Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Animal torture videos
ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
301–310 of 1001 posts
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#302Is this situation like, say I own some commercial property like a mall, someone rents from me, I realize the person who is renting from me is allowing one of the storefronts to advertise the ritualistic sacrifice of kittens. Shouldn’t I be allowed to 1) tell the guy renting from me to boot out the kitten killers; 2) boot out the guy renting from me for letting one of the storefronts of my commercial space be kitten killing?
Am I not understanding something here
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#303Surprised by the huge outpouring of support here, yet when X puts forward the exact same values of "freedom of speech but not freedom of speech," it's met entirely with criticism.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, the ACLU have lost their way. https://web.archive.org/web/20210608004853/https://www.nytim... > the organization finds itself riven with internal tensions over whether it has stepped away from a founding principle — unwavering devotion to the First Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union... > Beginning in 2017, some individuals claimed the ACLU was reducing its support of unpop…
Meanwhile in the rest of the world, we don’t even have free speech. If only America could export their constitution like they do their weapons
I mean that's basically this history of the US in Latin America, but everyone complains anyway.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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 los…
> 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.
Do you genuinely not see a problem with the New Zealand police ordering websites to remove content they dislike and hand over user information about anyone who so much as discussed it? Christchurch was a horrific act of terrorism; that doesn't make attempting punish people for hosting or discussing content related to it justified.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#306>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...…
What an awful example from the third world. What's next? The IRS forces doctors not to treat some patients in ER because they may owe taxes? Access to water and medical attention are human rights, no matter how awful the humans may be according to the acting officers.
Or if the IRS investigates the President's political opponents.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#307Edit: you know what, debating this here isn't worth the effort. Sad to see the state of this place.
>Anti doxing laws should've shut that place down long ago.
Reposting publically available information should never be illegal.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 hat…
I'm not saying you're wrong, I just think the founding fathers could not anticipate the world we have today.
The problem of course being that intelligence tests were used in the 60's to deny voting rights. But the founding fathers were okay with slavery, so would they have been okay with that for that purpose?
Originalism has a purpose I think, but, we've changed so much since then...
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#309I think the question is not quite so easy as many here (and even the EFF) are making it seem.
It's easy to talk about free-speech that needs to be protected at any cost when it comes to political speech, but if we look at e.g. spam nobody argues that spam and spammers should be blocked. Now is spam less speech, because it is not political?
On a similar note, if I own a large piece of land should I allow a demonstration that I disagree with cross the land because of free-speech? If no, why does a company who carries data, need to provide their "pipes" to the same people?
I understand the argument that restricting speech is a slippery slope, on the other hand I agree with Popper, not restricting all speech and enabling the "intolerant" is also a slippery slope (I say that as a German, we have quite a bit of experience with this).
I'm not sure how to draw easy boundaries, but making this into an argument of "easy it's free-speech that needs to be defended at all costs" seems much too simplistic.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#310I 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…
> I agree, we've got far too many entities that should just be 'dumb pipes' trying to play moral police at the moment
This is one of the positives of capitalism. The only color that matters is green. More competition please.