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

421–430 of 1001 posts

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

#421

Post by _cenw »

autoexec wrote: post #187
TylerE wrote: post #170

Earlier 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…

No, most of you seem to be comfortable ignoring when things turn into safety hazards for people who are not you. That includes Nazis for a sliding scale of people who are not part of majority culture (trying really hard to not say white men adjacent for your sensibilities).

The luxury of liberal principles - facing the threat of the rise of fascism - really can only be exercised by those least affected by such a rise.

I'd be really interested to hear how you think Hitler should've been handled in the 1920s and early 1930s. Could a debate parler have saved Germany's democracy?

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

#422

Post by stephenr »

richbell wrote: post #391
creata wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The site is literally about stalking people and documenting their personal lives for the sake of mockery. The users are cartoonish villains, and I'm not sure how you'd get any other impression after spending a few minutes there.

> The site is literally about stalking people and documenting their personal lives for the sake of mockery. You're half right, though I'd disagree with literally stalking — at the very least, there's variety and nuance. There's such a large variety of people discussed on the forum that I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that. Is watching every video or stream from a content creator and posting in a f…

> Is watching every video or stream from a content creator and posting in a forum mocking them "stalking"? Is digging through someone's old Twitter posts stalking? Is noticing that a person used the same username on multiple websites (some potentially embarrassing) stalking?

You cannot be seriously asking this.

From https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/stalking:

> broadly : a crime of engaging in a course of conduct directed at a person that serves no legitimate purpose and seriously alarms, annoys, or intimidates that person

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking:

> Stalking is unwanted and/or repeated surveillance by an individual or group toward another person.[1] Stalking behaviors are interrelated to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking:

> Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization.[1][2] It may include false accusations, defamation, slander and libel. It may also include monitoring, identity theft, threats, vandalism, solicitation for sex, doxing, or blackmail.

> there's a large chasm between what people think Kiwi Farms is and what it actually is.

There's a large chasm between what you think the word stalking means and what it actually means.

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

#423

Post by mnd999 »

More nativity from the EFF, I dont think they live in the real world. It’s never worked that at and never will. Why? Because the systems become unusable for everyone.

A simple and very very old example is email. Even back in the 1990s days of the Internet, we had spam on email and if your reputable isp caught you spamming you’d be in trouble. Same with shitposting on usenet.

Sure there are nuances to consider as to what providers should do and what they should not, but like a lot of things this is a hard problem. The ‘simple’ solutions presented here and in other places will not solve it.

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

#424

Post by chonkerz »

junofan wrote: post #340
X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #278

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?

[flagged]

Let's put the government in charge!

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

#425

Post by habinero »

chonkerz wrote: post #365
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]

[flagged]

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

#426

Post by drak0n1c »

wredue wrote: post #207
autoexec wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I strongly disagree with people who seek to suppress freedom of speech. This is not the hypocrisy that you’re painting it as. I question the motives of anyone sympathizing with Nazis as “just a different opinion” Suppressing nazism is not “suppressing freedom of speech”. It is suppressing people who seek to suppress.

That logic can be used to suppress most other political/religious ideologies and speech. If all it takes to justify censorship is a slippery slope argument that "when XYZ ideology gains enough real following the resulting implementation attempts probabilistically/historically lead to a suppressed society with hateful class division and mass death" -- then everything from Marxist writing to religious proselytizing qualifies for banning too.

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

#427

Post by cf141q5325 »

mnd999 wrote: post #423

More nativity from the EFF, I dont think they live in the real world. It’s never worked that at and never will. Why? Because the systems become unusable for everyone. A simple and very very old example is email. Even back in the 1990s days of the Internet, we had spam on email and if your reputable isp caught you spamming you’d be in trouble. Same with shitposting on usenet. Sure there are nuances to consider as to w…

Alleging nativity when at the same time championing just simply banning stuff you dont like, the consequences be dammed, might be funny, but this discussion has too high stakes for undisclosed satire. Still made me chuckle though.

edit: Apparently not satire. Quite sorry to hear, that was me giving the benefit of the doubt. That leaves either stupidity (not realizing the consequences), malice (not caring) or me overlooking something.

So, how do checks and balances for mob justice look like? Other then just meaning well and being the good guys? Pretty sure somebody could elaborate if it was really just me overlooking something.

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

#428

Post by jdthedisciple »

fallingknife wrote: post #47
bewaretheirs wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The contrary belief was once mocked on "Yes, Prime Minister" as: "1. We must do something. 2. This is something. 3. Therefore, we must do this."

And to cover the opposite case: 1. Nothing is going to happen 2. Something maybe is going to happen, but we should do nothing about it 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do 4. Maybe there's something we could have done, but it's too late now

You may want to revisit how syllogisms work. Thanks for your input.

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

#429

Post by jdthedisciple »

jfengel wrote: post #3
freedomben wrote: post #2

> But just because there’s a serious problem doesn’t mean that every response is a good one. This is a fantastic line, one that I'm tucking away for future use.

The EFF's response is not a good one, either. The previous sentence is: "We fully support criminal and civil liability for those who abuse and harass others." That's not sufficient. These are extremely slow mechanisms, when they work at all. The harassed individual can suffer for years, and the EFF isn't rushing out to aid them. As their post says, "law enforcement and legislators have failed". The Internet is differ…

> These are extremely slow mechanisms, when they work at all.

This perfectly describes Democracy as well, however.

Are you anti-democratic?

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

#430

Post by habinero »

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…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN