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

241–250 of 305 posts

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

#241

Post by sintaxi »

sdwisely wrote: post #218
seventhtiger wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any radical voice that made the news, in any light, has gotten a larger following. Every single time a moderate brings a radical to debate it is a net gain for the radical. You can measure this by simply plotting the number of various social media followings such voices have, and plotting them against time and marking notable appearances. If someone is so radical they reject all authority, whether it's political or s…

> I'm for better prosecution of incitement of violence. This should also include spreading of false information designed to create a false sense of distress and push people to violence. I think this is the only option that ticks all the boxes for the solution I've been trying to find in my head.

"This is the result of a massacre, stoked by people like you and the words you put out [...] 49 people died because of the rhetoric you put out there."

Those are the words that were used to accuse Chelsea Clinton of being responsible for the attack - which means according to those who confronted Chelsea Clinton she would meet the standard you have just set.

Do you see the problem?

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

#242

Post by ElCapitanMarkla »

antpls wrote: post #228
XorNot wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Because who cares what you had to say - it's irrelevant. I do care about what everyone has to say. I'm interested to access any real footage of the reality to cross-check what we are told, and make my own opinion. If people are expecting to stop violence by censoring information, they might first look at banning firearms...

It’s the digital age, banning something isn’t the same as it was 100 years ago. A ban won’t remove something from the internet but it will stop people freely sharing that crap around.

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

#243

Post by terryd »

roca wrote: post #159
tootahe45 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one of the core reasons they don't want people to read it is that in the aftermath they're doing everything he wanted and more.

Some of the things his manifesto says he wanted, like stricter gun control, are indeed happening. Others, like a cycle of revenge attacks, are not, at least not yet. Of course it would be unwise to believe that he told the truth about his aims in his manifesto. Even if we could figure out what he really wanted, figuring that out and then doing the opposite would not be a rational way to respond to an incident like th…

> Others, like a cycle of revenge attacks, are not, at least not yet.

This is why censorship is so dangerous. I immediately thought of 3 attacks following NZ that could be interpreted as reprisals. I was completely unsurprised to see that no further details have been released in the week between then and now. We only know that the perpetrators were migrants from troubled parts of the world, and were already known to authorities - having developed criminal records since their arrival. A priest was stabbed in Canada, 3 people were killed in the Netherlands (3 more wounded), a bus in Italy with 52 children onboard was set ablaze. The spokesman for ISIS called for attacks after several months of radio silence, Erdoğan has been stirring his people up (which has historically resulted in violence).

Were you unaware of these events, or do you consider them normal? If you were unaware of them, do you think that is a result of selective reporting? I can tell you that absolutely no in depth reporting has occurred - no effort beyond that of news wire copy-paste.

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

#244

Post by celticninja »

ignoramous wrote: post #236
jjcm wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 bann…

> That's the thing though - as long as something is banned, it doesn't stay forgotten. Pretty much this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Also, govt (democratic ones, esp) are notorious for being short-sighted and taking populist measures, so no surprises here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses Imo, what the govt should considering doing (if they haven't already): 1. Weed out rouge element…

*rogue

Rouge is french for red and is usually used to describe makeup.

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

#245

Post by VorticesRcool »

RandomInteger4 wrote: post #155
retsibsi wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: any explanation for the downvote? Maybe the list was overkill, but I was responding to someone who accused another of being 'disingenuous, ignorant, or lazy', then presented very weak evidence for a claim that was supposed to be so obvious that questioning it justified those insults. (Basically no evidence at all, since it had nothing to do with New Zealand, the country which this discussion was specifically ab…

The point wasn't to say that the percentage of X posts to Y posts was Z%. The point was to say that these posts and sentiments exist and here is a way to find some almost guaranteed with one simple search; i.e. it's not hard to find this sentiment around the internet. If you've lived at any point in a social circle that involved wholeness you will see this sentiment displayed and defended. The whole idea of racism in…

What does this have to do with New Zealand?

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

#246

Post by seventhtiger »

sintaxi wrote: post #241
sdwisely wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm for better prosecution of incitement of violence. This should also include spreading of false information designed to create a false sense of distress and push people to violence. I think this is the only option that ticks all the boxes for the solution I've been trying to find in my head.

"This is the result of a massacre, stoked by people like you and the words you put out [...] 49 people died because of the rhetoric you put out there." Those are the words that were used to accuse Chelsea Clinton of being responsible for the attack - which means according to those who confronted Chelsea Clinton she would meet the standard you have just set. Do you see the problem?

We don't have to wait for the massacres and wait for the accusations. Inciting rhetoric can be defined. "Go kill them" is already illegal rhetoric. Why isn't "Get your guns and be ready. Something is happening. We are at war. They're coming to kill us."

Violence, other than in direct physical self defense, should be the exclusive domain of the state.

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

#247

Post by rimliu »

sintaxi wrote: post #189
sdwisely wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that last paragraph is something I've naively never given much thought and you're right. The rise of facist groups has really made me realize how disproportionate 'free speech' can be. The first example that comes to mind is police presence at protests against them. If 100 of them show up and 1000 counter protestors show up then the onus is on the police to protect their protest. The minorities targeted by these hate…

The manifesto includes direct calls to violence. So promoting and spreading the manifesto in that way should be a crime. However, reading and sharing the material for informing ones self should be seen as right that one has - especially since it is being used as justification to take rights and freedoms away.

Should we ban religious texts then too?

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

#248

Post by rimliu »

hodgesrm wrote: post #143
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…

NZ's reaction seems pretty reasonable to me. They just had 50+ people brutally murdered. Their political and business leaders seem to be focused on preventing it from happening again. If you want to criticize their response I think you need to show how your proposal would prevent further radicalism. The people involved in the white power movement are dangerous if enough of them get together. That's essentially what h…

Ok, think how many people died in sectarian violence. Religious text should have been banned years ago, right?

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

#249

Post by fzeroracer »

rimliu wrote: post #248
hodgesrm wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NZ's reaction seems pretty reasonable to me. They just had 50+ people brutally murdered. Their political and business leaders seem to be focused on preventing it from happening again. If you want to criticize their response I think you need to show how your proposal would prevent further radicalism. The people involved in the white power movement are dangerous if enough of them get together. That's essentially what h…

Ok, think how many people died in sectarian violence. Religious text should have been banned years ago, right?

Considering all of the major platforms ban ISIS groups from recruiting, sharing information etc, I would say yes. What exactly makes this manifesto any different? Do you believe those groups have an innate right to recruit?

We can differentiate between how religions and the groups within behave in practice, which is why we can ban some terrorist groups using religion while not banning all religious groups.

The basis of white supremacy consists of violence and terror. Yet for some reason we consider propaganda spread by them to be covered under free speech.

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

#250

Post by tomp »

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.

I’m really interested in that. Do you have links to any studies or other sources?
Post reply on HN