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

Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

nasdaq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 414 posts

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#331

Post by skynet-9000 »

woodrowbarlow wrote: post #322
skynet-9000 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some ISPs also wanted to sell "internet lite" packages that are cheaper and only allow you to connect to a fixed set of websites. presumably they would also take money off the back end from those websites that want to be in the list. In the U.S.? I thought this was only in India with Facebook's non-internet Internet.

i'm not aware of any ISPs that have taken that step in the US, but since the 2017 repeal it is now a legal business strategy. it has happened in portugal (although that's irrelevant to US law) -- customers get a base package and need to pay extra for the "social media package" (which unlocks twitter and facebook) or the "streaming package" (which unlocks netflix, youtube, etc.) (this is on top of the subscription fee…

This proves the point. It is legal, but no one even offered such a package.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#332

Post by ajkjk »

jquery wrote: post #275
ajkjk wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems more correct than ever, no?

No. It conflates the principle free speech with a narrow legal reading of the first amendment. Whether on purpose, or accident, I cannot say. The alt-text is also only illuminating in the sense that the CCP might heartily agree with it as well, as they see their crusade against free speech as nothing more than maintaining the public order and peace. In publishing the comic and leaving it up, Munroe has done more to d…

Hm, that fails to land as a criticism. Depends whether you're talking about (a) "free speech, the legally-protected institution" or (b) "free speech, your right to be awful and not suffer consequences". The xkcd is saying that people saying "but my free speech!" are defending (b) by describing it as (a), which it's not. That's basically true. Afaik the part xkcd definitely gets wrong is the part about "can't arrest you for what you say", which isn't really how it works (for instance https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred... discusses the case of how it enters into civil suits).

Of course _philosophically_, yeah, the people who included (a) in the constitution were interested in (b). Everyone's on board with free speech as a concept here. But at some point if someone is yelling Nazi stuff, I'm gonna punch them for it. It's not a legal question at all; my actions aren't governed by laws, just what I feel is right to do. That is the same point xkcd was making. I don't know enough to say whether AWS or whoever has the same right because they are operating in a legal system. But as a _person_, yeah, I can do whatever I want to you, including 'show you the door', if you're awful.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#333

Post by dang »

toxik wrote: post #327
dang wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please follow the site guidelines when posting here. They include: " Don't be snarky. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I was not being snarky, I pointed out that the argument was made about a statement that was never made.

It's fine to point that out, but the way you did it lands with me as snarky. There's a spectrum of how readers interpret such things (some would find it snarky, as I did, while others wouldn't)—but what's for certain is that commenters tend to underestimate the impact of what they post by 10x or more. (Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear.) Since you only have to hit a small section of that spectrum to start a flamewar, we need comments to err on the side of not coming across that way [1].

There's another guideline that helps with this:

"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Although "How fortunate that" isn't exactly calling names, your comment could have been shortened in just this way. "This was never claimed" would make the same point without hitting any of the snark spectrum.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#334

Post by a1369209993 »

the_af wrote: post #279
morlockabove wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech isn't synonymous with the first amendment. "Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences!" is one of the most infuriating lines I've ever had the displeasure to hear parroted. What else could it possibly be, but the general idea of not being punished for saying things? The only thing that matters to the principle of freedom of speech is those consequences. Who cares whether it's a government that dec…

> Who cares whether it's a government that decides that when you express a certain opinion, you lose your job- or twitter? I actually agree with you. I think the narrow definition that "only the government has the ability to censor speech" isn't useful, especially in an age where some businesses, platforms and corporations have so much power. I was just correcting the perception that xkcd had a comic "against" free s…

If one is against freedom from (in this case corporate) censorship, one is against free speech. 'Explaining' that free speech is not actually freedom from (one's particular preferred form of) censorship is de facto a attempt to excuse that particular form of censorship from the general principles of free speech that would otherwise condemn it, and is therefore in favor of censorship and against freedom from censorship, aka free speech.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#335

Post by krspykrm »

aplummer wrote: post #236
krspykrm wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Industry has nothing to do with it. Every country has industry. The reason the US has so many in prison is because its people are the more hair-on-fire moralistic crusaders in the civilized world and they want people in prison.

Industry is not what the prison industrial complex is. The prison industrial complex is a deliberate lengthening of sentences and increasing of mandatory jail time for non-violent offenses designed to increase the for-profit prison population to increase profit.

"Prison industrial complex" is verbal sleight of hand to blame a system rather than people, but in reality these market forces are merely the revealed preference of what people want. If people wanted these inmates free - and by wanted I mean wanted in the revealed preference sense, not the virtue signal on the internet sense - capitalism would have them free tomorrow.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#336

Post by Dylan16807 »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #171
tim333 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't work for me either. I'm not that impressed compared with my usual technique of going to the site's Wikipedia page to see how to access it. Works for thing's like Sci Hub, Popcorn Time and the Daily Stormer.

