8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service • Hacker News Board

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#561

Post by nilkn » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 7:58 PM UTC

nopriorarrests wrote: post #540

nilkn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm on the record here defending /r/The_Donald. I'm even on the record saying I didn't think it should be quarantined and that I don't think it should be banned in the future. It takes a lot for me to wonder if something actually should be censored. I certainly wouldn't have been on the side of censoring Howard Stern. Radicalizing terrorists to such an extent that they actually go through with it -- multiple times --…

>I saw many posts subscribing to the general theory that racial violence has been accepted throughout most of human history My knowledge of human history mostly validates this theory.

I should clarify that the theory also encompasses the additional inference that the above statement justifies racial violence today. The gist is that you shouldn't worry about how people today might judge you, because you'd be judged positively by the N billion people who came before you; therefore your actions are correct and justifiable.

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#562

Post by belorn » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 7:59 PM UTC

ddebernardy wrote: post #375

tepidandroid wrote: post #139

My opinion is that freedom of speech is a fine ideal to strive for, but it relies on having a stable society with some minimum level of education (moral and philosophical too, not just the technical kind). It requires people who are able to fully parse the implications of what they are hearing to make sound and rational judgements on the rejection of an idea or the embrace of it. It creates a moral duty for the peopl…

Personally I'm in agreement with Popper's view that societies should tolerate everything except intolerance. It draws a fine line between what's acceptable speech and what is not. And going by it, things like 8chan should get shut down. The line of thought you put forward, by contrast, rubs me in a very wrong way. It was used to justify, depending on the period and country, not allowing people to vote on the basis th…

I have a simplistic test when it comes to hate. I take the part of the message that identity the target and I change it to the opposite side of the political spectrum. If the comment/speech still sound like hate then it is hate. Thus my definition for intolerance is intolerance when it is independent of the reader/authors opinion about the target.

A lot of people disprove of this approach, arguing that by doing so we ignore the oppressed or helping the oppressors, and thus we end up with different view about intolerance.

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#563

Post by balls187 » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 7:59 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #499

irrational wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Popper's tolerance criteria, by contrast, seems clearcut What is that criteria? Because I can easily see people disagreeing on what is and is not intolerant. Would you agree that saying that a baker in Colorado must make a cake for a gay wedding is intolerant of the baker's belief? Because I'm certain a sizeable proportion of the US population would agree that it is intolerant.

> I can easily see people disagreeing on what is and is not intolerant Not in the subject at hand. I think pretty much everyone reasonable agrees that "kill the {jews,muslims,hispanics}" (once more, folks, this was the THIRD ethnic massacre advertised on 8chan!) is intolerant, no? Can't we start there?

What about "kill the {terrorists|Vietnamese (circa 1960)|germans (circa 1940)|japanese(circa 1940)|rebs (circa 1860}"

My response is clearly whatboutism, and I understand that jewish, muslims, and hispanics are greatly different than naming the belligerents of armed conflicts, but this very slippery slope is why historically the US Supreme Court has resoundingly only made the most narrow rulings regarding limiting speech.

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#564

Post by FussyZeus » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 7:59 PM UTC

psbmt wrote: post #503

>Personally I'm in agreement with Popper's view that societies should tolerate everything except intolerance. That invariably forces the political landscape to move to the left. Which, I guess, is the intended result of holding that point of view.

I'm completely fine with that until we have literally any logical or scientific reasons to oppose tolerance.

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#565

Post by khawkins » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 8:00 PM UTC

kaolti wrote: post #377

s9w wrote: post #335

So the campaigns against free speech show results. The wheels are in motion, the dominoes are falling. Funny how here on HN the use of the term "free speech absolutists"/"free speech absolutism" has absolutely skyrocketed for example. So are these the last days of the internet? 4chan is still there, voat too (although barely) - but I don't know how much longer. 100% legal sites are taken offline for absolutely no rea…

Yea. I find it quite ironic that HN of all places is generally speaking supportive of this. I do think though that the internet is kind of a different game though. I don't think anything can be banned altogether. People will always find a way. Ultimately we'll just end up creating new anonymous and distributed services where we can talk freely and corporations (lol) and governments can't dictate what is acceptable.

It's fascinating to compare it to the desperate fight for Net Neutrality. HN was hysterical when faced with a hypothetical threat, but when we see real examples of censorship the response is filled with apologist arguments and hand-wringing.

The only difference seems to be who is doing the censoring. When it's Silicon Valley tech corporations with a well established left-wing bias, well then they're private businesses who can be trusted to choose which dialogue is okay to have. But when it's corporations outside of Silicon Valley, well the internet will never be the same, be sure to call your congressmen.

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#566

Post by KorematsuFred » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 8:00 PM UTC

There is a price for every freedom we have. Free speech also comes with some price. Which can include riots and deaths. All we need to ask if whether slippery slope of restrictions on free speech would lead to a higher price or a lower price.

