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

101–110 of 398 posts

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

#101

Post by 5040 »

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…

It must be said that the "extreme right" is hardly unified. I'm sure some of the groups labeled in this way actively seek to gain new adherents or to influence public discourse. Others still probably simply want to cater to some preexisting audience. I'd like to see more analysis about the different groups involved.

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

#102

Post by randomstudent »

rdtsc wrote: post #30
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.

Some people believe that stopping the maniacs and crazies right now is the best way to make sure the West doesn't turn into a new Soviet Union. Whether you agree or not, it's certainly a defensible position.

Yes, you can argue that the Soviet Union didn't happen because the Tsar failed to censor enough, I'm just trying to say that thare is some substance to the argument for stopping the maniacs.

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

#103

Post by Quarrelsome »

gormo2 wrote: 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 feel like love is a better tool than hate in trying to affect social change. Remember its not "them" we need to convince and get back onto the straight and narrow, its the people listening, the children and those waiting to make their own decisions on the subject. To give those people a persecuted underdog to sympathise with isn't going to improve the next generations ways of thinking. Racism isn't like polio, we can't eradicate it because its the natural condition of homogeneous communities.

Oh and the false positives for the solution you offer are terrifying by putting the judgement into the hands of everyone. Imagine being wrongly accused of being a neo-nazi?

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

#104

Post by justadeveloper2 »

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…

Show me examples of corporations mass murdering people, though? Your faith in big government is completely misplaced. The truth is, you can't trust any entity with consolidated power to be forthright and favor humanity over all other considerations.

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

#105

Post by mantas »

cjslep wrote: post #52
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.

Yes, like all those conservatives fighting for Hobby Lobby to not provide contraception support for it's employees because "first amendment" and all those mom and pop shops that don't want to serve gay people in the South because of first amendment rights. Seriously, conservatives in America want to have their cake and eat it too. "We meant freedom for corporations-as-people but only when it helps us".

Which is not good either. IMO, any business shall serve any customer regardless. Unless said customer is breaking a (sane) law.

For the record, I'm not American. I grew up in ex-USSR country that was just recovering from total censorship. What is going on today in the world is sickening me. A lot of rhetoric in the West is too similar to USSR craziness. I'll be happy to be offended and keep my right to offend you. The other way ain't pretty.

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

#106

Post by tgb »

I think the hypothetical that people like me on the left need to consider is the following. Our current vice president is extremely anti-abortion. It's no stretch of the imagination to see that portion of the country growing in strength to be there dominant view in power within ten years. In their view abortion doctors are literal baby killers, websites arguing the benefits of abortion are literally advocating the killing of babies. In their eyes, this is literally as bad as Hitler. If you set the standard at "ban everything that the populace deems to be as bad as Hitler" then today we get rid of Nazi sites and tell KKK members they can't use our gyms, but tomorrow who will be condemned? (Note that this isn't even a slippery slope argument: it's saying that who gets to define the slope changes.)

The other argument is that if Google and co have never ever bowed to political pressure to remove something except as required by law, that gives them a great argument to push back against some of the less progressive governments which they must work with. If Assad starts demanding that internet companies in Syria ban his political opponents, then Google could reply "we didn't even ban Nazis, why the hell would you expect us to ban anyone for you?"

And in case this all seems hypothetical, remember that the current US government recently requested all visitor logs for an anti-Trump website.

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

#107

Post by peternicky »

koolba wrote: post #70
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…

Reminds me of RIGB (Silicon Valley)

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

#108

Post by corobo »

koolba wrote: post #70
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…

Yup, I expected more of a backlash and I'm not good with words under mob pressure. I prefaced it to avoid the "oh so YOU'RE a racist too huh??" potential retort.

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

#109

Post by Tylerosaurus »

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 believe "music that incites violence, hatred or racism." Is defined as: any music that makes a lot of people upset on any given day, esp. when it is trending on Facebook or Twitter.

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

#110

Post by [deleted] »

jostmey wrote: post #51
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.

There is a big difference between the government and a private organization. The government can throw you in prison and strip you of your constitutional rights. Private organizations cannot (unless hired by the government, which is should not be happening)

[deleted]
Post reply on HN