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

ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 1001 posts

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#51

Post by cmh89 »

gorwell wrote: post #48
explanatorygap wrote: post #17

EFF is on the wrong side of this, just as they were on the wrong side of the debates about what to do about spam email back in the day. They're committed to the view that the only acceptable place to block any flow of information (which they define very broadly) is at the receiving user's end and that the end user must personally opt-in. This is completely at odds with the last 30 years of experience on the internet…

Censors made the same argument with the Printing Press and since time immemorial. Censorship has always been on the wrong side of history and it still is. Speaking of abusing systems, censors end up being the worst bad guys who imagine themselves as the good guys protecting you from the bad guys. EFF understands the long history of this issue.

[flagged]

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#52

Post by depereo »

cmh89 wrote: post #38
psychphysic wrote: post #16

It feels like it's pretty much gameover for free speech in any context. Too much of the population of the world wants rid and it doesn't matter much that they disagree on precisely which opinions are unacceptable.

Free speech has never existed. We've always been pushing and pulling against what's acceptable.

Absolutely. Causing a stampede or crush being the obvious example.

I do get baffled by the absolutionist statements about the freedom of speech. Speech is a side-channel into violence.

My country has a censor's office, for example. Some 'speech' is literally illegal to possess. Government ministers aren't free to speak state secrets in public. It's not legal to disclose the names of persons with judicial name suppression. Even parliament representatives can't speak just anything into the parliamentary record.

I live in New Zealand. It's not that bad to have limits and structures that enable the majority of real freedoms for people.

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#53

Post by 3np »

unsui wrote: post #40

Why does it have to be absolute/binary? If I can't have full, unfettered free speech, then it's the end of the world. Let's put aside the slippery-slope arguments. The real world is messy, with ridiculously obscure corner cases that make blanket statements and policies practically impossible to operationalize without significant collateral damage. Shouldn't a more realistic approach be something like "give me speech…

The argument isn't that everyone should have "full, unfettered free speech" but that ISPs should not be enforcers.

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#54

Post by unsui »

alexb_ wrote: post #44
unsui wrote: post #40

Why does it have to be absolute/binary? If I can't have full, unfettered free speech, then it's the end of the world. Let's put aside the slippery-slope arguments. The real world is messy, with ridiculously obscure corner cases that make blanket statements and policies practically impossible to operationalize without significant collateral damage. Shouldn't a more realistic approach be something like "give me speech…

> considerations that are negotiable, such as, "does this speech promote destroying the institutions on which the speech itself is based on" That's not a considerable negotiation. Give people power and they will use literally every single bit of it and then some. ISPs should have absolutely no say, in any way, of what people do. They shouldn't even be able to know anything about what I'm doing past what is needed for…

> Give people power and they will use literally every single bit of it and then some

This is going back to slippery slope argument issue.

What makes you think there isn't pushback to create an equilibrium of policies?

Why does it necessarily need to be one-sided, where giving in to one iota entails giving in to the whole enchilada?

Complex systems entail dialogue and pushback across competing incentives and motivations. Yes, each side works on the basis of self-interest, but what is to say that giving one inch necessarily entials giving up entirely, unless the original premise is that one cannot give up anything (i.e., uncompromising by definition). That doesn't seem to scale in any real-world system, only ideal systems.

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#55

Post by drewcoo »

another_story wrote: post #24
zer8k wrote: post #14

The ACLU will absolutely oppose this. If not for the reason they stand to make a lot of money suing ISPs for "not doing enough" to stop the big-ole-meanies online. I see ISPs blocking "mean speech" to "protect people" as another symptom of the enshittification of the internet. I legitimately cannot understand problems in this arena because you can just...walk away from your computer. Or turn off the website. Or hey,…

In the past the ACLU has defended hate groups right to freedom of speech. Do you have evidence that they'd do something to the contrary?

The ACLU fought Trump's "Muslim ban."

That resulted in lots of funding from the anti-Trump crowd. "Trump derangement syndrome" meant previously unimaginable funding.

They needed to do something with the money, so they staffed up, using the new staff to double down on the Trump-fighting.

Before 2016, there were a few claims that the ACLU was biased toward liberals. Afterward, you'll find many articles even from outlets like the Atlantic and the New York Times lambasting the ACLU as openly partisan. Just do a search for them!

So if this is censorship is intended to keep things safe and liberal, people suppose that the ACLU would support the censorship.

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#56

Post by shortformblog »

I'd argue that there are legitimate safety concerns that trump speech in this particular case.

But I think EFF would have a stronger case if we had common carriers following net neutrality laws. Content decisions are in the hands of upstream ISPs because we don't have the right regulations in place.

EFF has clearly tried here. The case is strong. But it's the edge cases where we need the net neutrality regulations most.

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#57

Post by wellthen0 »

cmh89 wrote: post #38
psychphysic wrote: post #16

It feels like it's pretty much gameover for free speech in any context. Too much of the population of the world wants rid and it doesn't matter much that they disagree on precisely which opinions are unacceptable.

Free speech has never existed. We've always been pushing and pulling against what's acceptable.

[flagged]

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#58

Post by thfuran »

ibizaman wrote: post #37
thfuran wrote: post #25

I think it's fine for the ISP to police online speech over their network as long as it's clearly stated in their service agreement that they can cancel/interfere with your service if they think you're too mean and as long as they also lose all safe harbor and assume liability for everything transmitted over their network.

Quoted from the article: > When a person uses a room in a house to engage in illegal or just terrible activity, we don’t call on the electric company to cut off the light and heat to the entire house, or the post office to stop delivering mail. We know that this will backfire in the long run. Instead, we go after the bad guys themselves and hold them accountable. Although I see your point, the quote above made me swi…

And we also can't sue the electric company whenever someone uses the electricity they provide to post a scam on Craigslist, which is the sort of liability I'm saying the ISP should assume before they're allowed to start mucking about with their customers' traffic.

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#59

Post by amadeuspagel »

unsui wrote: post #40

Why does it have to be absolute/binary? If I can't have full, unfettered free speech, then it's the end of the world. Let's put aside the slippery-slope arguments. The real world is messy, with ridiculously obscure corner cases that make blanket statements and policies practically impossible to operationalize without significant collateral damage. Shouldn't a more realistic approach be something like "give me speech…

The US supreme court has narrowed down the few necessary exceptions to freedom of speech over 230 years. It's not perfect, but it's better then having ISPs make these decisions.

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#60

Post by Gartent »

unsui wrote: post #40

Why does it have to be absolute/binary? If I can't have full, unfettered free speech, then it's the end of the world. Let's put aside the slippery-slope arguments. The real world is messy, with ridiculously obscure corner cases that make blanket statements and policies practically impossible to operationalize without significant collateral damage. Shouldn't a more realistic approach be something like "give me speech…

Quintessential midwit take.

It never was absolute. We prescribed limits with laws.

Utility companies should be the last to declare them.

"Slippery slope" is you denying the causality of a relationship. But, it does. Heard of Cloudflare?

Post reply on HN