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

251–260 of 305 posts

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

#251

Post by Carpetsmoker »

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…

So basically to protect freedom we need to create a police state with permanent security everywhere and live in constant fear.

Is /r/TopMindsOfHN a thing yet?

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

#252

Post by Carpetsmoker »

huntie wrote: post #22
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 don't know what you mean by hacked, but this would have been less of an issue if New Zealand had not tried to censor it. The Streisand effect is very real. If you're looking for a technical solution, there is none. The most valuable feature of the Internet is its resistance to censorship. Cut off one head, and two more shall take its place.

Streisand effect doesn't apply here. It's about relatively small thing being blown up by a disproportionate reply.

This isn't some small event, everyone already knows about it.

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

#253

Post by pryce »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #174
pryce wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The new restrictions also restrict shotguns with detachable magazines that can hold over a specific number of rounds, but I retract my statement as I have not been able to establish exactly which model of shotgun the perpetrator used.

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

#254

Post by arp242 »

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…

The problem is people stumbling on literal neo-Nazi propaganda on random YouTube videos and the like (which is not hard to do right now). I don't care about neo-Nazis sharing neo-Nazi content among themselves, these people are too far gone, I care about neo-Nazis recruiting.

As for your "sliding slope" argument, literally no one is confused about the difference between literal neo-Nazis who rant about (((replacement))) and everyone else. The entire point just isn't relevant. It's a red herring. It's like "they'll ban cars next!" when discussing speed limits. No one is confused about the difference between speed limits and banning cars, either. It's just not what's being discussed.

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

#255

Post by arp242 »

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…

After Reddit kicked out CoonTown and some of the other hate subs a few years ago, hateful content all over Reddit dropped. A few people went all huffy-puffy and started this Voat thing, but most just stayed on Reddit and ... stopped posting hateful crap.

So ... it does work. People don't radicalize on their own, they do so in a community, and they behave according to standards in the community. Sites like 4chan and 8chan are especially deceptive since it's a mix of people (not just white supremacists) who will slowly radicalize (part of) the general population there.

This makes it different from StormFront and all the explicit neo-Nazi websites. You don't go to StormFront to post memes fur teh lulz, only to get slowly drawn in to a white supremacist world.

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

#256

Post by repolfx »

seventhtiger wrote: post #246
sintaxi wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

That second example isn't "inciting violence", that's self defence!

This should be obvious but how does your law work in a situation where, in fact, there is a war and there are people coming to kill us. Or are you naively believing that we live in some sort of utopian post-conflict era, in which self defence against armed groups will never be necessary?

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

#257

Post by repolfx »

fzeroracer wrote: post #249
rimliu wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

How?

Can you really define an utterly objective definition of hateful manifesto that captures what you want but does not also capture the Koran, or for that matter, the Old Testament?

I would be extremely surprised if so. Those books have a lot of nasty stuff in them. Moreover if you go look at newspaper comments sections reporting on the NZ attacks, a disturbingly high number of people have concluded that Islam is not a religion of peace and that the Koran does in fact radicalise people (helped along by radical preachers). They can point to many terrorist attacks as evidence.

There probably isn't any standard of censorship or free speech that isn't twisted in self contradiction of the form "any violent text which leads to terrorism which is sufficiently popular is ok".

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

#258

Post by ignoramous »

Carpetsmoker wrote: post #251
ignoramous wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

So basically to protect freedom we need to create a police state with permanent security everywhere and live in constant fear. Is /r/TopMindsOfHN a thing yet?

Sorry. I guess the sarcasm was too dry to be obvious?

I listed down things that other nation states (NSA? Abu Gharib/Patriot Act? Wall along the Radcliffe Line?) have done in the past in response to persistent danger. And are guilty of taking populist measures at a great expense, sometimes.

There's always been such knee-jerk reaction from nation states, that then resort to drastic initiatives partly because they do not understand technologies involved (Secure Golden Key?), or they aren't held accountable as often and get away with a lot (WMDs?).

Here's Bruce Schneier on the topic https://youtu.be/GkJCI3_jbtg

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

#259

Post by bitwize »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #153
hestefisk wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech doesn’t mean the right to insult or spread unlawful things online. Whilst I do find it concerning that the ISPs are self-censoring, blocking access to a video of an act that contradicts all of our democratic rights (freedom of movement, freedom of religion, freedom of thought) can hardly offend anyone. Free speech is the right to express an opinion without being penalised. Left wing and right wing lunatic…

> Free speech doesn’t mean the right to insult Actually it does. Even hate speech is free speech in the US. > or spread unlawful things online That's not a free speech violation then. The video in question is not classified, doesn't break any laws, it just depicts a horrible act. Should we make all war documentaries illegal too? > Free speech is the right to express an opinion without being penalised So you just cont…

Most countries with a bill of rights, including Canada and presumably NZ, have a "notwithstanding clause" that allows the government broad power to abrogate those rights if it feels it is in the public interest to do so.

The USA is the sole major exception.

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

#260

Post by repolfx »

Did anyone else notice that ZeroHedge is apparently now a site so dangerous that entire populations can't be exposed to it?

ZEROHEDGE?

Jeez, I've been reading articles on and off there for years and have never hurt a fly. What are they afraid of exactly, mass outbreaks of gold hoarding, extremists who disagree with central bank monetary policy?

I just visited and one of the top stories is objecting to an apparent trend of US cops shooting dogs. How is this site considered systematically dangerous by New Zealand ISPs?

Or is this what we always see censors do - decide terrorist attacks by white men justify blocking large swathes of ordinary conservative political opinion that has nothing to do with race or religion?

Post reply on HN