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

191–200 of 398 posts

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

#191

Post by tomp »

MBCook wrote: post #88
tomp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 m…

Google also removed the Gab app from it's app store. Setting up a DNS host is simple, but starting your own Google/Android/CDN requires an equally massive investment.

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

#192

Post by rounce »

stillkicking wrote: post #142
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…

It's quite simple. Eminem is white and male, that means he's a hateful misogynist and homophobe. Azealia Banks is black and female, that means she's empowered by rapping about cunts, bitches and catching a nigga's warm goo in your do-rag. Thanks to progressivism we can finally judge people by the content of their character. (/s, Let's face it, everyone can see this is politically motivated and the demand for empathy…

I think it's safe to say everyone knows Azealia Banks is a tool.

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

#193

Post by justadeveloper2 »

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_.. .

I used this same quotation back in the '90s for something. It's become kind of trite, like the Ben Franklin quote about liberty and safety. Yes, we know the Jews suffered, it's been drilled into your psyches over and over again. Not the blame the victims, but Germany's Jews are the perfect example of why you don't believe in government benevolence and why you never let anyone conduct mass civil disarmament.

Stalin proved that the Germans were right to go after the Socialists who were trying to undermine Germany. Not defending what the Germans did, it was horrifying. Both sides ended up being brutal and completely evil. Look at the Spanish Civil War, no real winners there and that was the prototype for WWII--fascism rose as a counter to communism. Again, not trying to excuse it, it's just reality.

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

#194

Post by Sacho »

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 only have a cursory knowledge of history, so I'm not aware of this. All the cases I can think of where a certain set of ideas were suppressed usually ended up in failure, e.g. Christianity, Protestantism, various heresies, civil rights movements like Gandhi and MLK...

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

#195

Post by eli_gottlieb »

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.

Nobody is trying to give the government power to censor. Everyone is saying that private companies have no moral obligation to materially support neo-Nazis.

Yes, there are concerns about concentrated, oligopolistic markets, but those are solved by breaking up the major players -- not by legislating some requirement of fair service for literal swastika-waving, Roman-saluting Nazis.

People are not entitled to claim freedom of speech for posting Nazi trash on their own private website, and then claim freedom of speech from other private entities refusing to do business with them. Everyone has a negative right to express Nazi views. Nobody has a positive entitlement to demand material resources from private actors to express Nazi views.

The disgusting thing here is that, for many years, if we on the Left pushed for a universal basic income, or for single-payer health-care, we would have the difference between positive and negative freedoms kindly explained to us by the political center and Right. Now a bunch of (again) literal Nazis have a sad, and that we have to quietly listen to the center and Right tell us there's no more distinction, that Nazis have a positive entitlement to be Nazis? It's completely disingenuous!

Or should the Communist Party file a lawsuit to demand a stipend from tech companies for spreading communism?

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

#196

Post by ultim8k »

I personally believe we should not only block those ideas on the web, but also everywhere else. Those ideas supporters should see that their opinions lead them outside of the society and make them suffer of loneliness and no support from anyone. Then and only then, they will understand they are wrong. It's another thing to allow the freedom of speech and another thing to make it easier for people to promote those ideas. We are not free to walk out with a gun, so we shouldn't be free to advocate violence.

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

#197

Post by colordrops »

andygates wrote: post #146
koolba wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It seems to come especially from (apart from actual supporters, obvs) people who think that neonazis are interested in the same sharing of information and arguments in good faith that the majority are. That hasn't ever been so. So while the "freedom to speak, whatever" side has a point, they're also being naive.

So we become like them to stop them?

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

#198

Post by justadeveloper2 »

lagadu wrote: post #172
mikeash wrote: post #81

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?

I agree with your sentiment but I only realise it now after having given it some thought. The reason I disagree with the silencing of nationalist speech but didn't consider porn to be effectively suffering from the same issue is because I simply never considered censoring porn to be a speech issue. I had never thought of it as an idea, which is what I think of when it comes to political ideologies. I think the differ…

The Chinese and North Koreans ban pornography don't they? It's a pretty good litmus test for how open or closed a society is.

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

#199

Post by mantas »

tanilama wrote: post #163
mantas wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Th…

> any business shall serve any customer regardless Amazon blacklists people who abuse their service, like return policy. They are not breaking the laws, but blocking these bad customers is not only a moral choice but also a rational one, since it protects the sellers and other customers. Likewise, if you are making a scene in a private space, if it disturbs the usual operation, the owner should have the right to kick…

What is gay couple is making a scene in a private space and demanding a cake? And the bakery happens to be by the church and having gays hand-in-hand would severely hurt their business? What if instead of gays it's cyclists in undersized lycra? I'd rather not have either of them kicked out.

I'm pretty sure abuse of return policy is covered by some kind of law. On the other hand, blacklisting customers who just use advertised return policy to it's full extent is not moral either. False advertisement is breaking of the law too.

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

#200

Post by fatjokes »

I disagree with the EFF on this one. I don't think free speech needs to be absolute. You can draw the line at Nazis. These companies didn't draw the line at Breitbart, or Alex Jones, or any number of far-right sites, but at a site that proudly traces its ideology to a group that successfully executed genocide. Germany and South Korea (among others, I'm sure) still have vibrant democracies and economies despite stricter online and offline speech controls. I feel like Americans have an odd obsession with absolute freedom, e.g., they're more "free" because they can own assault rifles.
Post reply on HN