ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by paddlepop » Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 11:51 PM UTC

whatwhaaaaat wrote: post #41

anigbrowl wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're thinking solely in terms of private individuals. Other entities exist and have to be internet-connected to function; corporations, nonprofits, government bodies, institutions. They can't very well use pseudonyms because their whole reason for being is to be accessible to the public. So that makes them easy to target for abuse, eg https://oaklandside.org/2023/08/29/chabot-elementary-evacuat... An episode like t…

The bomb threat is already a crime. Properly prosecute it. Are you trying to say that some opinion posted online that may or may not have been consumed by the offender in this case is somehow directly responsible? My question to those who support big brother any lawful but awful speech is - do you really think it won’t be used to silence any dissent of the ruling powers?

>> My question to those who support big brother any lawful but awful speech is - do you really think it won’t be used to silence any dissent of the ruling powers?

My question to those that use this line of reasoning is do you really think a ruling power willing to silence dissent would do so whether or not it is supported?

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

#142

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 11:53 PM UTC

mptest wrote: post #105

pessimizer wrote: post #81

> Cloudflare is an often brought up example And Cloudflare are nearly as well behaved as they could possibly be. The simple fact of them being everywhere makes them a major target of government pressure to censor. This is purely an end run around the constitution, not the desire of companies to control speech. > It feels like private companies are de facto writing the laws about what's allowed online and in society r…

>This is purely an end run around the constitution, not the desire of companies to control speech. Want an example of this type of end run being used in practice? Nearly a decade ago? Obama used banking access to do a similar end run around businesses deemed political enemies. Some to the good, weapons/ammunition sellers with uncertain scruples, payday lenders...[0] but for some reason I'm not super confident about i…

[deleted]

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

#143

Post by zeroCalories » Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 11:53 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #119

pfisch wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When in all of US history were private companies not controlling the public discourse and "censoring free speech"?

Never. In fact, the reason the First Amendment limits the government, exclusively, is that the ability to abridge free speech (to choose which forms of speech you support, spread, or disassociate from) is implicitly a part of individual liberty, held by the people. Free speech has never guaranteed anyone a platform. That's not a bug, it's a feature. Yes, it can be messy. Yes, it can be abused. Yes, it means social me…

You're not free to not associate with people in the U.S. Businesses are not allowed to discriminate against protected classes. This is because businesses are foundational to modern life, so being excluded from them greatly hurts a person. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that we should look to expand such protections to all people for certain services, especially those which are more like infrastructure for modern life. Not saying sites can't have a TOS, but an ISP should have a really good business reason for blocking you(illegal activity, spam).

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

#144

Post by amiga386 » Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 11:54 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #63

lisper wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am saying that "Just Say No" is not an effective intervention for addiction. A lot of internet content is addictive, and the more addictive it is, the less likely it is to be bound to reality. So relying on individual self-control -- "just walk away from your computer" -- to counter the deleterious effects of misinformation on the internet is no more likely to succeed than it did for drug addiction.

I disagree. I think the issue is that we don't demand enough individual self-control from people. Individual self-control is supposed to be table stakes for being a mature adult and being treated as such. And teaching that skill (and it is a skill) to kids should be a necessary part of raising them. If "Just Say No" was not effective, I think it's because it didn't get enough traction in society--it didn't become sta…

We're off on a tangent, but... I think you're thinking about people who don't really have an addiction (to the internet, or to drugs), but merely indulge more than they ought to and a little bit of moral rectitude they're alright again. If you had met hopelessly, chronically addicted people, the people for whom their addiction has utterly destroyed their life and they're pleading with you for help and they just keep getting worse and worse, I don't think you'd be so quick to say that all you need is individual self-control.

It is not merely the case that, faced with something potentially addictive, you just recall "Just Say No" and bada-bing, no addiction happens. Humans aren't robots. Humans get addicted to drugs and other activities, not just in social situations but also as a coping mechanism for life failures they can't fix, or see no way to fix. It can take years of psychological work to break the cycle of dependence, and in some cases it might not even be possible.

If you have time for a moving speech, listen to Craig Ferguson's monologue on his own alcohol addiction, his path to sobriety, and the constant vigilance needed to maintain it, which he gave rather than joke about Britney Spears' public freakout in 2007: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K46P7loICXY

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

#145

Post by zeroCalories » Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 11:55 PM UTC

ratsmack wrote: post #131

zeroCalories wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And Cloudflare are nearly as well behaved as they could possibly be. This is not true. There has been at least two high profile cases where Cloudflare dropped their commitment to free speech when under no real legal pressure(kiwifarms and stormfromt). Maybe you think they did the right thing, but it's clear that they are not a neutral party.

They also dropped the Daily Stormer from what I remember.

You're right, I mixed the two sites up.

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

#146

Post by yanderekko » Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 11:55 PM UTC

depereo wrote: post #52

cmh89 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 suppres…

>My country has a censor's office, for example. Some 'speech' is literally illegal to possess.

