Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

privateinternetaccess.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 305 posts

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#81

Post by huntie »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #79
huntie wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, I agree that the US has an incarceration problem. We're certainly not perfect, and I think much of the problem is due to the US's drug problem. Regardless, comparing incarceration to slavery is disingenuous as slavery requires no wrongdoing whereas incarceration should require wrongdoing. As for my comparison of disallowing hate speech to slavery, it is a very valid comparison. The two are morally reprehensibl…

what about "collective" cultures that don't prize individualism? If you are discouraged from saying something because it will cause social disharmony within your community, is that as morally wrong as slavery? I think not. I think capturing someone from their home, their country, their loved ones, transporting them across an ocean, beating them, making them work for the rest of their lives without pay, while starving…

"I think capturing..."

This is a very American-centric view of slavery. Most cultures have participated in slavery at some point in history without the extraneous parts. Even if you treat your slave as family, the slavery is still immoral.

Similarly, your views on free speech are very narrow-minded. Many people have been murdered by oppressive governments for speaking out against injustice. Were they "idiots spout[ing] whatever crappy opinion happens to wander across what passes for their mind"?

If you are discouraged from saying something for _any_ reason, this is slavery of the mind. As for collective cultures, I don't think I know enough to effectively comment. I will note that many cultures that were okay at one time are now viewed with disgust as primitive, including your depiction of slavery in the Americas.

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#82

Post by doldge »

shard972 wrote: post #58
sebthedev wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which aspects of the New Zealand government's response do you object to? Off the top of my head, the government has: used the existing regulatory system to temporarily halt sales of the sort weapons used in the terrorist attack; introduced legislation into parliament to permanently halt sales of the sort of weapons used in the attack, which will proceed through the regular legislative process; announced plans to inve…

Maybe putting a teen in jail, now facing 10 years for sharing the video with an edgy comment.

actions have consequences; whether those actions take place online or not. If what he did was hate speech, then it makes sense to charge him with it.

That he did it online, or didn't realise that saying vile things would have undesirable consequences shouldn't excuse the behaviour.

(N.B I think he should be charged with something, but I don't think prison time is a fair response to his actions).

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#83

Post by apostacy »

PostOnce wrote: post #13
MBO35711 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that would be silly.

the point is, you have to draw a line somewhere, and if the line is "nobody can see anything this guy wrote" then the collateral damage is going to be perhaps just too much. When I said Archive.is has more than one page, I meant we're blocking millions of non-offending pages for the sake of blocking one that offends. So, how far will we go? Block Archive.is? Block Facebook? The whole internet?

This level of heavy handedness was unprecedented in the west, and is more characteristic of China than anything else.

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#84

Post by Jach »

baconhigh wrote: post #69

All the sites in the article were hosting illegal (in NZ) content - they were temporarily blocked till the video (of a terrorist killing innocent people) was taken down. Nobody needs to see that. It's not about free speech. The sites in question are used to spread hate, racism, violence and bigotry. Why are we tolerating this kind of media in our lives? Why are we letting people upload this? It is not free speech. It…

"Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened."

― Dwight D. Eisenhower

I have yet to see the video, don't really intend to as I've seen enough other material, but for you to say "Nobody needs to see that" is to deny people an education about a grotesque part of human nature. Denying that education leads to denial of the nature itself. Nothing good comes from denying that reality.

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#85

Post by oska »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #74
oska wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think supporters of Free Speech look to the American constitution? This seems like a strawman to me. Support for Free Speech has a very long and broad history, a great deal of which predates the founding of the USA and a great deal of which has been outside the USA. People across the world and throughout history don't like being silenced.

Not all peoples. Some cultures are "collective" (as opposed to the West's "individualistic") and value social harmony more than individual rights. In these cultures, speaking your mind when it causes any kind of disagreement or conflict is not encouraged and can lead to social penalties. This is not "the authorities" censoring free speech; this is family, friends and neighbours trying to maintain a harmonious communi…

Yes, there is a contrasting dynamic of restricting/stifling speech "to promote social harmony". This is also present in the US, cf. the deplatforming movement.

