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

#241

Post by bb88 » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 1:36 AM UTC

sneak wrote: post #162

bb88 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Do you really want the answer, or was that a question hoping to shame me?

So if the biker bars are distributing child porn, or illegal drugs or guns, or using it as a place for conspiracy terrorism, then yeah, I say yes those corporations serving said bar should have a say. Particularly if the biker bar, e.g., violated the company's Christian morals.

More importantly, this is supported by case law, today.

The decisions of who a business chooses as it's customer is actively being challenged by conservatives in this country. See the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling. In this case the decision was overturned on religious grounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

I would bet a significant amount that if an electric company didn't want to serve a biker bar on religious grounds (particularly if there was active criminal activity), they probably would get away with it.

The last time I checked the constitution there wasn't a right to internet or electric or phone service. There was a right for religious beliefs, though.

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

#242

Post by gyropod » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 1:36 AM UTC

tjpnz wrote: post #220

I would encourage those interested to read up on the individual behind the ISP harassment campaign and what might actually be motivating them to do it. That it's being done to protect trans people is highly disingenuous.

[flagged]

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

#243

Post by yanderekko » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 1:37 AM UTC

superchroma wrote: post #152

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…

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.

The "good tribe" will always characterize the dissenters of the "bad tribe" in this way.

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

#244

Post by sillystate2023 » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 1:37 AM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #147

krapp wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

[flagged]

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

#245

Post by puglr » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 1:38 AM UTC

autoexec wrote: post #191

puglr wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Found the source[1]. It includes names and LinkedIn profiles, so ought to be verifiable. [1] https://www.mintpressnews.com/twitter-hiring-alarming-number...

That covers twitter, now what about every other social media network. The claim was that this was happening for all of them.

Oh sorry, you're right. Here's an article[1] about Facebook, from the same outlet. With some cursory searching I couldn't find anything about other social networks hiring former three letter agency employees.

[1] https://www.mintpressnews.com/meet-ex-cia-agents-deciding-fa...

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

#246

Post by 2devnull » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 1:39 AM UTC

wredue wrote: post #215

voidpointercast wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So censorship is okay as long as it's politically aligned with the powers that be? I'm not a nazi, but that seems dangerous...

Suppressing people whose goal is to suppress is neither dangerous, nor hypocritical. It’s not “because they’re not politically aligned with me”. It is that they desire the genociding and enslavement of entire groups of people. You painting me being against that as “just a disagreement” is bordering on sympathizing, if not just outright sympathizing with weasel words.

[flagged]

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

#247

Post by yanderekko » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 1:40 AM UTC

peterashford wrote: post #229

yanderekko wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall reading the other day about Germany making deadnaming a crime..

From an outsider's perspective (NZ) Germany's democracy looks a lot healthier than the US's.

Well, right now there's a odd vogue to think that a healthy democracy does things like ban political parties (currently an active debate regarding the AfD in Germany), or embrace indigenous apartheid movements (NZ, Australia), or to cede sovereignty to unaccountable transnational elites that promise to protect you from the ravages of political misinformation (the EU as a whole.) I don't think these notions will stand the test of time, but we'll see.

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

#248

Post by ryan-c » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 1:41 AM UTC

Where was the EFF when ISPs were null routing everything on Spamhaus's DROP list?

https://www.spamhaus.org/drop/

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

#249

Post by ApolloFortyNine » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 1:41 AM UTC

>To put it even more simply: 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.

LA actually did this during covid to shut off water for homes being accused of holding parties during covid.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/06/us/los-angeles-shuts-off-powe...

I don't agree with it, but just showing that some people have decided the ends justify the means essentially.

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

#250

Post by f38zf5vdt » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 1:43 AM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #240

IncogNET wrote: post #92

Glad to see this. Hurricane Electric has behaved in such an incredibly unprofessional manner regarding this entire ordeal. It began here: https://twitter.com/IncogNetLLC/status/1685359845505957888 We filed a complaint with the Washington state AG over their actions. HE's response was more or less technically obtuse garbage and, "You're not our direct customer" (paraphrasing, of course). So what they did, was take it…

[flagged]

Yeah, sheesh. KF is a website that gleefully reposts terrorist murder videos treated with the same legal penalties as CSAM in other countries, and during the reign of ISIS and the Taliban I don't recall people sitting around defending the need for that particular free speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms#Christchurch_mosque...

edit: By the way, for all those people ripping on the ACLU and saying "they lost their way" below, they're actively defending 230 against claims of online-terrorism-by-proxy.

https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/section-230-is-this-th...