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

341–350 of 414 posts

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

#341

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #336
rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> It's like "no offense, but"

No offense, but this was a strange micro-rant.

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

#342

Post by thesuitonym »

rpdillon wrote: post #109
thesuitonym wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This got me, too. >a privacy-focused, cloud-based domain name service resolver which converts IP addresses into domain names. Except for being privacy focused, this literally describes every domain name service in the Internet.

I notice that sentence too. Don't DNS servers convert domain names into IP addresses?

I think it's just answering the question in reverse. It converts an IP to a domain name in that you don't need to know the IP with DNS.

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

#343

Post by Paul-ish »

troquerre wrote: post #248

CEO of Namebase here. We posted the original tweet announcing the news[1]. If any of y'all have questions about how sci-hub.hns works or how Handshake works in general I'll be online today to chat! [1] https://twitter.com/NamebaseHQ/status/1348707701744922625?s=...

Whats the easiest way to resolve handshake names locally without a 3rd party gateway? Is there a FF extension I can use, something that doesn't require a lot of configuration?

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

#344

Post by the_af »

jquery wrote: post #338
the_af wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

[citation needed]

"I'm sure the CCP thinks the same" is the laziest, weakest form of objection. You're not off the hook, you must still prove the idea being criticized is wrong regardless of what the CCP thinks about it.

(Like I pointed out in another comment, I think you've misread the alt-text, because it certainly doesn't support censorship).

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

#345

Post by the_af »

a1369209993 wrote: post #334
the_af wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 censorshi…

While I disagree with XKCD's (and let me note, with many here on HN; I believe I first read this argument that only states can interfere with free speech defended by HN'ers) narrowing down of the concept of free speech to "only counts as censorship if the government does it" -- and it actually warms my heart that you and many others agree with me that corporate censorship is censorship, and even more important than state censorship -- I disagree that Randall Munroe is against free speech.

I think the issue is complex, but probably related to its sister concept of tolerance and with "the paradox of tolerance" [1]:

> "The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."

It's perfectly reasonable to believe Randall Munroe supports free speech and at the same time believes someone spewing hateful vitriol can be kicked out of whatever private venue by the owners/administrators of said venue. In order for you to believe this, you simply must accept that Randall is using a different, possibly more legalistic version of "free speech" than you. Again, you cannot claim he is against free speech because he thinks corporate censorship is ok -- first, he doesn't exactly defend corporate censorship in his comic, and second, you're begging the question! You are claiming "corporate censorship" is against free speech, which is not a foregone conclusion and is exactly what is being debated.

Finally, the whole "this is because Randall Munroe is a leftie and, like all lefties, is against free speech" angle only serves to inflame the debate with name calling. Anyone going for this "like all lefties" is not interested in honest debate at all.

I feel weird having to point all this out because I, in fact, think corporate censorship is against free speech -- my concept, not what whatever amendment says -- and in this day and age, it's even worse than state censorship.

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

#346

Post by the_af »

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…

> 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.

Which alt-text did you read? It cannot possibly be this one:

> "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."

This is saying "that your idea cannot be censored is not good enough in order to convince people that it's good". This cannot be used to censor anything -- in fact, it claims the position is legal -- neither by the CCP or anyone else. It's a judgment on the quality of the idea.

It seems to me you're trying to invoke the CCP boogeyman regardless of whether it actually fits this argument.

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

#347

Post by Dylan16807 »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #341
Dylan16807 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It's like "no offense, but" No offense, but this was a strange micro-rant.

And you still won't say it out loud, huh.

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

#348

Post by a1369209993 »

the_af wrote: post #345
a1369209993 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 censorshi…

While I disagree with XKCD's (and let me note, with many here on HN; I believe I first read this argument that only states can interfere with free speech defended by HN'ers) narrowing down of the concept of free speech to "only counts as censorship if the government does it" -- and it actually warms my heart that you and many others agree with me that corporate censorship is censorship, and even more important than s…

> It's perfectly reasonable to believe Randall Munroe supports [something that he calls "free speech"] and at the same time believes someone spewing hateful vitriol can be kicked out of whatever private venue by the owners/administrators of said venue. In order for you to believe this, you simply must accept that Randall is using a different, possibly more legalistic [definition] of "free speech" than you.

Sure, and it's perfectly reasonable to believe someone supports, say, not destroying [something that they call "forests"] and at the same time believes rainforests can be cut down to make more room for farmland. In order for you to believe this, you simply must accept that they are using a definition of "forests" that does not include rainforests.

Nonetheless, that person is against not destroying forests-the-actual-thing, regardless of what definition they use for "forests"-the-english-word.

> The whole "this is because Randall Munroe is a leftie and, like all lefties, is against free speech" only serves to turn the debate into an absurd flamewar. Anyone going for this "like all lefties" is not interested in honest debate at all.

Who are you responding to? Because if I had said something like that, it would have been "Randall Munroe is either a leftie or a rightie and, like all lefties and righties, is against free speech".

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

#349

Post by miki123211 »

troquerre wrote: post #302
Hizonner wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not top-level domains until most people's clients resolve them as such. They're off to the side in a niche name space that most people don't know about, and to which you have provided a brittle gateway that doesn't even present them as top-level. ... and they have a million other little niche name spaces to compete with to reach the point of serving as "top-level domains". I can create my own alternate name s…

They're top-level domains on an alternative root but that doesn't make them not top-level domains.

What happens if your definition of a top-level domain disagrees with ICAN's? I mean, what happens if you sell .xyzzy to Bob, and then ICAN, without caring about your project, sells .xyzzy to Alice? How should the conflict be resolved?

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

#350

Post by aplummer »

krspykrm wrote: post #335
aplummer wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

That’s not how the world or capitalism works at all. Plenty of people want things and don’t get them.

If you are referring to “a majority of people” then it’s still not how it works - for example the structure of the existing system affects it (see no president Clinton). There is much more to decisions and change.

In this case, a minority of profit seeking people with power use levers of control on decision makers and propaganda to create public policy.

Post reply on HN