And it's embarrassing. The KiwiFarms exchange with New Zealand after the Brenton Tarrant shooting (are you even allowed to mention his name? Hope I'm not getting you in trouble here) was one of its prouder moments.

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

#147

Post by stale2002 » Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 11:57 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #91

commandlinefan wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> develop its own ways of dealing with people who use it to harm others So far, every "way" that's been developed of dealing with people who harm others has itself been used to harm others in more extreme ways than the harm they were supposed to mitigate.

>So far, every "way" that's been developed of dealing with people who harm others has itself been used to harm others in more extreme ways than the harm they were supposed to mitigate. Has it? Some of the people Kiwifarms harassed were driven to suicide. Your argument is that having a forum taken offline is a more extreme form of harm than literal death?

It is not that the forum going down in and of itself is the harm.

Instead it is that this precedent can be used by much more authoritarian groups to target groups that you support.

Now its KF, and after that other countries are telling these tech services to take down gay and lesbian support groups, or even a state in the US could force abortion services offline.

Its a loophole that could be used as an end run around the 1st amendment, to take out groups that you support just as much as it can be used against things that you want taken down.

Are you OK with sacrificing those groups for your cause? What would you tell them? That they are just worthwhile collateral damage?

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

#148

Post by pseudo0 » Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 11:59 PM UTC

boppo1 wrote: post #121

pessimizer wrote: post #81

> Cloudflare is an often brought up example And Cloudflare are nearly as well behaved as they could possibly be. The simple fact of them being everywhere makes them a major target of government pressure to censor. This is purely an end run around the constitution, not the desire of companies to control speech. > It feels like private companies are de facto writing the laws about what's allowed online and in society r…

> The three-letter agencies just placed dozens and dozens of people (who decided to quit the CIA, NSA, and FBI in their 30s for some reason and change careers) in the executive suites of every social network. Where can I find more about this?

There was some good reporting on this issue in the Twitter Files. For example, Jim Baker, the general counsel at Twitter, used to work for the FBI. Musk fired Baker for his role in suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/12/04/six-degrees-from-james...

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

#149

Post by jstarfish » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 12:00 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #22

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,…

You're thinking solely in terms of private individuals. Other entities exist and have to be internet-connected to function; corporations, nonprofits, government bodies, institutions. They can't very well use pseudonyms because their whole reason for being is to be accessible to the public. So that makes them easy to target for abuse, eg https://oaklandside.org/2023/08/29/chabot-elementary-evacuat... An episode like t…

> If an ISP knows that a customer is bad actor because it's brought to their attention in a credible and rigorous way, then it seems quite legitimate to me to cut them off.

This would invite false-flag attacks to get others kicked off the internet, especially if you run a public-facing service. If you can find any way to attribute something to someone, it doesn't even have to rise to the level of preponderance of evidence.

This changes the venue for addressing allegedly-criminal behavior of owners/operators from courtrooms with established procedures to arbitrary decisions by nameless individuals accountable to nobody. This certainly works to someone's advantage, especially in cases where the allegations have been fabricated or exaggerated. Let's move things to a kangaroo court where a doctored screenshot is sufficient evidence for us to ban someone/something and there is no formal procedure or record for anyone to review. The accused isn't even entitled to an appeal; the accusation is the conviction.

ISPs were really rigorous in their diligence when the RIAA started suing their customers. DMCA takedowns have never been abused either. ISPs have notably not been quick to do anything about the DDoS attacks Kiwi Farms' detractors have brought to bear against them.

For some reason, of all those people "victimized" by Kiwi Farms, not one can muster a defamation suit? Apparently they organize raids or something on a public forum inclusive to all, but no screenshots or archived copies of these pages exist? For all the claims against KF, apparently none can survive scrutiny from either civil or criminal litigation. The one untrained guy that runs it can only be tried in secret tribunals, in absentia, and must not be allowed to have a platform on which to defend himself. This is the cliquish behavior of spoiled children crying to their gullible grandparents as an end-run around their parents-- not a means of justice.

People claim a lot of things about the Kiwis but the one thing nobody ever calls them is liars.

> So that makes them easy to target for abuse, eg https://oaklandside.org/2023/08/29/chabot-elementary-evacuat...

It's unfortunate that a school that went out of its way to host events only for children of color received a bomb threat. That terrorist should go to jail, and by the rules of this New Woke Order someone should send a letter to the school's upstream hosting providers to get that racist school kicked off the internet.

The people pushing for ISP-level policing aren't going to like living under the rules they're creating. It's going to make it completely fucking unusable for everyone. Like the HOA board members who want to run speed traps and install speed bumps to stop all the speeders, they always end up being among the first ones caught speeding. They'll create all these bypasses to make things intolerable, and then start up with "this place sucks now" and try to rally everyone into leaving.

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

#150

Post by plagiarist » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 12:05 AM UTC

What I'd like to figure out is how there are still so many Nazis despite readily-available facts that Naziism is racist delusions?

And how are countries like Germany still doing kinda okay despite making it illegal to do Nazi stuff? Isn't it a slippery slope directly from banning Naziism direct to North Korean-style authoritarianism?