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

131–140 of 398 posts

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

#131

Post by odiroot »

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 agree with that.

By the same token they would need to remove all the content that promotes communism in multiple countries.

In my country it's illegal as is the case with nazism.

I don't hold much hope Google, Spotify etc. would actually walk that road.

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

#132

Post by justadeveloper2 »

protomyth wrote: post #14
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)…

Suppose tomorrow Google unfairly marks your speech as hate speech, how do you recover? These companies (especially YouTube) make mistakes and appeals are often just as error prone.

You have no recourse! Technology and corporate consolidation have made free expression a dangerous game in the 21st century. It's another example of how technology is completely value neutral and can have extremely unintended consequences. Ask a librarian about all this digital crap sometime--it's a nightmare and it's just gotten started!

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

#133

Post by devmunchies »

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…

We're in the midst of a political witch hunt. I saw a sticker on a stop sign in Seattle that had a nazi symbol in the "O" of "GOP".

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

#134

Post by sodapopcan »

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…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKvsLLfRpLs

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

#135

Post by larkeith »

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"?

The problem is really that a very few private companies have become core infrastructure providers on the Internet, effectively acting as the government of the net, however they face little to no regulation or accountability - Google, for example, is too firmly entrenched for consumers to realistically move to an alternative.

So the question is, at what threshold (of size, competitors, etc) should free speech move from the corporation's policy to decide to the customers'? At one end of the spectrum, we've got corner stores, where there are a million options, and policy is decided by whoever's working at the time; on the reverse side, there are governments, who must inherently be monopolies, with policy decided by the voters. Google, cloudflare, godaddy, all fall somewhere in between, with the concern being that they fall too close to government in terms of power, while decisions remain made by internal managers, without user accountability.

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

#136

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

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.

In case anyone is unfamiliar, a major thing to understand about The Satanic Verses is that it isn't even some kind of anti-Islam screed, just a historical fantasy novel that uses the history and lore of Islam as a framing device, much like several of Dan Brown's novels do with Christianity (though Rushdie is apparently a much better writer).

Anyway, we've had this sort of thing in America, but we've probably largely forgotten the history (Lady Chatterly's Lover, Fanny Hill, and so on) and haven't really paid attention to the small-scale occurrences that are still ongoing (e.g. public school libraries are often pressured to remove "controversial" books).

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

#137

Post by mantas »

awinder wrote: post #87
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.

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.

Private individual getting paid is not so private anymore. Especially once "protected classes" are brought in. Either go all in and allow anybody to refuse service to anybody or make everybody serve everybody. I don't see middle ground in there. It'd always result in he-said, she-said.

Point in case - people bringing up the gay cake in mentioning of google memogate.

Is a bus company right to refuse service to protesters going to a protest? Can a train company cancel trains specifically on a day of event they don't like for some reason? Can cellphone carrier shut down service for people they don't like for some reason? Can gas station refuse selling gas to skinheads on a roadtrip? What if they're just going to work on a regular workday?

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

#138

Post by icebraining »

Numberwang wrote: post #38
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…

Even 'racist' music can be tricky business. There are lot's of Swedish and Polish metal bands that would call themselves 'nationalist' but have a great 'nazi' following for example. I enjoy some of these bands and would not want them censored. Just as I would not want Shakespeare plays to be censored either. Keep downloading your music and your movies. You will never be able to trust your streaming services.

I wonder if they'll ban the Star-Spangled Banner?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bs-ed-anthem-letter...

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

#139

Post by Icedcool »

randomstudent wrote: post #57
autokad wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

silencing people is never a good idea. let them speak their mind. only through interaction can a person's mind change. caging them in and then being surprised they did something awful is probably about as bad idea as the ones they have.

This attitude is naïve to the extreme... You're surely aware that prolonged suppression of certain ideas can and often does decrease the prevalence of such ideas in the population? And that such suppression might even make certain people change their minds? I'm not arguing that this is the right strategy, only that it is often extremely effective.

I present the Streisand effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

That prolonged suppression only works specific environments where control is total.

The USA is not that, and censorship attempts often provide further platform for the information.

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

#140

Post by erikj »

salimmadjd wrote: post #9
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.

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.

Our communications must be decentralized as much as possible, if we want to avoid the dominance of any kind of thought police. Maybe it's the best time to start rolling out wireless peer-to-peer networks everywhere and to switch to software that doesn't rely on Google or Facebook datacenters.
Post reply on HN