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

181–190 of 398 posts

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

#181

Post by apatters »

It seems to me that the right to exclude certain types of speech from your privately owned platform is in itself a form of expression, and important to preserve. Where we get into trouble is when one entity obtains monopoly or near-monopoly control over a means of spreading information, and thus gains the power to tell everyone what they can and can't know.

And Google is not that far off. They have a monopoly in at least one market and the EU has already found them guilty of anti-competitive practices. The US government has not brought an anti-trust case against Google, and you could argue it's failing to do its job--the ties between Google and the US government run disturbingly deep, with Google allegedly serving as an arm of US foreign policy in many ways: https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/

Either way, the most important point is simply that monopolies are dangerous. And the best solution is to weaken them, whether through regulatory action, consumers voting with their feet, or other companies introducing competition. I think the most interesting project in this space is Searx, which allows me to aggregate results from Google and other search engines, and flip a switch to turn each engine on or off. Searx is a great step in the direction of breaking Google's monopoly and thus hindering its ability to severely limit free speech. https://github.com/asciimoo/searx

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

#182

Post by dragonwriter »

elefanten wrote: post #162
justadeveloper2 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is beyond stupid. A democracy is structured to be open and conflict is embedded to force decision-making by consensus and compromise. Corporations are structured to be closed, authoritarian structures. We're lucky there isn't much history of corporations having state-like scale + monopoly on legitimate violence. Super lucky.

> We're lucky there isn't much history of corporations having state-like scale + monopoly on legitimate violence

If it has the latter, it is, by definition, the State. Irrespective of scale (and state-like scale is meaningless.)

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

#183

Post by saalweachter »

pjc50 wrote: post #45
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…

The far-right is trying to be "counterculture", in an effort to make hate speech "cool". The people lobbying for the removal of the hate speech and its enablers are far more mainstream than "extreme left". People who are victims of hate speech don't have to be extreme anything to prefer that sites choose not to enable harassment. I'm not even sure who counts as "extreme left" any more, there are very few people tryin…

I'm not sure about "extreme left" as a movement but there are definitely positions I'd attribute to the "extreme left". Universal Basic Income. Replacing the police force with a comparably sized and empowered army of social workers and therapists. Outlawing fossil fuels. Banning GMO.

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

#184

Post by splintercell »

24gttghh wrote: post #155
melling wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the article sums up the problem quite well: "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." Can I refused to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage? You can always go somewhere else.

Can we please stop comparing treatment of gays and treatment of nazi's like they're some kind of equivalent? Gay people from most accounts were born that way, and just want to remain being alive and gay. Nazi's should be given no safe harbor, as they want to opress and/or kill gay people along with everyone else who don't want nazi's to have power.

I don't think you understand 'freedom of speech', when you start saying 'I believe in freedom of speech for only X kind of speech, because the other kind abhorrent'.

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

#185

Post by tscs37 »

gormo2 wrote: post #121
pyroinferno wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you say that? Muslims have killed a lot more people this year in the name of their ideology than Nazis...

The fact you just call them "Muslims" speaks volumes about you and your beliefs. Educate yourself #notallmuslims

You should educate yourself because what you ask for is basically what happened to jews in the third reich. Not even something toned down or a "behind the curtains" deal, by doing this you are not better than the nazi's themselves, you stoop to their level.

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

#186

Post by yoavm »

etaty wrote: post #115

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_.. .

That's a false analogy. You can't compare the freedom rights of the oppressed to these of the oppressor. The context in which rights are granted or taken plays a big role here. If it wouldn't, someone on HN would long ago code a moral bot that just answers "of course" every time you ask it "is it okay to say X?".

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

#187

Post by randomstudent »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #103
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 c…

> I feel like love is a better tool than hate in trying to affect social change.

Please do not argue for this position based on "feelings"... In my own country, most social change was the result of war, credible threats of violence and technological progress. Natuarally, I "feel" the opposite.

Since we're discussing the US, I'd wager that's probably true there too: white culture became dominant over Native America culture because the Native Americans were wiped out, and the survivors were sent to barren reservations.

Slavery was brought to an end because its supporters were defeated in a literal war. Also, the social change that gave rise to salvery was based on the forceful kidnapping of people, too.

Worker rights are the result of strikes and often literal violence.

Were I familiar enough with the History of the US I think I could bring up other situations.

(If I'm wrong on any of these historical points I'll be happy to be corrected)

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

#188

Post by bjl »

ZoeZoeBee wrote: post #128
celticninja wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Did you apply this logic to the bakery who refused to bake the cake for a gay wedding last year? The issue of freedom of speech when it relates to businesses is a pretty good hypocrisy litmus test. Last year the Left was outraged when a business refused service based on moral grounds, while the Right sided with the business, and we have the opposite in this case.

Sexual orientation is a protected class. Being a Nazi is not.

This difference isn't hard to understand.

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

#189

Post by renesd »

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.

Yes. There are lots of Polish and Swedish Nationalist Socialist bands (aka, Nazi). Fuck them.

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

#190

Post by averagewall »

ZoeZoeBee wrote: post #128
celticninja wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Did you apply this logic to the bakery who refused to bake the cake for a gay wedding last year? The issue of freedom of speech when it relates to businesses is a pretty good hypocrisy litmus test. Last year the Left was outraged when a business refused service based on moral grounds, while the Right sided with the business, and we have the opposite in this case.

Yes. People who defer to the legal definition of protected classes and insist that members of them must be protected and everyone else be damned are the showing clear hypocrisy.

It would be funny if in another 1000 years we'll all agree that the current US popular leftist morals turned out to be the right ones: It's wrong to discriminate against someone because of their race, religion, sex, or sexual preferences (as long as it's one of a few predefined types) but it's right to discriminate against someone because of their political views, alternative sexuality (outside the list of predefined types), ugliness, height, location of birth, or anything else you don't like. These classifications are so arbitrary and transient, why does anyone stand by them so vehemently? When they're old they might become the new racist uncle - hating the wrong people that the next couple of generations decide shouldn't be hated anymore.

Post reply on HN