[flagged]
ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
261–270 of 1001 posts
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#262>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.
I’m convinced they never truly cared about the ends.
It’s the more basic rule that power corrupts. Those actions were all for show and it wasn’t to protect anybody. It was purely to showcase power.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#263>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...…
[flagged]
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
And that's where problems arise. Most of us are comfortable oppressing people we disagree with. The reality is that you can't silence voices you don't like without making yourself vulnerable to the same treatment. We either value the freedom to express ourselves within the limits of the law or we don't. As soon as there are more people who think like you do, none of us are safe and it just becomes a system that silen…
If you don't believe in freedom of speech for people you hate you don't believe in it at all. The refusal to use force to stop opinions the majority doesn't like is the only thing that makes any progress possible. Being able to say things other people want to stop you from saying is the defining characteristic of free speech.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#265Earlier 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.
[flagged]
Sorry man, I just don't trust you to correctly identify a nazi.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#266ISP is a no-go, but are there any successful online speech moderation mechanism?
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them…” “… In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as l…
He most definitely was not a free speech absolutist. The very quote you include makes that clear: > But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force The quote says rational argument and discourse is the preferred option but there will be times when all rational argument will be rejected and that may require suppression. How do you get free speech absolutism from that?
He’s talking about violent groups who aren’t attempting to have discourse at all, and are attempting to use force to muscle their views on society.
Again you’ve selectively quoted and ignored that the people he says need to be suppressed are those who “begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.” I.E. "intolerance" here should not be read in a vague sense but specifically means "people who won't tolerate hearing a contrary argument".
Popper's definition of "intolerance" is literally the thing that you’re doing: prima facie denunciation of all argument, and instinctively responding to undesired speech by trying to shut it down. He's literally saying "the only people we should silence by force are the people who refuse to argue and insist on silencing us by force" and somehow you’ve decided he's saying: "we should silence anyone who argues with us by force".
He goes into further detail over several hundred pages in a book nobody who parrots “the paradox of tolerance” has ever read.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoting 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 your points are valid in some sense, I don’t see…
That's fine when you have the jurisdiction for doing that. In your example, there is a house with people in it doing something illegal. That's within the realm of law enforcements and courts. A better example is robocall spam. Most of it comes from overseas. That is incredibly difficult to do about directly. The only effective way to go after it is with the exchanges that transmit and essentially "launder" the spam t…
Actually robocalls are a good example too where we don’t need to remove our privacy for less scam calls. Admittedly, allowing others to listen in to all calls is a solution, but what a trade off it is to allow that.
I learned recently about SnorCall [1] which is IMO a pretty ingenious solution to the problem. The idea is to have a bunch a phone numbers allocated to listening on incoming calls. They record what they listen to and an algorithm will do some speech to text translation then another categorises the call as spam or not. These calls have a huge amount of variation and anyway the incoming number can be spoofed so that number is not interesting. The ingenious part is that often scams will have a call to action and then will give a number to call back. And that number is not spoofed since a real person must answer. And the tests show that a lot of scams actually use the same call back number, making it it easier on law enforcements to act upon those registering that phone number.
Anyway, my point is just that we should try to think outside the box before accepting to decrease our privacy. We usually have a very hard time to get it back.
https://www.gadgetany.com/news/snorcall-ai-powered-tool-to-p... (not a very good link but I can’t find my origins link anymore)
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#269Glad 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]
If you want to argue that internet infrastructure providers should be blocking access to areas of the internet due to bad consequences and "being able to sleep at night", then there many more obvious and larger targets.
The amount of attention KiwiFarms gets is ridiculously outsized for what it is: a fairly small forum with a bunch of mean-spirited people telling mean-spirited "jokes". It's a very odd target for all these free speech issues.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that's where problems arise. Most of us are comfortable oppressing people we disagree with. The reality is that you can't silence voices you don't like without making yourself vulnerable to the same treatment. We either value the freedom to express ourselves within the limits of the law or we don't. As soon as there are more people who think like you do, none of us are safe and it just becomes a system that silen…
I strongly disagree with people who seek to suppress freedom of speech. This is not the hypocrisy that you’re painting it as. I question the motives of anyone sympathizing with Nazis as “just a different opinion” Suppressing nazism is not “suppressing freedom of speech”. It is suppressing people who seek to suppress.
[flagged]