Live data from Hacker News

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

eff.org

161–170 of 1001 posts

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

#161
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kiwifarms isn't some kind of free voice of resistance or gazette, it's just a loose collection of volatile assholes who were banned from 4chan and reddit.

It might also be a meeting place for conspirators to plan crimes.

> It might also be a meeting place for conspirators to plan crimes.

That might is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Do you have any evidence that this occurs?

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

#162
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kiwifarms isn't some kind of free voice of resistance or gazette, it's just a loose collection of volatile assholes who were banned from 4chan and reddit.

It might also be a meeting place for conspirators to plan crimes.

So are bars. Should the electric company deny service to biker bars?

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

#163
post #89

Yawn. Non-telco(*1) Tier 1 provider declines to carry routes for an entity they don't like. Happens all the time. This is why you buy from a Tier 2 instead and bypass DFZ(*2) politics. Drop routes from spammers: Spamhaus DROP list. Drop routes from DDoS sources? All the time. Even Google wasn't reachable from Cogent over IPv6 for years because of a business dispute. For all we know someone working at HE was targeted…

I'm not entirely sure about this but I believe that HE may have been null routing rather than just dropping routes.

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

#164
post #157

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?

> despite readily-available facts that Naziism is racist delusions? A lot of people on the right are talking about the US having a mental health crises when it comes to mass shootings. If that's really true, then yeah, that's how we get natsies. > Isn't it a slippery slope directly from banning Naziism direct to North Korean-style authoritarianism? Well I mean if there's a mental health crisis then yeah, people are g…

> I personally don't think the founding fathers of the US understood the future gullibility of their citizens.

They absolutely did. When only white, male, decently educated property owners could vote, they had decent reassurance that a constitutional republic with state-specific voter management could work.

I think they'd be horrified to see that today we don't even demand a basic proof of civics education. And I hate that Ramaswamy made that suggestion in such an embarrassing, conversation-poisoning way.

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

#165

It appears this is the source of the complaint adding context to what is being discussed by the EFF, no reason it should be dead.

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37315195 so as not to take discussion off topic.

New accounts are subject to additional restrictions because of past abuse by spammers and trolls. Obviously that comment was legit, but as we don't have software smart enough to distinguish legit comments from bad one, some human intervention is often required to rescue the legit ones. You did this yourself by vouching for the comment, which unkilled it.

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

#166
post #20

It is not just ISPs. It is crowdfunding and payment processing companies. See for example this apparent seizure of funding to independent journalists happening right now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37314499 If you care about there being genuinely independent news media then funding these guys is something you can do right now.

[deleted]

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

#167

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?

>And how are countries like Germany still doing kinda okay

Only for certain definitions of okay

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

#168
post #119
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…

I think the concept of Common Carrier is a direct refutation to what you're saying, but hey, that's just my opinion.

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

#169
post #91

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?

[flagged]

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

#170

> 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…

> 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.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN