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

381–390 of 1001 posts

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

#381

Post by mptest »

ratsmack wrote: post #130
mptest wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is purely an end run around the constitution, not the desire of companies to control speech. Want an example of this type of end run being used in practice? Nearly a decade ago? Obama used banking access to do a similar end run around businesses deemed political enemies. Some to the good, weapons/ammunition sellers with uncertain scruples, payday lenders...[0] but for some reason I'm not super confident about i…

Your link goes to a 404, unfortunately.

Crap, sorry guys. Luckily the other commenter was right, he found the correct link. The third party hackernews app I'm using has weird behavior when I edit a comment causing my spacing to mess up (why no line break between quote and my comment) and it also caused the ... to no longer be considered part of the link. If anyone has a good rec for an iphone app for hn, i'd appreciate it.

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

#382

Post by heavyset_go »

richbell wrote: post #325
heavyset_go wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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]

> There are dozens of sites like the Kiwi Farms, many even have "farm" in their name.

I'm aware. The OP is talking about KF.

> There are also completely unaffiliated sites such as Doxbin, which were responsible for a large amount of the harassment and doxing against Keffals. There's a tweet (xeet?) somewhere where she acknowledged that she knew Kiwi Farms wasn't actually responsible, but didn't care.

I have no idea who Keffals is or why you'd think I'd care.

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

#383

Post by IncogNET »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #339
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…

We filed a complaint with the Washington state AG over their actions. When? Did anything happen? I don't expect this would be a priority for the attorney general.

It was later in July. To be clear, filing a complaint is simply an online form. This does not involve or require lawyers or any expense.

The TLDR version is: We filed it as a violation of HB2282, Washignton State's Net Neutrality / Open Internet laws, the AG thought it was an appropriate complaint and forwarded it to HE. This gives them 21 days to respond. They (HE) responded relatively quickly, basically saying, "Nah, no we didn't and no we don't block access to it". At this point it'd be up to us to fight it further. We're not their direct customer, nor will we ever be (now). With that said, they very much WERE blocking access to the subnet as seen here ( https://images2.imgbox.com/b2/ed/Nc8NLQl2_o.png ) and here ( https://images2.imgbox.com/58/e1/1ZIn3YbZ_o.png ).

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

#385

Post by dee-bee »

autoexec wrote: post #173

Once again the EFF is proving that they'll stand behind their principles and defend freedom even for those they disagree with. They are one of the few remaining organizations that I feel I can support without reservation. Taking this difficult position isn't easy, but it is the right thing to do and I'm so glad to see that the EFF has the strength to do it in the face of growing opposition to free speech ideals.

> Once again the EFF is proving that they'll stand behind their principles and defend freedom even for those they disagree with. They are one of the few remaining organizations that I feel I can support without reservation.

I find this attitude very odd. Surely some disagreements indicate a violation of their principles. What would the principles be worth otherwise? Surely this is the paradox of tolerance in a different package. Why not instead model communication as a bilateral contract?

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

#386

Post by Nursie »

fentanyl_peyotl wrote: post #42
jmyeet wrote: post #13

[flagged]

“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…

> In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument

The problem is that we can't. The "marketplace of ideas" that many people imagine exists, can only exist when people are interested in honest debate and evaluation of their own ideas in the face of honest counterpoints and robust exchange.

If we should learn anything from the last several years of widespread internet noise, it's that honest, open-minded debate is a minority sport. The disingenuous propagation of bullshit in furtherance of either a dollar or an agenda, is far more popular.

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

#387

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

zer8k wrote: post #374
SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #302

Is 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 k…

Yes. You're not understanding that Banning someone from your private establishment is within your rights. If they want to run their own business they can elsewhere. Banning someone via an ISP is different because ISPs have so much infrastructure they can in some sense be considered a "public utility". Nothing would stop someone from advertising ritualistic kitten killing in a public park (except maybe indecency laws…

Okay so like, what if I own the only mall in a large area. Like a rural suburb where there is often only one shopping space/public commercial space. Is there an upper limit where your private property is considered public utility?

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

#388

Post by hotdogscout »

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

I very much agree but this is so one-sided. Would you support arresting Muslims who support Shariah? Would you support arresting Stalinists?

There are sadly so many groups that advocate for mass violence I think it's pointless how people only seem to care about the single one that's most vilified and defeated.

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

#389

Post by EarlKing »

bb88 wrote: post #283
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.

I have a hard time with this. The constitution doesn't say you have a right to water, electricity, internet service, sewer service, etc. Meanwhile the conservatives in the US are saying that corporations have a right to choose who they serve based upon their religious beliefs. See the SCOTUS Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling on whether they must serve a gay couple. I'm pretty sure I could argue that Nazism is against someo…

The constitution doesn't say a lot of things. The constitution is not the whole of the law, any more than the bible is the whole of religion. At the end of the day I think we've reached a point where the majority of the proletariat believe that they have a natural right to the freedom of thought and expression, meaning that they should not be subject to acts of force or fraud by private parties to interfere with that right. Further, the same believe that anyone engaged in commerce with the public should function as a public accommodation and offer their services to all and sundry. This just happens to be a very inconvenient opinion for bourgeoisie imperialists intent on silencing the proletariat to maintain their death grip on society.

To put it simply: Maybe if you'd just let people gripe away in peace on their little gossip forums you wouldn't have so many problems in the world.

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

#390

Post by gmd63 »

nonethewiser wrote: post #306
dietr1ch wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Forget the IRS, imagine if the President himself were to withhold American resources promised to foreign governments in exchange for dirt on his political opponents.
Post reply on HN