopping Nazis from marching, this is a private company refusing to do business with someone. Free speech is a right guaranteed by the state, so you won't go to prison for stating your beliefs. But no one should be obliged to help you air those beliefs against their will.

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

#75
post #37

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…

I agree, we should do this with Muslims too, right? Since they also kill people.

There is nothing inherently bigoted about Islam or Muslims. Neo-Nazism however...

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

#77
I agree but only in part. The real problem isn't that Google is able to shutdown a site as a registrar it's the fact DNS as designed needs a hierarchy to make it scale. This is the real problem with DNS and trying to shame Google to not cover its bottom line on such matters isn't going to work when you have a government that may decide they're too big for their britches and decides to go after them.

Instead, I wish EFF and other organizations would fund the development of a replacement for DNS rather than trying to legislate its use. Computers aren't like other kinds of technology where the implementation has to follow the physical structure, especially when considering the idea of domain names which are human readable to bind to IP addresses (which aren't human readable enough). That way, you get around corporate and government interventions entirely.

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

#78
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…

RIP Tyler the Creator :(

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

#79
I think an important aspect that is often missed here is how conservative most tech companies are when it comes to legal boundaries.

I would posit that each of these companies is arguing internally (at least in part) in favor of removing neo-Nazi and other violence inducing content from their services to distance themselves from fault when that content results in legal harm.

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

#80

>"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)…

While I don't agree with your first statement, I do agree with your second. If a company controls so much of the internet that they are able to silence an entire group of people, that's probably not a good thing. Where they draw the line today may be different from where they draw the line in a decade. Once the line is drawn what does that mean for other content that Google doesn't agree with? Companies like Google and Facebook control access to so much content that, with the tweak of an algorithm, they could make it appear that there is no one else in the world that shares a controversial viewpoint that you might have. That being said, Google is a private company and should be free to block whatever they want. If enough people don't agree with them, over the course of time, other competitors will rise.
Post reply on HN