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

461–470 of 1001 posts

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

#461

Post by throwaway56101 »

chonkerz wrote: post #408
IncogNET wrote: post #373

Earlier 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

#462

Post by chonkerz »

mortenjorck wrote: post #8

It's heartening to see the EFF come out sticking to principles on this in a time when other organizations of their stature have not. I hate to say it, but I could easily imagine something like the ACLU opposing the EFF on this.

The EFF is arguing here that companies should not take anything down and instead rely on the government to dictate what shouldn't be allowed. This is absolutely ridiculous. Imagine being such a free speech advocate that you say something like this.

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

#464

Post by habinero »

richbell wrote: post #321
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…

[flagged]

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

#465

Post by chonkerz »

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.

The EFF is arguing that companies should lose their right to withdraw service due to TOS violation, unless the government says it's ok. This is as anti-freedom as it gets. What is wrong with them

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

#466

Post by drak0n1c »

xmprt wrote: post #239
commandlinefan wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how bad actors will abuse systems I’ve seen both ends of the spectrum - I remember Usenet, that had no moderation at all, and having to wade through a sea of spam, wishing somebody would get rid of it. But then I saw what reddit moderation turned into… I’ll take the spam, thanks. The spammers are bad actors, but moderators actually become evil actors.

> But then I saw what reddit moderation turned into People like the harp on how bad reddit moderation is but I personally haven't seen it. Maybe I'm just in smaller communities or I choose the subreddits I follow more carefully, but I haven't seen cases of moderator abuse and if I ever do (usually as an outside observer to some drama in a different community) then I take a mental note to not follow that subreddit in…

In the last year or so I've received two strikes from Reddit Admins (employees) for report abuse when I reported two separate instances of explicit calls to violence in left-wing comments. One more "report abuse strike" and my since-Digg-era account is banned, so I've stopped caring. I've also seen first-hand and second-hand how the big default subreddit powermods (volunteers) over the last 10 years have silently banned users for non-inflammatory articulate dissenting posts and comments (while leaving up ones that are poorly written and easy targets). Combine that user shedding with botted upvotes on Rising (partisan-angle posts getting 10-20x the upvote average of other higher-quality posts from the same subreddit), the net effect is clear.

Ultimately, the best way to use Reddit is the way you do - keep it to small subs specifically devoted to a genuine interest, unsub from the defaults, and only browse it from the Home (your subs) page.

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

#467

Post by habinero »

ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #307
jeroenhd wrote: post #280

Edit: 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.

It is, however, also legal for private companies to decide stalking is bad and kick them off their systems.

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

#468

Post by habinero »

tjpnz wrote: post #192
arp242 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not as far as I know. I think any criminal action will be extremely hard, at least under US law, as they haven't really done anything outright illegal. There are all sorts of claims about "KiwiFarms has done this or that" (same with 4chan), but often there's no direct connection to KiwiFarms or 4chan, and some claims seem to just made up of whole cloth. A civil might have a higher chance of succeeding, but I suspect…

There have been numerous civil suits against KF, not one of them has succeeded.

Mostly because they tend to pick on people who can only file pro se, not because of any inherent merit.

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

#469

Post by renewiltord »

NotSuspicious wrote: post #369
chonkerz wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't think attacking and maligning someone else while ignoring the substance of their comment is what HN should promote in their comments.

I found it useful context. I would’ve previously perhaps been curious but if these guys are related to those suicide promotion sites, then I’m happy to set the bozo bit and walk away. Those people operate on the edge of legality and I’m not really that interested in examining the sorites paradox in this context.

We are currently considering HE vs some other providers for interregion cloud to cloud and I was concerned for a second. Not so much now.

Post reply on HN