> Daily Stormer futurama_fry_not_sure_if.jpg This is actually an awesome tip for sci-hub though that I'll be using.

Not sure if what? Say it out loud.

Vaguely implying that you're considering a drastic remark about someone else is barely better than an accusation. It's like "no offense, but".

Or if you don't have something specific in mind then just leave it out of the comment.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#337

Post by jquery »

ajkjk wrote: post #332
jquery wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It conflates the principle free speech with a narrow legal reading of the first amendment. Whether on purpose, or accident, I cannot say. The alt-text is also only illuminating in the sense that the CCP might heartily agree with it as well, as they see their crusade against free speech as nothing more than maintaining the public order and peace. In publishing the comic and leaving it up, Munroe has done more to d…

Hm, that fails to land as a criticism. Depends whether you're talking about (a) "free speech, the legally-protected institution" or (b) "free speech, your right to be awful and not suffer consequences". The xkcd is saying that people saying "but my free speech!" are defending (b) by describing it as (a), which it's not. That's basically true. Afaik the part xkcd definitely gets wrong is the part about "can't arrest y…

> Everyone's on board with free speech as a concept here

No they aren’t, including you. I don’t trust your judgement of who is a Nazi, and even if I did, I especially don’t trust everyone who hears you say that. However, despite your endorsement of political violence (terrorism) I don’t believe that it would be right for you to be deplatformed, especially if it’s breach of contract (like what AWS is doing). Nor would I want HN taken offline despite them not moderating terrorist comments such as yours.

Edit: you’re confusing my clinical label of terrorism with name calling. I am not calling names, except insofar as I’m making a point about how easily it is to make content seem unacceptable when we strip away context, which is why due process is so necessary. We are all terrorists to some group, however disfavored... if child molestation was somehow legalized, anyone who attempted it would face severe extra-legal consequences for example.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#338

Post by jquery »

the_af wrote: post #288
jquery wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sure the CCP finds the alt text pretty thought provoking, too.

I'm sorry, but "guilt by association" is not a compelling argument. If the CCP agrees with something, this alone doesn't make the something they agree with automatically bad. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

They don’t just agree with it, they explicitly use that alt text to justify their oppression.

Also, I never made a “guilt by association” argument, you inferred it. You just committed the fallacy fallacy. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#339

Post by bitxbitxbitcoin »

metiscus wrote: post #105
metiscus wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am coming to support the notion that ISPs and Internet Backbone providers should be treated as first class utilities like electrical companies and not be able to deny access except for things like non-payment. Otherwise we do run the risk of a physically balkanized internet.

Stupid question, is this the issue that was at the core of net neutrality? I may have misunderstood the entire thing if so.

It's not a stupid question. In short, this is not the issue that was at the core of net neutrality. Sci-hub's repeated evictions from their rented, DNS-resolved internet names were done by the centralized parties that have technical control over the names, not ISPs or mobile data providers.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#340

Post by ajkjk »

jquery wrote: post #337
ajkjk wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, that fails to land as a criticism. Depends whether you're talking about (a) "free speech, the legally-protected institution" or (b) "free speech, your right to be awful and not suffer consequences". The xkcd is saying that people saying "but my free speech!" are defending (b) by describing it as (a), which it's not. That's basically true. Afaik the part xkcd definitely gets wrong is the part about "can't arrest y…

> Everyone's on board with free speech as a concept here No they aren’t, including you. I don’t trust your judgement of who is a Nazi, and even if I did, I especially don’t trust everyone who hears you say that. However, despite your endorsement of political violence (terrorism) I don’t believe that it would be right for you to be deplatformed, especially if it’s breach of contract (like what AWS is doing). Nor would…

I'm not asking you to trust my judgment of who's a nazi. I get to decide who I think is a nazi and do what I want, _as a person_, and so do you. Of course I will try to convince you that I'm right, but if someone's being a nazi and can't be convinced that they're saying nazi stuff and they get banned from society, that's their problem, not society's. They should have listened.

The point is that while free speech might be protected as a legal concept, it's not protected as a personal concept. I espouse free speech, until someone really screws up and gets super evil, and then I don't want them to talk anymore (especially not to rally people to their evil causes). I'm not a government. And that's completely consistent with wanting a government/overall society which defends free speech.

(also, you're not doing your argument any favors by for some reason calling me a terrorist. it's not even clear why you're doing that)

Post reply on HN