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

171–180 of 305 posts

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

#171

Post by roca »

rgoulter wrote: post #55
MBO35711 wrote: post #14

My apologies. Might I ask a question, please? How do we otherwise stop the internet being hacked to support these vile creatures?

I'm concerned that "censorship of bad views" leads to radicalisation. e.g. if you have concerns that are morally unacceptable to express, the only place you can express those concerns are in morally unacceptable areas. I think the hope of censoring bad views is to increase that friction before people get there; make it harder for 'ordinary' people to stumble across vile sites, and reduce access to vile sites to those…

We have abundant evidence that not censoring bad views also leads to radicalisation. So your argument is weak.

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

#172

Post by xeeeeeeeeeeenu »

yongjik wrote: post #161

(A) An alt-right terrorist shoots up and kills 50, in a country where such things were unheard of. (B) The nation bans the terrorist's message. Half of HN: "Oh wait, now that sets a worrying precedent." Yes, HN, never change.

No, they have banned a bunch of random sites, while the main distributor of the video (Facebook) remans unblocked.

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

#173

Post by Nasrudith »

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…

To be frank 'collective' cultures seems to be a cop-out trope to excuse authoritarianism as 'just part of their culture' mixed with exoticism. It would be like excusing warlords as 'just a part of the culture' when everyone who isn't a part of his army wants him dead but is too afraid to take action and is essentially complicity in manufactured consent.

A true collective culture would have no need for laws as cudgels for such matters because doing something 'selfish' would already make them an outcast surely as becoming an outspoken NAMBLA supporter.

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

#174

Post by Rebelgecko »

pryce wrote: post #170
Rebelgecko wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps nitpicky, but I believe the potential ban and existing re-categorization of certain types of weapons would only ban 2/5 of the firearms he used.

All of the firearms he used were banned.

Are you sure? I thought the ban only applied to semi-automatic guns, not pump or lever action.

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

#175

Post by roca »

doubleunplussed wrote: post #167
rgoulter wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm concerned that "censorship of bad views" leads to radicalisation. e.g. if you have concerns that are morally unacceptable to express, the only place you can express those concerns are in morally unacceptable areas. I think the hope of censoring bad views is to increase that friction before people get there; make it harder for 'ordinary' people to stumble across vile sites, and reduce access to vile sites to those…

I think blocking 4chan and 8chan means their users will resent the establishment even more. Considering this is the demographic whose resentment was influential enough to play a role in the election of Trump in the US, I think society needs to think twice before stamping the boot into their face. I know some people who will feel that blocking these sites was an affront to their identity. And like it or not, the numbe…

No, those people very much need a boot stamped into their face (metaphorically). The vast majority are cowards who hide behind anonymity or in their sick community. Catch a few and make an example of them and the vast majority will back off. I'm talking about NZ here, I understand the situation in the USA is different and worse.

In fact, though, they won't be cut off. 4chan and 8chan are both accessible to me here in NZ with no tricks.

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

#176

Post by Nasrudith »

roca wrote: post #171
rgoulter wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm concerned that "censorship of bad views" leads to radicalisation. e.g. if you have concerns that are morally unacceptable to express, the only place you can express those concerns are in morally unacceptable areas. I think the hope of censoring bad views is to increase that friction before people get there; make it harder for 'ordinary' people to stumble across vile sites, and reduce access to vile sites to those…

We have abundant evidence that not censoring bad views also leads to radicalisation. So your argument is weak.

Wouldn't that put them on even ground essentially but one option has far less collateral damage? The burden of proof is usually on the one proposing a change.

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

#177

Post by [deleted] »

DuskStar wrote: post #73
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…

Hate speech is free speech that you happen to not like.

[deleted]

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

#178

Post by Throwway32 »

DuskStar wrote: post #156
ElCapitanMarkla wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except this is hate speech. Or are you saying it isn’t

I dislike it, so it's hate speech, of course! But I tend to believe that I should not have the power to determine what can or cannot be said, and that no one else should have that power either .

If you were to say, make a pro-ISIS video, or Tweet, would you expect to remain unmolested by the authorities in the United States? All societies set boundaries on what is acceptable speech.

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

#179

Post by jjcm »

XorNot wrote: post #136
jjcm wrote: post #109

The problem with censoring and banning the information outright (in the case of NZ) is that it gives power to the manifesto. So much of what Jacinda Ardern said after the shooting was about denying the person a platform: "We, in New Zealand, will give him nothing. Not even his name." "He sought many things from his act of terror, but one was notoriety, and that is why you will never hear me mention his name." And yet…

No they haven't. What they're doing is preventing the spread of radicalization to vulnerable demographics. They're breaking up the ability of alt-right groups to try and rally around it. You don't get to shoot a bunch of people and have your manifesto spread far and wide. You get forgotten. And your manifesto gets banned. Because who cares what you had to say - it's irrelevant. As to the video: go extract release for…

> You get forgotten

That's the thing though - as long as something is banned, it doesn't stay forgotten. We see Tiananmen Square pop up all the time not because of its major historical significance, but because of the attempts by certain governments to censor it.

There are better ways to forget something collectively as a culture. Right now if you google "New Zealand shooting", half of the articles are about the banning of the information. The banning itself gave it more attention, and realistically it wont stop those who want to find it from finding it.

What I'd rather have seen was NZ focusing on the victims and the families. Drown out the manifesto with positivity. Focus the news cycle on the communities that have been affected; show them coming together and embracing each other. Make what is remembered not the shooter or their manifesto, but how the community responded.

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

#180

Post by [deleted] »

doldge wrote: post #151
myrandomcomment wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate speech, is protected speech in my mind, no matter how abhorrent. The founding fathers of the USA had a reason for the 1st amendment. You milage may vary in your location, but at the end of the day, censorship of speech is very very slipper slope. This type of speech needs to be countered by education and by people standing up and saying "we will not listen", not a bureaucrat. Allowing the government to censor wh…

that's a very American stance to take. I don't mean that as an insult; I mean that Americans value individual liberty above all else. That isn't the case in NZ; Most of the population trusts the government and value's collective good above individual liberty, the policies and responses to events like these are born out of our culture and focus on those values. It's apples & oranges with the US culture of valuing indi…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN