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

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

#111

Post by MBCook » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 1:45 PM UTC

gthtjtkt wrote: post #33

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…

Some percentage of people learned the site exists. Some other percent learned there are still a lot of people (relative to what they thought) that believe in nazi principles.

This attention would only be bad in my eyes if the first group was bigger than the second.

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

#112

Post by wjsn » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 1:45 PM UTC

scottmf wrote: post #90

ameister14 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Jared Kushner, for one

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

#113

Post by justadeveloper2 » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 1:45 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)…

It's just you. The answer to speech and acts you don't like is more speech, not censorship. It's not like white nationalism is on the rise in the US--that's a complete media fabrication in an attempt to discredit the Trump Administration and it is a completely ridiculous allegation, quite frankly. Each side of of the political spectrum has its fringe elements and there's no getting away from that.

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

#114

Post by jaegerpicker » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 1:45 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)…

So while I agree that what they spew is reprehensible, what worries me is, who get's to decide what's worth banning? Where is art limited and where is it not? Rap and Hip-Hop and Metal have been accused of inciting violence and hate. Grand Theft Auto and other games has been accused of glorifying violence against women. Where does it stop and who gets to decide? I loathe those people that push and peddle their bigotry but if we want to be free don't we always need to err on the side of freedom? Banning their speech and being hypocritical, is that really how we want to beat them?

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

#115

Post by etaty » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 1:45 PM UTC

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

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

#116

Post by gthtjtkt » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 1:46 PM UTC

lallysingh wrote: post #71

gthtjtkt wrote: post #33

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?

Because it happened almost immediately.

HN has always had trigger-happy moderators who abuse their power to silence people they don't like, including PG himself. Just Google 'Hacker News Shadowban' sometime.

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

#117

Post by adbachman » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 1:46 PM UTC

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 the Paradox of Tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Refusing to tolerate the intolerant, when their intolerance _may_ be an imminent threat to society (e.g. neo-nazis in the US being defended by the current president) is paradoxical and distasteful, but not inconsistent with a liberal position on tolerance.

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

#118

Post by randomstudent » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 1:46 PM UTC

vowelless wrote: post #12

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)…

Where I grew up, websites used to be blocked by my government because of blasphemy and morality reasons. Criticism of Islam, pro secularism, and yes also porn. I used kazaa to get "God delusion" and "satanic verses", books that would have gotten me into serious trouble. Please don't let that happen in America. Making up hate or blasphemy reasons is very easy.

Not saying that I agree, but some people say that the best way of making sure what you describe doesn't happen to America is by stopping the Nazis right now. Yes, you loose the high ground of supporting absolute free speech but supposedly you gain a more restricted form of free speech that is more likely to stand the test of time.

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

#119

Post by marcosdumay » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 1:46 PM UTC

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)

> strip you of your constitutional rights

Like the right of free speech? Or free initiative, by blocking money transfer?

The difference isn't that big anymore, and that is the problem.

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

#120

Post by Banthum » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 1:46 PM UTC

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".

Fair point, but there is a difference: power.

More powerful companies (like Google) need to constrained in ways that less powerful companies (like Joe's Cake Shop) don't.