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

321–330 of 1001 posts

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

#321

Post by richbell »

jeroenhd wrote: post #280

Edit: you know what, debating this here isn't worth the effort. Sad to see the state of this place.

> I'm all for freedom of speech, but forums dedicated to driving people to commit suicide go far beyond that.

The claim that Kiwi Farms is a forum "dedicated to driving people to suicide" is patently false. It is rhetoric created by people campaigning to get it removed without due process by painting its owner and users as cartoonish villains.

Kiwi Farms has thousands of threads discussing people from all ends of the spectrum, including apolitical figures. You can go there yourself and see how diverse the users and their interests are.

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

#322

Post by heavyset_go »

arp242 wrote: post #269
shadowgovt wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

> 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"

The site is probably one of the only sources of actual gang stalking on the planet, and when it isn't stalking and harassing people on an industrial scale, it also moonlights as a suicide factory. The psychopaths that run and participate on the site are proud of their body count.

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

#323

Post by cf141q5325 »

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]

If you sleep tight in a censored echo chamber you might be in for a rude awakening once you realize what atrocities that enables. But luckily you will only find out once you are at the receiving end of it?

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

#324

Post by bedhead »

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...…

[flagged]

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

#325

Post by richbell »

heavyset_go wrote: post #322
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…

> 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" The site is probably one of the only sources of actual gang stalking on the planet, and when it isn't stalking and harassing people on an industrial scale, it also moonlights as a suicide factory. The psychopaths that run and participate on the site…

[flagged]

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

#326

Post by ianburrell »

ehhthing wrote: post #181
torstenvl wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Essential internet infrastructure should not be content-neutral. Content neutrality is a higher bar than you think it is. Content-neutral means the rules cannot take content into account at all . If the content is millions of ssh login requests on thousands of servers with ec2-user and the top 10000 most used passwords, the infrastructure should be able to block that. Content-neutrality would probably make it illegal…

I don't think this is true. Phone companies (which are legislated to be utilities) can block malicious/spam calls without legal issues.

Right, they aren’t and shouldn’t be content neutral.

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

#327

Post by stale2002 »

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…

You are not understanding.

We already have many laws that effect companies.

For example, power companies cannot just turn off your electricity because they don't like what you say.

These are called common carrier laws and they are completely uncontroversial.

We live in a society, and it is perfectly OK for us to put limits on what major monopoly type companies can do.

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

#328

Post by [deleted] »

mid-kid wrote: post #112
jauer wrote: 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…

> Happens all the time. As this is the first time I hear of this, I'm curious. Do you have any examples?

[deleted]

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

#329

Post by 542458 »

mid-kid wrote: post #112
jauer wrote: 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…

> Happens all the time. As this is the first time I hear of this, I'm curious. Do you have any examples?

The comment you’re replying to lists several examples already, like the use of the Spamhaus DROP list.

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

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

#330

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

cycomanic wrote: post #309

I 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 demonstrati…

Spam is speech that the recipient does not want to receive; deplatforming spammers is aligned with the recipient's desires. Deplatforming speech that the recipient does want to receive is not aligned with the recipient's desires and infringes on their ability to communicate freely. Therefore, the spam analogy is not valid.
Post reply on HN