Why don't people get upset like this when companies refuse to carry pornography? That's been really common for a long time, even if not universal, and I don't recall ever hearing a peep about it from the likes of the EFF. Maybe I missed it?
Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
81–90 of 398 posts
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#82It'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.
Not only that, but the companies you have listed are all to eager to get in bed with the Chinese government and then for efficiency reasons, they start moving everything to that least common denominator of free expression. We definitely have a problem here. I'm thoroughly disgusted with tech companies right now--these are not the brave risk-takers that made me so hopeful for the 21st century.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#83It'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.
Too late, they already been for at least 2 years
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#84While 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…
Wow, I almost missed that part of the article. There's so much music that could fall under that rule...
Music is up to interpretation. One of my favorite songs is Sublime's April 29th, 1992. You could easily say it incites violence, glorifies looting and rioting, and should be removed. But my interpretation of the song makes me think it's more about understanding the mindset of the people who were looting and rioting, and not condoning the violence.
How could anyone impartially decide what should and shouldn't be published?
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#85While 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…
Wow. That production story would be the best Shouth Park plot ever. It's complete, with even nobody caring about the censorship and talking about how they criticize Family Guy.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
What makes you say that? Muslims have killed a lot more people this year in the name of their ideology than Nazis...
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#87Earlier 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.
Really? You think that you could make private individuals carry water for ideals that conflict with their own? And that people, far and wide, would just be openly accepting of this idea?
I’ve heard “freedom of speech” defined as a natural right, but this idea is the most unnatural way for people to act.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#88>"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?
> Why couldn't you say the same about net neutrality?
Starting your own ISP can require MASSIVE capital investment if you want to have a hope of competing and take years. There's a reason there are only a handful of really competitive ISPs in the US.
Changing DNS hosts is a mild inconvenience. They can find someone who will host their records. Google shouldn't be forced to do it.
But if I don't like the only ISP in my town blocking some stuff I don't the kind of money Google had to waste to start a new ISP for me and others in my town.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#89I'm glad to see the EFF making the point I'be been trying to make all week; at the cost of multiple downvotes: "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."
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#90If 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…
There are a few hundred neo-nazis in the US. There are 50,000 in Austria and they have seats on the European Parliament from Austria, Greece, and Germany, despite the much harsher rules there.
The US currently has them in the White House.