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

DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 327 posts

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#271

Post by fennecfoxen »

aegis4244 wrote: post #231
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is easily reconciled if you distinguish between the public officials doing the selective enforcing, and private citizens selectively deciding who to do research on. So you're fine with private employers who do criminal background checks on black applicants but not white applicants? Or a third party entity that does background checks on all black people (and only black people) and then submits the results to em…

Being black is a protected class. Being an asshole is not.

“Being an asshole” (and having and expressing opinions more broadly) is a protected class too, but the protections are weaker; it’s only government actors who are directly bound by such protections.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#272

Post by amanaplanacanal »

aww_dang wrote: post #209
plugger wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1. I must admit I find it a bit rich that people are raising free speech issues around this situation. I find myself wondering where these people were in 2014 when all the major social media platforms systematically removed ISIS accounts and content from their systems. I don't recall anyone lamenting that move and the chilling effects it had on free speech. In fact, iirc the response was quite the opposite.

Is it possible to use a more extreme generalization than ISIS? On one hand you had ISIS posting beheading videos. On the other you had grandmas posting selfies in the rotunda. Yeah, there are some nutters out there. But to claim that everyone caught up in the tech purges is somehow equivalent to ISIS seems a bit rich from my perspective. Even if you accept that some of these people are genuine domestic terrorists, re…

But don’t the same free speech issues apply to both? From a free speech perspective, how are they different?

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#273

Post by amanaplanacanal »

aww_dang wrote: post #255
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it possible to use a more extreme generalization than ISIS? Sitting in New York, nutters who came within yards of hanging the Vice President, Speaker of the House and potentially several Senators are a far more clear and present danger than mullahs in the Middle East.

Bah, there's so much partisan hyperbole that I have a hard time believing that Pence or Pelosi were in danger of being lynched. This fits perfectly within the narrative I've described above. Take the most extreme rhetoric and generalize it to mean an entire population of people you disagree with. Furthermore, if we accept the narrative of the WoT and that there was a legitimate threat to politicians, there's still a…

Since law enforcement is investigating, the judicial system should be able to determine whether people were intending to actually kidnap and kill members of Congress and the Vice President. If you are willing to wait for verdicts, you will find out. Right now it certainly appears that way.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#274

Post by amanaplanacanal »

nikolay wrote: post #142
thorwasdfasdf wrote: post #124

this is vigilante justice. Is it a good idea for Facebook, amazon and random researchers on the web to hand out internet death sentences (as judge, jury and executioner)? without even any kind of due process? this is setting a potentially dangerous precedent going forward. having the FBI take the site down would be one thing but having FB or amazon or other sites do it without any kind of due process just seems wrong…

These guys are sawing off the branch they are sitting on - a few weeks ago they were defending net neutrality and went postal on any attempt to silence inconvenient voices. Now, they don't even want to listen to their former idols Snowden and Assange.

Who is “these guys”? I’m not sure what you are referring to here.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#275

Post by aww_dang »

cthalupa wrote: post #263
aww_dang wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll agree that the comparison to ISIS is absurd.

You seem to be missing the point. Reductio ad absurdum is a rhetorical tool, not a logical fallacy. It's goal is to show that your argument is absurd, because the absurd statement follows from the argument you are making.

I'm well aware of what reductio ad absurdism is. I don't agree that it is relevant to the point I am making in regards to the parent comment. If anything, I'm rejecting the absolutism you seem to perceive by distinguishing between what I see as two very different things.

>I find myself wondering where these people were in 2014 when all the major social media platforms systematically removed ISIS accounts...

Perhaps these people didn't object for the reasons I described above. ISIS is nothing like the Capitol Hill demonstrators.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#276

Post by amanaplanacanal »

beerandt wrote: post #252
D13Fd wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech means that the government cannot interfere with your speech (with certain exceptions). It's an essential right to any free democracy. But it absolutely does not mean that other people have to like you, listen to you, sell goods to you, or allow you to use their platform.

It also means government can't encourage or incentivize a unconstitutional action or violation on its behalf, which includes waiving private party liability. (Which is the real, misunderstood issue with Sec 230.) This includes arrangements with no formal or even informal agreement. Imagine a law waiving criminal and civil liability for lynch mobs, and then government claiming due process isn't violated because it isn…

My understanding is that section 230 doesn’t waive liability, it assigns liability to the content creator rather than publisher, and only for civil, not criminal cases. You believe this is unconstitutional? Is there discussion of this you can point me to?

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#277

Post by aww_dang »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #273
aww_dang wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bah, there's so much partisan hyperbole that I have a hard time believing that Pence or Pelosi were in danger of being lynched. This fits perfectly within the narrative I've described above. Take the most extreme rhetoric and generalize it to mean an entire population of people you disagree with. Furthermore, if we accept the narrative of the WoT and that there was a legitimate threat to politicians, there's still a…

Since law enforcement is investigating, the judicial system should be able to determine whether people were intending to actually kidnap and kill members of Congress and the Vice President. If you are willing to wait for verdicts, you will find out. Right now it certainly appears that way.

I think we can agree on that.

Successfully prosecuting rogue actors for plotting to use violence against politicians isn't the same as establishing equivalence with ISIS. Nor does it allow one to generalize about the content of the entire group of protesters.

There were some protesters who expelled rogue actors while accusing them of being "antifa agitators". It wouldn't be fair to cherry pick the worst actions of the group and generalize. The comparison to ISIS is an extra leap that I hope needs no further elaboration.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#278

Post by aww_dang »

pelliphant wrote: post #265
aww_dang wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible to use a more extreme generalization than ISIS? On one hand you had ISIS posting beheading videos. On the other you had grandmas posting selfies in the rotunda. Yeah, there are some nutters out there. But to claim that everyone caught up in the tech purges is somehow equivalent to ISIS seems a bit rich from my perspective. Even if you accept that some of these people are genuine domestic terrorists, re…

Why are you defending those trumpists that stormed the capitol? Sure, we could argue that "terrorist" is the wrong word to use here, but if we used another word, such as "criminals", I would guess that you would still make pretty much the same argument. And talking about "toxic divisiveness" while defending people trying to overthrow an election? Are you even listening to yourself?

Disagreeing with the excesses of partisan hyperbole is not the same as defending Trump, his policies or the actions of his supporters. I hope you can appreciate the distinction.

I notice many comments will start with, "Although I dislike Trump..."

The fact that comments need to begin with such a disclaimer is illustrative of the atmosphere we find ourselves in. A comment should stand on its own. Disclaimers shouldn't be necessary.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#279

Post by stavros »

_yoqn wrote: post #190
StavrosK wrote: post #12

These goings-on make me very aware of the fact that I'm still not settled on the matter of free speech. I used to be very pro-free-speech, but on the other hand, I'm anti-fascism, and I don't know what's worse: Giving fascists a platform to spew hate, or set a precedent for potentially limiting my own speech down the line? It's nowhere near clear-cut, and I'd like to hear some opinions on this.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#280

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

BrianOnHN wrote: post #269
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paradox of Tolerance is a hypocrisy. If you are shutting down someone's ability to communicate because you don't like what they are saying, you are not tolerant.

> you don't like what they are saying This is incorrect. Not tolerating intolerance is objective. Sad so many people can't wrap their head around this incredibly simple paradox.

Tolerance is a willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them. [1]

If you don't tolerate "intolerance", you are intolerant, it's as simple as that. And if you make yourself a clause to exclude some beliefs from acceptance and still deem yourself tolerant, you are a hypocrite.

[1]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/toleranc...

Post reply on HN