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

371–380 of 398 posts

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

#371

Post by 13years »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #367
13years wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-be…

Thanks for the link. I agree about the online use in most cases, unless the label sticks and people begin to believe it.

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

#372

Post by judah »

sdenton4 wrote: post #275
judah wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

False equivalence was bad, yes. Such is politics.

President Trump equates the alt-right racists and the Antifa violent Communists for political purposes. President Obama equated Israelis and Palestinian terrorists for political purposes[0].

People find it hard to condemn violence when their side is doing it; they point out wrongs in the other side to soften or excuse their side's violence.

[0]: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/227669/re-cairo-speech...

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

#373

Post by judah »

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…

Arguing against removal of Confederate statues is not siding with neo-nazis.

(Corollary: arguing for the removal doesn't make you a violent Antifa Communist.)

Condoleeza Rice, an African American woman with political clout and experience, has argued we should keep the statues. Others have made a strong case for removing statues of people who committed treason.

But whatever your view, this should be done legally and peacefully. No mobs tearing down statues, no pitchfork-wielding defense of statues. We live in a democracy. Exercise it.

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

#374

Post by mcbruiser3 »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #266
smokeyj wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

the difficulty with shades of gray wrt to free speech is that what is intolerable is a matter of opinion and I don't trust ANYONE to make that decision for me.

free speech must be absolute, so yes, in this case it is black and white, sorry you don't see it that way.

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

#375

Post by CamTin »

justadeveloper2 wrote: post #166
CamTin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without ISP-level neutrality, the opposite would be true. Here's the scenario in that case: 1) Google, Facebook, Twitter, CloudFlare, GoDaddy, and a few other actors ban a certain flavor of hate speech. 2) The pro-hate-speech crowd tries to start their own "Facebook for white nationalism" but can't, because they don't have "premium" peering arrangements with all the eyeball ISPs. 3) There is no step 3, it's game over…

When you say pro-hate-speech, do you include Marxist rhetoric in there? I only ask because anyone who has suffered through communism will tell you who the truly brutal and destructive monsters in this world are. I can think of no fascist regimes in the world today, but I can name quite a few far left ones where I would not want to reside.

Whether or not something is really hate speech is beside the point of my argument. The big tech companies could decide to block speech that disparages Bugs Bunny and the point would still hold. Without ISP-level neutrality, competition doesn't provide a check on the existing "big tech" companies foisting their moralism users who disagree with it.

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

#376

Post by dragonwriter »

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).

> If Google wants those rights, it could surrender its monopoly (through a voluntary break-up).

Google is not a monopoly on domain registration.

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

#377

Post by throwawaymanbot »

averagewall wrote: post #126
YCode wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure this kind of policy even has whatever the intended effect is, seems how it appears to be a reaction to Charlottesville events. Take "music that incites racism" (what do you put into Pandora to get that genre?) for example. If you have users listening to it (because before Charlottesville you thought it was okay!) and you remove it telling them their music is basically banned aren't those users just going…

Absolutely. Neo Nazis have been a fringe group for decades and never caused much trouble. Now I actually feel some affinity to them because I see them as an underdog being beaten down. That's how you get supporters - get oppressed. In fact that's how the original Nazi movement started in the first place - a vent to Germans' frustrations at being oppressed by the winners of WWI.

So you cant discipline your emotions knowing that what you are feeling sympathy for is nazi doctrine?...wow!

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

#378

Post by mcbruiser3 »

mcbruiser3 wrote: post #374
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…

the difficulty with shades of gray wrt to free speech is that what is intolerable is a matter of opinion and I don't trust ANYONE to make that decision for me. free speech must be absolute, so yes, in this case it is black and white, sorry you don't see it that way.

um, why is this being downvoted? does anyone seriously want to live in a censored world? seriously? man, we're more doomed than I thought :(

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

#379

Post by leereeves »

mcbruiser3 wrote: post #378
mcbruiser3 wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the difficulty with shades of gray wrt to free speech is that what is intolerable is a matter of opinion and I don't trust ANYONE to make that decision for me. free speech must be absolute, so yes, in this case it is black and white, sorry you don't see it that way.

um, why is this being downvoted? does anyone seriously want to live in a censored world? seriously? man, we're more doomed than I thought :(

Certainly, a lot of people want to live in a censored world, as long as they agree with the censors.

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

#380

Post by mantas »

brightball wrote: post #366
mantas wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Totally agree on that. This is how I approach my country's and surrounding region history.

Although it's popular to bash "there's no single truth" people, the more and more I look into history, the more I think that's true. Everyone has a very complicated history which is a product of what did or even didn't happen. Which results in totally different point of views and everybody see truth differently. It's truly fascinating to see how different timelines merge and separate and the today's politics and policies they cause.

Post reply on HN