My point is that a desire for free speech is not endemic to the US and framing the promotion/defence of it in other countries as referencing the US is misleading. I'm Australian and affected by this censorship. I wouldn't think to reference the US Constitution in arguing against it. When I argue for free speech I argue from principles, not from the example of another country's constitutional framework.

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#86

Post by IdontRememberIt »

terragon wrote: post #2

The mobile operator Jio does the same thing here in India. Any content that offends their conservative interests, is routinely blocked without any legal repurcussions. If ISPs want to act as curators to content they just provide access to, then they should be held legally liable for illegal content. Else, just act as a dumb pipe and give up all responsibility.

"then they should be held legally liable for illegal content"

Thanks for bringing this point.

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#87

Post by apostacy »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #80
dangerbird2 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> limiting free speech is wrong Enabling the spread of terrorist propaganda, like the blocked websites have been doing by hosting the Christchurch shooting video. You'd better believe if websites like Twitter and Youtube didn't self-censor ISIS propaganda like they did in 2014, many countries would be having their ISPs block those sites.

> if websites like Twitter and Youtube didn't self-censor ISIS propaganda like they did in 2014 People posted ISIS beheading videos to YouTube and caused a policy crisis (within YouTube). YouTube responded by deciding that the beheading videos should stay up because they were newsworthy. As shocking as one of those videos is, it notionally shows why ISIS is bad. Or at least, that's what they said. YouTube simultaneou…

You're right, it doesn't make sense. Just like it doesn't make sense to hold Gab.com to unreasonably high standards, while letting Twitter and Facebook get away with exactly the same things.

YouTube also left up Elliot Rodger's YouTube channel for like three years for similar reasons, until they changed their minds and took them down again.

What it looks like to me, is that they just like censoring things and throwing their weight around, and this moral grandstanding is only after the thought.

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#88

Post by berti »

I just checked, and only three of the thirteen "blocked" sites are not working. Of those eztv.is appears to have a DNS problem (no A record, only an SOA record pointing at a parking address of the registrar), and traceroutes archive.is and archive.fo get as far as an address in the Netherlands, so I don't think they're blocked in NZ. ISP is 2degrees, Cloudflare DNS.

On a side-note, I'm probably now on some watch list.

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#89

Post by colejohnson66 »

aphextron wrote: post #44
sebthedev wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which aspects of the New Zealand government's response do you object to? Off the top of my head, the government has: used the existing regulatory system to temporarily halt sales of the sort weapons used in the terrorist attack; introduced legislation into parliament to permanently halt sales of the sort of weapons used in the attack, which will proceed through the regular legislative process; announced plans to inve…

>Which aspects of the New Zealand government's response do you object to? Namely the banning of the manifesto. Blocking images of violence is one thing. But making the leap to blocking ideas is on a whole other level. I’m all for de-platforming. No one should be forced to host your vile content, legal or not. But for the government of your country to ban a specific string of characters as a criminal matter is terrify…

Why is banning a string of characters terrifying, but not a string of bits?

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#90

Post by cam_l »

PostOnce wrote: post #17
doesnt_know wrote: post #12

Not everyone holds the same absolute views on freedom of speech as those drawn up in the American constitution. There is also plenty of opposing views of a "constitutionally limited government" that seems to be at the heart of American culture. Frankly, it's pretty disturbing how many Americans are unable to comprehend that their way isn't the "only way" that can be valid. The New Zealand Bill of Rights provides free…

The New Zealand Bill of Rights is the single most toothless, feeble, pointless piece of legislation I have ever read. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/D... Literally everything else overrides it, if I'm reading this right: -------- Other enactments not affected No court shall, in relation to any enactment (whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Bill of Rights),— (a)h…

I mean i don't disagree, but speaking as an Aussie, at least you have one..
Post reply on HN