An FBI agent working on child rape cases told me how on one occasion he was 100% sure who the criminal was and yet he had to let him go because the person had rights. Now many such freed criminals are the price for having 4t hand 5th amendment in first place.

USA as a society needs to debate whether the freedoms of having free speech or freedom to own guns are worth it. Either ways it is their choice and outsiders like me would only be curious as to what choice americans would make.

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#567

Post by ravenstine » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 8:01 PM UTC

tepidandroid wrote: post #139

My opinion is that freedom of speech is a fine ideal to strive for, but it relies on having a stable society with some minimum level of education (moral and philosophical too, not just the technical kind). It requires people who are able to fully parse the implications of what they are hearing to make sound and rational judgements on the rejection of an idea or the embrace of it. It creates a moral duty for the peopl…

If it's "universally" reprehensible, then how would it possibly exist in such prevalence? How would it be that it was hardly reprehensible at all less than 100 years ago? What's reprehensible changes, which is why freedom of speech is necessary, because without it there's no way to fight what's reprehensible without compliance of authority figures or violent revolution.

The things you find reprehensible have existed long before 4chan or the 1st Amendment. Allowing a precedence for society to completely ostricize people at every conceivable level is a dark road to go down, especially today when there is no escape from technology. If we put an end to free speech, we may never get an ounce of it back.

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#568

Post by dahdum » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 8:02 PM UTC

adrr wrote: post #382

rory096 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cloudflare provides services to a number of Islamist terror organizations: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cloudflare-cybersecurity-terr...

If 8chan or dailystormer never made the news, cloudflare would still be hosting them. It isn’t public opinion that is the big factor, enterprise client won’t use controversial services. Having a few large enterprise customers call up saying they can’t be hosted with a hate site is what made the CEO of cloudflare flip his decision. I do think cloudflare will be forced to be more palatable to enterprise customers if th…

I think you have it spot on, but public opinion is driving those enterprise customers to make that call. They still support the terror group websites, even after being informed of them, so it’s not based on policy but rather a business decision.

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#569

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 8:02 PM UTC

tepidandroid wrote: post #139

My opinion is that freedom of speech is a fine ideal to strive for, but it relies on having a stable society with some minimum level of education (moral and philosophical too, not just the technical kind). It requires people who are able to fully parse the implications of what they are hearing to make sound and rational judgements on the rejection of an idea or the embrace of it. It creates a moral duty for the peopl…

Your argument effectively says: 'people are too stupid to be trusted with their freedom'.

I get that this is an unpopular opinion, but bad things will happen if people are to be free.

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#570

Post by wesammikhail » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 8:03 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #499

irrational wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Popper's tolerance criteria, by contrast, seems clearcut What is that criteria? Because I can easily see people disagreeing on what is and is not intolerant. Would you agree that saying that a baker in Colorado must make a cake for a gay wedding is intolerant of the baker's belief? Because I'm certain a sizeable proportion of the US population would agree that it is intolerant.

> I can easily see people disagreeing on what is and is not intolerant Not in the subject at hand. I think pretty much everyone reasonable agrees that "kill the {jews,muslims,hispanics}" (once more, folks, this was the THIRD ethnic massacre advertised on 8chan!) is intolerant, no? Can't we start there?

> I think pretty much everyone reasonable agrees that "kill the _INSERT GROUP_" is intolerant

I don´t know why but every time I read a sentence that starts with "I think pretty much everyone reasonable agrees that ..." I get the feeling that the person saying it haven´t really thought things through and does not see how vastly more complex the world is than they assume.

Think about it this way: what if in the mind of the person making that claim, it is one of self-defense and self-preservation? is it still intolerant?

Here is an example: As someone who grew up in the middle east, I heard people out in the open say things like: "Jews ought to be killed off" or "the imperialist American fucks deserve whatever happens to them" and if you ask them why they believe and say such evil shit, the answer in some way, shape or form always comes back to: they invaded our land, killed our ancestors and are threatening to do the same to us now, and hence we are not being intolerant but rather, we are just trying to defend ourselves (tribalism in other words).

You and I can agree that it is despicable and disgusting that people think that way. But in their minds, you are the unreasonable one. What you call intolerance to them is not that at all.

Take away: Perspectives matter in the world; and if you make a hard/deterministic rule based on a subjective understanding of an issue followed by projecting it as "what reasonable people should think", you will always get into some shady edge cases that cannot be resolved by the deterministic rule that you initially set because the world is not made up of a bunch of you:s.

You and I probably agree on what is intolerant/tolerant in most cases. However, other people who do not have the same cultural and moral upbringing might disagree with us. Hence the parent´s comment: "I can easily see people disagreeing on what is and is not intolerant"