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

8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#631

Post by educationdata »

vowelless wrote: post #602
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…

I don’t understand how inciting violence is acceptable free speech. Isn’t that what 8chan did?

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

> The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[2][3] In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent, to do violence.[4] This decision overruled Schenck v. United States (1919), which held that a "clear and present danger" could justify a law limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize "mere advocacy".[5]

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#632

Post by greglindahl »

irrational wrote: post #468
ddebernardy wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

A majority of the US population was tolerant of refusing service to N——--—— when it became illegal.

Put another way, it’s rare that the rights of minorities are established by majority vote, even if these rights are owed by the Constitution.

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#633

Post by freefolks »

Joeri wrote: post #559
nilkn wrote: post #4

I've generally been on the free speech side of this debate, as some of my previous comments on HN will show. With 8chan, I legitimately don't know what my opinion is. I've read it before, and I spent a few hours reading it this weekend, and it's beyond clear to me that it absolutely had the potential to radicalize shooters and terrorists. I'm not referring to the simple use of racial or ethnic slurs -- of course this…

A person can be sound and rational but people are tribal. It is deep human drive to find a tribe to belong to. What the internet has enabled is forming tribes irrespective of geographic proximity. Sites like 4chan/8chan allow people of radical persuasions to find each other and band together, growing their That creates a powder keg waiting on a fight/flight trigger. Without a tribe to back someone, such a trigger wil…

There is high chance that most of those in these groups don't even believe in most of the stuff they say. To them its just entertainment. People participate only because its a throwaway identity that is noncommittal. These groups have no leadership or loyalty. I'm sure this is understood a majority of the time by participants. The problem is that one individual who memes way too hard or is absolutely serious about the things they say. Real life friends call you out on your bullshit, they try to reason with you when you are irrational. they stop you from driving when you're drunk. Your internet troll squad does everything opposite.

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#634

Post by sterkekoffie »

greglindahl wrote: post #632
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.

A majority of the US population was tolerant of refusing service to N——--—— when it became illegal. Put another way, it’s rare that the rights of minorities are established by majority vote, even if these rights are owed by the Constitution.

I'm sorry. Refusing service to whom?

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#635

Post by davrosthedalek »

harshreality wrote: post #555
api wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't censorship though. It's private companies refusing to host something. Nobody has been arrested for speech and there are no laws prohibiting speech that isn't overtly and specifically threatening or otherwise violates the "fire in a crowded theater" test.

The web is the new public square. Without access to hosting, there would be a de-facto 1st amendment violation, even if the courts would refuse to recognize that for what it is. Perhaps you could argue humans aren't built for internet communications and so free speech doesn't apply to the internet. But Supreme Court precedent disagrees. You could make a similar case that free speech doesn't apply to anonymous speech,…

So, essentially you are saying: Because we can't enforce the law against DDOSing -- because that's how the site gets blown away without CF -- we have to encroach on the right of association of CF.

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#636

Post by HBKXNCUO »

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…

Why should people tolerate things which they don't think it's in their interest to tolerate? If, for example, people believe it's harmful to their children to see people performing sexual acts in the street, why should they tolerate that behavior?

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#637

Post by heyyyouu »

oarabbus_ wrote: post #423
ddebernardy wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You make some great points. Let me also ask you a devil's advocate question. "Let's go to oarabbus_'s house at and kill him" is not protected speech, correct? I am sure everyone agrees upon this. But "Let's attack folks who are as they are a scourge upon our nation" is protected? Why?

The exception in this standard is for "likely" and "imminent" violence. There are also exceptions for the commission of a crime, but then the crime has to be committed, and thus the intent.

Episode 8 of the "Make No Law" First Amendment podcast has an excellent explanation of the difference between the two. That episode is a Q&A and covers other great topics as well. The entire podcast is excellent if you want a good, baseline understand on the exceptions to US first amendment law and why/how they are so narrowly defined.

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#638

Post by afiori »

harshreality wrote: post #555
api wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't censorship though. It's private companies refusing to host something. Nobody has been arrested for speech and there are no laws prohibiting speech that isn't overtly and specifically threatening or otherwise violates the "fire in a crowded theater" test.

The web is the new public square. Without access to hosting, there would be a de-facto 1st amendment violation, even if the courts would refuse to recognize that for what it is. Perhaps you could argue humans aren't built for internet communications and so free speech doesn't apply to the internet. But Supreme Court precedent disagrees. You could make a similar case that free speech doesn't apply to anonymous speech,…

I would say that there is a difference in principles on whether a site/platform is explicitly welcoming or not.

Twitter claims to be a public square, the WSJ does not.

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#639

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

afiori wrote: post #620
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

Heh, is that supposed to shut this conversation down? Genocides get started, because people can express themselves freely? Really?

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#640

Post by faissaloo »

nilkn wrote: post #4

I've generally been on the free speech side of this debate, as some of my previous comments on HN will show. With 8chan, I legitimately don't know what my opinion is. I've read it before, and I spent a few hours reading it this weekend, and it's beyond clear to me that it absolutely had the potential to radicalize shooters and terrorists. I'm not referring to the simple use of racial or ethnic slurs -- of course this…

Fyi 'the fire rises' is a reference to Bane from Batman
Post reply on HN