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

291–300 of 1001 posts

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

#291

Post by richbell »

bb88 wrote: post #258
richbell wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

So you do realize that cyberstalking is a crime in US code: 47 U.S.C. § 223, right? It seems pretty clear they're doing that, no? See also: https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/ "Feeling attacked, users of Kiwifarms became even more aggressive. Over the last two weeks, we have proactively reached out to law enforcement in multiple jurisdictions highlighting what we believe are potential criminal acts and imm…

> So you do realize that cyberstalking is a crime in US code: 47 U.S.C. § 223, right? It seems pretty clear they're doing that, no?

You claimed people "might" be using the forums to commit crimes, now you're saying "it's pretty clear". Again, what actual evidence do you have to back these claims?

> Seems weird that you can't just google this, I mean it took me 30 seconds to do this.

I aware of this blog post by CloudFlare. However, I am not aware of any actual evidence or examples that substantiate the claims made in it. The operator of Kiwi Farms has publicly stated that he received no notice from either CloudFlare or law enforcement about the alleged threats. CloudFlare has also never provided any specifics publicly. In my opinion, the CEO was overruled and forced to remove KF, and that blog post is a transparent attempt to save face after beating his chest about never backing down.

) However, the rhetoric on the Kiwifarms site and specific, targeted threats have escalated over the last 48 hours to the point that we believe there is an unprecedented emergency and immediate threat to human life unlike we have previously seen from Kiwifarms or any other customer before.

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

#292

Post by Dylan16807 »

michaelmrose wrote: post #251
Dylan16807 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even a literal Nazi should have access to utilities. Though I would say cloudflare isn't quite up to that level. Edit: Seeing this downvoted is disappointing. Access to utilities needs to be treated as a right . Only the courts should be able to take it away.

The Germans who died in the 30s and 40s would be alive if the Nazis had been denied access to oxygen. As some of their heirs openly talk about murdering us I don't think in the long run we'll still be mutually protecting each others rights. It in fact might be kinder to deny them rights now than life later. People who openly advocate for mass violence even if vague and theoretical belong in prison.

> People who openly advocate for mass violence even if vague and theoretical belong in prison.

Okay, so put them in prison!

But if they're not in prison they should have electricity, mail, communications.

Hell, even if they are in prison they get those things.

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

#293

Post by aydyn »

X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #278
arp242 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's an extremely charitable description of what KiwiFarms is. What's your list of things to block that are higher up the list?

I dunno, terrorists?

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

#295

Post by dools »

koolba wrote: post #262
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #249

>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.

[flagged]

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

#296

Post by arp242 »

bb88 wrote: post #258
richbell wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

So you do realize that cyberstalking is a crime in US code: 47 U.S.C. § 223, right? It seems pretty clear they're doing that, no? See also: https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/ "Feeling attacked, users of Kiwifarms became even more aggressive. Over the last two weeks, we have proactively reached out to law enforcement in multiple jurisdictions highlighting what we believe are potential criminal acts and imm…

If I recall correctly those posts were all from new accounts, and were largely removed by moderators.

I mean, anyone can create a new account on HN and post "I am literally going to kill Joe Biden tonight", and perhaps they actually plan to do that too, and maybe they'll even pull it off, but that doesn't mean HN orchestrated a conspiracy to kill Joe Biden.

The general policy is "look, but don't touch", and while I don't really trust the userbase in general to adhere to that, the people running the site (mostly this Null guy, as near as I can tell) seem fairly dedicated to this.

Personally I think the internet wold be better without the site, but I also think there's a sore lack of nuance here, and people accept certainly dubious claims a little bit too readily (turns out not everything on the internet is the whole story, or even true in the first place).

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

#297

Post by richbell »

bb88 wrote: post #274
richbell wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What constitutes a "Nazi"? I remember when people were up in arms claiming that Jordan Peterson (who I do not support) a Nazi and trying to get him deplatformed; there are countless other examples of people being branded as Nazis for being unpopular and distasteful.

What constitutes a Nazi? Support for Adolf Hitler or his beliefs.

How do you reconcile witj people who define Nazi differently?

Is Ron DeSantis a Nazi? Is Matt Walsh a Nazi? etc.

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

#298

Post by nonethewiser »

rhelz wrote: post #287
CM30 wrote: post #46

I agree, we've got far too many entities that should just be 'dumb pipes' trying to play moral police at the moment, and it's a very worrying situation when it comes to free speech on the internet. Cloudflare is an often brought up example, as are payment processors like Visa and Mastercard and app stores like the iOS and Play Stores, but ISPs trying to block traffic for a site that's not actually illegal feels like…

// private companies a re de facto writing the laws // We can certainly discuss whether these services should be publicly or privately owned. I'm a pretty liberal guy, and wouldn't mind seeing publically-owned versions of Twitter, ChatGPT, or Google, as a guard against corporations dominating the information age. But calling for more government regulation of privately-owned services? Forcing private companies to do w…

Freedom of speech is a pretty fundamental value. It's not surprising to expect it beyond where it's legally required.

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

#299

Post by networkchad »

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]

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

#300

Post by itsnotabtmoney »

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…

> The safest business decision would be to remain neutral, respond to law enforcement requests if presented with one, and otherwise do the job you're paid to do.

Have you considered that it might not be about money? What if the decision-makers and operators of Hurricane Electric just have certain people they just want to censor, and use their position to do it at the expense of money. Money is just a means to the end, and if they're getting to that end by foregoing money in business rather than spending it, that seems logical enough to me.

And if the government is ideologically aligned with the operators of the company, you won't find any protection from them. And in many cases it's just the government and large companies working hand-in-glove to get to their ends. Some political outsiders threatening your political monopoly? Pull some strings and have their social media accounts removed and banking taken away; but there's no recourse since "muh private company" even though they're getting direct orders from government officials.

So a good reason to be on the side of "free political speech" is that we don't want the people with the most money controlling what we can and can't say, and we don't want the government to have free reign to shut down criticism or challenges.

Post reply on HN