[flagged]
ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
411–420 of 1001 posts
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#412Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 informatio…
[flagged]
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#413Earlier 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…
We learned the hard way what happens if you don’t oppress Nazis.
Paradox of tolerance.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#414Earlier quoted context omitted.
Attacking and maligning people is kind of Kiwifarms' whole deal. Plus maybe a bit of stalking thrown in for good measure.
Still not an excuse to do it in kind.
I wouldn't have had to say anything if the above poster disclosed his commercial interest in promoting that particular skewed viewpoint.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#415Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely false. We are in no way a 'bulletproof' hoster. You're free to review our IP subnets in use and compare them to actual bulletproof hosting providers. We actively and swiftly remove users engaging in ILLEGAL activity, such as malware, warez, etc. We're an American based business, registered in Wyoming, and abide by American law. No 'bulletproof hoster' is going to setup shop in America. Archiving what other…
You host death threats and leaked PII, and the forum owner explicitly encourages his followers to harass specific people he has a personal grudge against. He names entire sections of his forums after his victims and encourages people to post about his victims. You're lying. He's not running a neutral operation and neither are you. The forum doxes employees of their hosting providers. Even Russian hosters terminated k…
[flagged]
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#416As a victim that has been doxxed and attacked in real life, over a rumor that some idiots spread about me on the other side of the planet (that I am trans?!?), I wholeheartedly disagree and I now know what all the feminist movement is talking about when they write or talk about that they don't feel safe, be it online or offline (due to the technological "upper hand" being on the side of the doxxers). This incident ch…
Did you ever do a full writeup of this incident?
I'd hope something came of the criminal complaint you filed regarding the assault, but i'm not holding my breath here.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#417Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or if the IRS investigates the President's political opponents.
Kk, so if I want to do crimes I just gotta be a political opponent to whoever is in charge this year and no one can do anything to me. Got it.
I think history shows it pays to be friends with the party in power. As for the IRS it is complicated by the fact that the branches of government can be split along party lines. This should be considered a feature as the branches are intended to check the power of each other.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#418Earlier quoted context omitted.
The more social pressure there is, the more meaningful the commitment is. Cloudflare doesn't get points for hosting sites that no cares about. They failed to uphold their promise when it mattered twice, so it's pretty much meaningless. Just use AWS for your DDoS protection at that point.
But Amazon dropped Gab for even flimsier reasons
And yet they're the ISP of choice for the culture war propagandists. The Daily Wire and their german impersonator offspring NIUS both run on AWS. Turning Point USA runs on it, despite inviting a speaker to talk about the dangers of woke AWS censorship.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#419what is missing from everything visible so far is this is people trying to force HE to carry traffic for kiwifarms when they don't want to.
I add this so people don't have to do extra googling like I did to understand a story.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#420Why should an individual’s speech limit a business to being a dumb pipe?
I’ve never gelled with this aspect of “tech” (startup?) culture.
Why shouldn’t an ISP or any company be able to limit for any lawful reason?