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

361–370 of 398 posts

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

#361

Post by 13years »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #276
MichaelGG wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw a thread where trolls were rejoicing, saying: they kept calling everybody a Nazi so some of us actually became Nazis. While well some people might put disclaimers on everything others are simply giving up. This started during the Trump campaign where everybody was called racist. The same with anti-semitism, especially against the current president who has a Jewish daughter. When people sling these around just a…

That's an interesting paradox: I'd argue that anyone who became a Nazi because someone mistakenly called them a Nazi, wasn't mistakenly called a Nazi.

It is has support in psychology.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/intense-emotions-and-st...

It is why I've argued that the current toxic atmosphere is adding to the problem.

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

#362

Post by mantas »

brightball wrote: post #357
mantas wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you mind to point to some more... controversial literature? Or some handbook you found rather objective on the matter?

Ehh...it's not so much controversial as it is just details that are normally left out. Once you're aware of them and take the time to verify the citations you immediately notice when other people leave them out. Sure there were economic factors at play and those are interesting in their own right, but in the south the biggest thing that people fail to understand is the element of fear. I don't want to do a historic n…

Thank you. Gotta add these to my to-read list!

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

#363

Post by ZeroGravitas »

leereeves wrote: post #344
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone in that thread, unironically, said that Google etc. had to allow Nazi's to use their services. And then immediately said "Whatever happened to "Don't be evil"?". Apparently the concept that providing your services to Nazi's could be thought of as evil totally escaped their thoughts. It seems like quite a lot of people have deeply internalized the opinion that "Free Speech" is an unalloyed good, and are confus…

And would you draw that line so far toward censorship that you would ban a platform merely for not practicing censorship? (Gab)

Unless the platform that hosts it, has made the same uncompromising decision, then of course. It would be like hosting an app that freely declares it will host viruses on your platform that scans for viruses. They're telling you upfront that they have no intention of following your platform rules.

Not accidentally letting a few slip through, not being overwhelmed by scale and doing a crappy job, but as a point of principle not following the rules you are trying to enforce.

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

#364

Post by stabatmater »

scrollaway wrote: post #149
wildmusings wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Racism? Ok nobody's really going to bat an eye at that disappearing. Violence and hatred though? You've got this all backwards. We should be most concerned about censorship of political beliefs, however wrongheaded they are.

How can you call racism a political belief?

For to sake of clarity and proper context, scrollaway's comment read "Racism is not a political belief" and was changed to "How can you call racism a political belief?" after some replies.

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

#365

Post by xamuel »

imron wrote: post #25
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)…

> There's nothing stopping these maniacs from starting their own intermediaries to host the content(trash) they want to peddle. Who decides on what is and isn't trash? The article states "And music streaming services offered by Google, Deezer and Spotify have said they would remove music that incites violence, hatred or racism." Does this mean they will remove things like 'Fuck tha police' or 'Smack my bitch up'? I d…

"Fuck tha police" is from an album which was recently selected for preservation by the Library of Congress for being "culturally, historically, or artistically significant". The album was also rated the 144th best album of all time by Rolling Stone magazine.

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

#366

Post by brightball »

mantas wrote: post #362
brightball wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehh...it's not so much controversial as it is just details that are normally left out. Once you're aware of them and take the time to verify the citations you immediately notice when other people leave them out. Sure there were economic factors at play and those are interesting in their own right, but in the south the biggest thing that people fail to understand is the element of fear. I don't want to do a historic n…

Thank you. Gotta add these to my to-read list!

You're welcome. The most important thing to remember is that this was a huge conflict with over 100 years of build up. There's a lot of complicated history that makes things ugly all around.

It's fascinating to read about though.

What I've found is the easiest way to find where there are holes that need to be explored is just by asking "Why?" anytime you hear of an event. If you're given history and just told, "this happened, then this happened..." the quickest way to get an answer to something is to simply ask "Why did they do that?"

That simple question will point you in the right direction more often than not. When you start answering enough of those questions, everything that happened makes a lot more sense.

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

#367

Post by ZeroGravitas »

13years wrote: post #361
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting paradox: I'd argue that anyone who became a Nazi because someone mistakenly called them a Nazi, wasn't mistakenly called a Nazi.

It is has support in psychology. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/intense-emotions-and-st... It is why I've argued that the current toxic atmosphere is adding to the problem.

Interesting, I recently saw a quote from a prison psychologist that suggested the root cause of most violence was shame.

I thought that was profound, but I struggle to fit overuse of the word Nazi online into the same framework, indeed I find it much easier to fit the kind of opinions and behavior that people might refer to as 'Nazi'-like into this framework:

https://lakesideconnect.com/anger-and-violence/the-link-betw...

"Gilligan notes literally dozens of synonyms for shame: feelings of being slighted, insulted, disrespected, dishonored, disgraced, disdained, slandered, treated with contempt, ridiculed, teased, taunted, mocked, rejected, defeated, subjected to indignity; or, experiencing feelings of being weak, ugly, inadequate, incompetent, a failure, losing face; and being treated as if one were insignificant or worthless.

Based on his research and other expert opinions, Gilligan concludes that “the most potent stimulus of aggression and violence, and the one that is most reliable in eliciting this response is not the frustration per se, but rather, insult and humiliation (page 32).” In other words, the most effective, and often the only way, to provoke someone to become violent is to insult them."

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

#368

Post by tchaffee »

Chaebixi wrote: post #359
tchaffee wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really a free speech issue. It's a monopoly issue. Google should be protected from government interference in their right to exercise free speech just like every other individual and company in the US. The fact that they are a near monopoly is a problem that has side effects, but the real issue to focus on is the monopoly.

> Google should be protected from government interference in their right to exercise free speech just like every other individual and company in the US. If Google wants those rights, it could surrender its monopoly (through a voluntary break-up).

Google has these rights, monopoly or not. The government is forbidden from interfering with free speech.

The government is however allowed to break up monopolies, which is why we should focus on the real issue, and the real solution.

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

#369

Post by vim_wannabe »

pmoriarty wrote: post #333
sdenton4 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then went right back to false equivalence and whataboutism less than 24 hours later. The third statement reinforced the insincerity of the second.

Not only that, he then went on to complain[1] about the removal of "beautiful" Confederate statues, effectively siding with the Neo-Nazis, who were in Charlottesville specifically to protest the removal of a Confederade statue. This is par for the course for Trump, who (only when under extreme political pressure from his own party) will belatedly condemn right-wing extremists with one corner of his mouth, but give th…

Ah, yes, complaining about the removal of statues is siding with neo-nazis now.

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

#370

Post by smokeyj »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #363
leereeves wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And would you draw that line so far toward censorship that you would ban a platform merely for not practicing censorship? (Gab)

Unless the platform that hosts it, has made the same uncompromising decision, then of course. It would be like hosting an app that freely declares it will host viruses on your platform that scans for viruses. They're telling you upfront that they have no intention of following your platform rules. Not accidentally letting a few slip through, not being overwhelmed by scale and doing a crappy job, but as a point of pri…

What about links to archive.org? Surely they're not an extremist organization.
Post reply on HN