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

251–260 of 398 posts

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

#251

Post by ghostly_s »

apetresc wrote: post #205
corobo wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See here's a great example of why I prefaced my message. Sorry but I'm lacking in either English language skills or politics but I haven't got a clue what you're saying. I'm ill-equipped to respond to this sort of reply. I'm not even sure what side of the fence you're debating for here. Now imagine if it was filled with accusations of being a racist, I'd probably just be curled up in a ball under my desk waiting for…

I think you may just need to read more carefully. It's abundantly clear what he's saying, and "what side of the fence" he's on.

No, it's not. Leave the OP alone, why on earth are people shaming them for needlessly clarifying they don't support white supremacy?

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

#253

Post by smokeyj »

leereeves wrote: post #168
watty wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So true. I had to create a separate Reddit account to have these discussions about internet freedom and refusing service because people assume I'm a white supremacist / Nazi. I'm not, I just think it opens up some interesting discussion as to what we can or can't discriminate against.

Reddit is particularly bad. I'm glad there's a place like Hacker News where people who disagree can still speak to one another civilly.

Here's my comment from the Cloudflare thread, sitting at -4.

> But what's the end game? Do service providers have to morally support those who they provide service to? Because that's how things are looking.

And what do you know. That's exactly what's happening.

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

#254

Post by tradesmanhelix »

While I definitely don't support these people, I do have to point out:

The problem with the approach taken by Google & Co. is that it criminalizes beliefs, regardless of whether or not adherents have taken illegal actions based on their beliefs.

If people 1) believe something, and 2) perform illegal actions based on their beliefs, a free society can punish #2. However, a free society can neither outlaw nor punish #1 without sinking into some form of despotism.

Liberty need not approve of all that she protects, and the best way to combat bad ideas is with better ideas, not censorship. Kudos to the EFF for raising an important point.

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

#255

Post by judah »

orangecat wrote: post #145
CWuestefeld wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's stupid. But that's the place we're at in the culture war. Pres. Trump is being crucified right now precisely for failing to provide such a statement. We all have to be careful to pay our tributes, or we'll be ostracized. Can you think of any other reason for such widespread repetition of these useless words? (And of course I must, too. I'm speaking here from a completely abstract standpoint which shouldn't…

Pres. Trump is being crucified right now precisely for failing to provide such a statement. It's a bit more than that. Trump has had no problem condemning Antifa thugs and violent radical Islamists, so it is noteworthy when he equivocates on violent white supremacists, especially when some of them are claiming that he supports them.

He condemned them by name, but it took 48 hours to do so.

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

#256

Post by Sacho »

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?

They do get upset. In fact, both Google's and EFF's responses are results of people getting upset. There's people upset that Nazi imagery exists, and Google wants those people as customers, so they have made the decision to ban Nazi imagery. There's people upset that this ban is overbroad and poorly applied, and that it sets a dangerous precedent, and the EFF is voicing that fear. Youtube, Facebook, etc ban pornographic content due to social pressure.

Google did not arbitrarily decide to ban Nazi speech on its whim, with no social support. This is a social war and it's why I find all the arguments unpersuasive - "private companies should do what they want"(except in cases when we don't like it, e.g. employment laws, denying service to minorities..) or "private companies should be forced to do what we want"(what happened to freedom of association?).

The underlying issue is that we're split on the importance and effects of tolerating hateful speech. The private companies are trying to navigate the social climate, which has become increasingly polarized. Boycotts, "with us or against us" demands is what is forcing their hand. It's not Google that's evil in this case, it's us. We are forcing them to take a stand on this social rift, and they have, and no one should really be surprised by it. Freedom of speech advocates have a long history of losing to moral panic.

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

#257

Post by bmelton »

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.

> Even 'racist' music can be tricky business

This seems like, basically, all of the rap I grew up listening to in the 90s could be arbitrarily censored here.

"Big dicks in ya mouth is bad for your health" comes to mind, alongside NWA's "Fuck the Police", and even songs by the relatively higher-minded Public Enemy could be construed as racist, or incitations to violence -- if one were predisposed to a puritanical cleansing of our media. More obviously, rap from musicians like Immortal Technique, The Geto Boys, Cypress Hill are just begging to be censored under such criteria.

Of course, this is Google we're talking about, and they control much more than music and videos. It's not a big jump from determining the Wu-Tang Clan to be too controversial to ruminating over whether or not all those casual mentions of the word 'nigger' in Mark Twain's works is appropriate.

Sadly, we appear to be living in interesting times.

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

#258

Post by justadeveloper2 »

randomstudent wrote: post #187
Quarrelsome wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cu…

I'm not at all comfortable talking about 18th and 19th century social issues through a 21st century lens. It's not going to be productive at all.

Slavery ended in the Northern US states without any war. It's an oversimplification to say the US Civil War ended slavery--it ended the southern plantation culture that supported slavery, but that's about all it did and the effects lingered until at least the early 1960s! Had there been no war, the abolitionist argument probably would have eventually won out and social change may have been more rapid.

As far as Native Americans go, they were not viewed as noble savages as they are today. Again, in a 19th century struggle for resources, the more technologically advanced culture won out. We are looking at the actions of whites and trying to apply 20th and 21st century principles to their behavior and I don't think you can.

I just visited The Little Bighorn and did a lot of reflecting on these issues. If nothing else, I am not to blame for whatever several generations past did to others and I feel no guilt over it whatsoever. I can only control my own behavior. As an intellectual, I value the diversity of ideas as superior to the identity diversity being promulgated by those with a political axe to grind.

If anyone wants to wage war against me or my family, expect to receive an equivalent amount of force applied in response.

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

#259

Post by gthtjtkt »

leereeves wrote: post #168
watty wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So true. I had to create a separate Reddit account to have these discussions about internet freedom and refusing service because people assume I'm a white supremacist / Nazi. I'm not, I just think it opens up some interesting discussion as to what we can or can't discriminate against.

Reddit is particularly bad. I'm glad there's a place like Hacker News where people who disagree can still speak to one another civilly.

Hacker News is no better than Reddit, it's just less noticeable because there's less transparency here.

Edit: Can't even post now. Saying this place is "no better than Reddit" may actually be a little insulting to Reddit.

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

#260

Post by timecube »

justadeveloper2 wrote: post #193
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 pr…

Are you seriously doing "both sides are bad" with the actual Nazis right now
Post reply on HN