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

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#811

Post by mirimir »

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 generally agree with your opinion about freedom of speech in meatspace. It's more or less been the status quo (at least ideally) in the US.

But TFA is about the Internet. And that's a very different thing. It's hugely unstable, and vulnerable to compromise by nation states and commercial interests.

So given that, I remain convinced that freedom of speech on the Internet depends fundamentally on technology that resists censorship. That's been the official US position regarding censorship in China etc. The US promotes Tor, and has also funded VPN services, such as Anonymizer. So I see no reason to carve exceptions.

Edit: spelling

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#812

Post by laughinghan »

khawkins wrote: post #469
danharaj wrote: post #15

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the deaths of others your right to say it." How many free speech absolutists have "skin in the game", or whatever? Every alternative to censorship suggested always puts the burden on the victimized. Like, "if you debate it in public you will defeat these bad ideas". Few who are free speech absolutists roll up their sleeves and volunteer to take the action they presc…

How many people had to die on 9/11 to protect the free speech rights of Muslims? It is undeniable that those terrorist attacks have a direct connection to the ideas being spread by those Mosques. How many Muslims have "skin in the game"?

Mosques have a responsibility to reject extremism and report dangerous individuals to the FBI. And they do: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/20/fbi-informant

A mosque in America that openly fostered extremism like 8chan did would of course get shut down.

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#813

Post by the_reformation »

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…

The American Constitution argues free speech is a human right, not granted to us by government, but by nature. Even if some all-seeing deity could build a more optimal society by restricting the free speech of some group, this would be a moral wrong because all humans have an inherent right to free speech.

Ultimately this isn't very relevant because right to free speech does not mean a right to web hosting infrastructure. But I agree with the Founders; regardless of whether it builds a more/less optimal society, government cannot and should not infringe upon our natural right to free speech. In particular, it protects us from jumping from your hypothesis (that unchecked free speech motivated a mass killing that would have not otherwise happened, which I give a 60-70% probability of being true) to an ironclad law forever removing some liberties from the citizenry.

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#815

Post by thrwayxyz »

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…

The www is fucked. Move to tor. The only place where you can have an interesting conversation is one where the conversation can't be monetized.

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#816

Post by atonse »

commandlinefan wrote: post #62
atonse wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The First Amendment is completely irrelevant to this situation. No relation whatsoever. CloudFlare is a private company.

When Facebook and Twitter started de-platforming right-wing types like Alex Jones and Milo Yannopoulis, the actions-of-a-private-company-are-beyond-criticism types immediately defended them with “it’s not like they’re being thrown off the internet entirely - they can always create their own websites!” Well now, they are being thrown off the internet entirely. And a disturbingly large number of people think this is a…

Who's throwing them off the internet? Their vile racist garbage is still accessible to everyone.

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#817

Post by LargeWu »

AimForTheBushes wrote: post #517
LargeWu wrote: post #120

Can any free speech absolutists explain to me the legitimate public interest that is served by allowing terrorist breeding grounds like 8chan to continue to operate?

"Give an inch give a mile" It's the ability to chip away at free speech. First 8chan, then something else that's bad, then something slightly intolerant, then what? Is it really worth censoring when something else will pop up to take it's place? Monitor and move on.

I see you have invoked the Slippery Slope fallacy, which is primarily a way to sidestep talking about the actual issue at hand by comparing it to hypothetical events. What's not hypothetical is that scores of people are dying in the meantime. Furthermore, the First Amendment was designed by the founders as a way to protect citizens who criticized the government. I find it unbelievable that they themselves would support extending those protections towards people who would seek to explicitly provoke mass, random violence.

It is illegal to be an accessory to murder. It is illegal to incite riots. I still haven't heard a good reason why forums that are havens for users openly and explicitly encouraging terroristic acts should not bear any responsibility, beyond lazy slippery slope arguments.

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#818

Post by LargeWu »

voodooranger wrote: post #195
LargeWu wrote: post #120

Can any free speech absolutists explain to me the legitimate public interest that is served by allowing terrorist breeding grounds like 8chan to continue to operate?

i don’t have a strong opinion about free speech but i think the argument is: who gets to decide what’s “in the public interest”. if you don’t like somebody’s book, pamphlet, blog post, comment, or tweet, just declare it “not in the public interest”. there you have the makings of tyranny.

The courts decide this. That's their job. And they don't just get to make up rulings, they have a huge body of precedent to which they are bound.

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#819

Post by DonHopkins »

opportune wrote: post #687
DonHopkins wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lost good friends to 4chan/8chan. They were obsessed. At first it was cat pictures and memes, but it went way downhill from there. I've watched those sites cause the transition from normal, interesting, reasonable, open minded, intelligent, happy human beings, to horrible inexcusable pieces of shit who I never want to have anything to do with ever again. It's not just that they inspire a few shooters and mass mu…

I used to go on 4chan as a teenager. It was always "edgy" but only recently (since roughly around gamergate and Elliot Rodger, which is also when 8chan started) has it begun to seriously drift to the far-right. White nationalists saw that as an opportunity to radicalize teenagers to their cause and it's still ongoing. There is a whole cottage industry of people attempting to radicalize jaded white teens and "skeptics…

Not just a cottage industry -- they actually have a big building and huge quantities of money and workers:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-...

>55 Savushkina Street, St Petersburg, said to be the headquarters of Russia’s ‘troll army’.

Re: 8chan goes dark after hardware provider discontinues service

#820

Post by krapp »

the_reformation wrote: post #813
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…

The American Constitution argues free speech is a human right, not granted to us by government, but by nature. Even if some all-seeing deity could build a more optimal society by restricting the free speech of some group, this would be a moral wrong because all humans have an inherent right to free speech. Ultimately this isn't very relevant because right to free speech does not mean a right to web hosting infrastruc…

>The American Constitution argues free speech is a human right, not granted to us by government, but by nature.

The American Constitution doesn't argue anything about free speech, define it or make claims about its origin, or even refer to is as a right, much less a "natural" right. It only declares that Congress (explicitly, and exclusively, meaning not even inclusive of any other governing body or private entities) shall not pass laws that abridge "the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble."

Post reply on HN