‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

Post by woodpanel » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 12:42 PM UTC

doktrin wrote: post #577

woodpanel wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are litterally mentioning Norwegian ISPs blocking "Human Rights Watch" right in the next sentence after talking about blocking gambling ads. Am I missing something or how is the one sentence a source and the next one isn't?

If you look further down in this comment thread, that claim has been repeatedly debunked, likewise for Match.com. These sites have never been on any widely adopted DNS blacklist in Norway. It appears censoredplanet analyzed data from a corporate-only ISP.

Post by bluntfang » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 1:01 PM UTC

cryptica wrote: post #514

snazz wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politics is generally off-topic here other than in a few specific posts that are explicitly allowed because they're so newsworthy, like the death of RBG and the media calling the election.

I think the fact that politics can't be discussed here is itself a form of censorship. Because people are not able to freely exchange ideas about politics, you end up with silos. The main reason why the subject of politics causes flame wars is because people are thinking about it emotionally because they have very little actual information to work with. The less sharing of information there is on the subject, the mor…

Post by bluntfang » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 1:08 PM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #188

Of my past 10 posts on HN 6 have been flagged and removed by users. Of those, many made it to the front page with 10+ votes. I contacted Dang and he was clear it was users censoring it, further that some users were also "vouching" for my posts. It's to the point, people don't want to know. I feel I'm fairly even handed in my discussion. Here's a couple of my posts (who knows if I'll get flagged): - Public Safety Anno…

Post by tootie » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 1:22 PM UTC

petre wrote: post #486

tootie wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snowden had nothing to do with censorship. I haven't seen a credible accusation of internet censorship against the government in recent memory. Private companies can refuse to serve certain customers. And obviously there's copyright law and government secrecy laws. But no personal expression is banned.

US ”censorship” happens through AI flagging and demoting content, screaming louder than the next guy, distorting the narrative, DMCA takedowns. And it's quite effective. A high percent if people won't ever see the content. One can probably still see it if they take extra steps.

Post by busterarm » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 2:00 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #488

busterarm wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1957 there was a television for just about every 5 Americans, an average family size of 3.6 and not that much programming to watch. Mike Wallace effectively gave the KKK a forum reaching everybody in the United States... That's much more effective than Twitter. Your comment doesn't read any better.

You can watch the Eldon Edwards video right now, with a single Google search, to see how untrue it is that the KKK had in 1957 anything resembling the access to the discourse they have today.