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

471–480 of 1001 posts

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

#471

Post by throwaway56101 »

f38zf5vdt wrote: post #250
shadowgovt wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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…

>during the reign of ISIS and the Taliban I don't recall people sitting around defending the need for that particular free speech.

You don't remember LiveLeak and Saddam Hussein's execution being leaked all over the internet?

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

#472

Post by chonkerz »

stale2002 wrote: post #147
krapp wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So far, every "way" that's been developed of dealing with people who harm others has itself been used to harm others in more extreme ways than the harm they were supposed to mitigate. Has it? Some of the people Kiwifarms harassed were driven to suicide. Your argument is that having a forum taken offline is a more extreme form of harm than literal death?

It is not that the forum going down in and of itself is the harm. Instead it is that this precedent can be used by much more authoritarian groups to target groups that you support. Now its KF, and after that other countries are telling these tech services to take down gay and lesbian support groups, or even a state in the US could force abortion services offline. Its a loophole that could be used as an end run around…

Kiwifarms isn't the first website ever to be taken down. Taking it down won't cause one bit of harm to legitimate websites. It's not that important. Don't worry.

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

#473

Post by willdr »

LinuxBender wrote: post #335
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?

- Corporations that obtain your data and then sell it or abuse it even if said abuse is permitted in some fine print. - Countries that commit crimes against humanity but those should be fully physically blockaded rather than just blocking their internet. - ISP's and ISP resellers that aid and abet watering holes, phishing sites, scams, etc... and probably also entire countries that refuse to lift a finger to stop sca…

So you'd support a physical blockade of the United States and trying their leadership at The Hague?

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

#474

Post by habinero »

jstarfish wrote: post #149
anigbrowl wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're thinking solely in terms of private individuals. Other entities exist and have to be internet-connected to function; corporations, nonprofits, government bodies, institutions. They can't very well use pseudonyms because their whole reason for being is to be accessible to the public. So that makes them easy to target for abuse, eg https://oaklandside.org/2023/08/29/chabot-elementary-evacuat... An episode like t…

> If an ISP knows that a customer is bad actor because it's brought to their attention in a credible and rigorous way, then it seems quite legitimate to me to cut them off. This would invite false-flag attacks to get others kicked off the internet, especially if you run a public-facing service. If you can find any way to attribute something to someone, it doesn't even have to rise to the level of preponderance of evi…

[flagged]

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

#475

Post by chonkerz »

ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #312
krapp wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So far, every "way" that's been developed of dealing with people who harm others has itself been used to harm others in more extreme ways than the harm they were supposed to mitigate. Has it? Some of the people Kiwifarms harassed were driven to suicide. Your argument is that having a forum taken offline is a more extreme form of harm than literal death?

>Some of the people Kiwifarms harassed were driven to suicide. This is repeated often but there's no proof for these claims. There's more evidence that Reddit has a greater kill count than KF.

At least Reddit actually bans doxing. Can your beloved kiwifarms say the same?

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

#476

Post by zirgs »

TylerE wrote: post #170
zeroCalories wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And Cloudflare are nearly as well behaved as they could possibly be. This is not true. There has been at least two high profile cases where Cloudflare dropped their commitment to free speech when under no real legal pressure(kiwifarms and stormfromt). Maybe you think they did the right thing, but it's clear that they are not a neutral party.

[flagged]

What if Chrome started to do this?

"We detected a n-word in your comment - your Google account has been suspended."

Chrome already autocompletes form fields and does spell checking. Adding something like this would be trivial.

They are a private company and can choose to not do business with racists, right?

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

#477

Post by baobabKoodaa »

MathMonkeyMan wrote: post #351
_lvbh wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile in the rest of the world, we don’t even have free speech. If only America could export their constitution like they do their weapons

Here's part of an English translation of the Russian constitution: http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm and the Chinese constitution: http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/... It's not about the constitution.

Just because Russia has a piece of paper that says something, doesn't mean they have free speech.

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

#478

Post by chonkerz »

gravitate wrote: post #12

I hit CTRL+F to find the word 'neutral' in this article, but no such word appeared. But it did appear in another EFF article titled 'We Need to Talk About Infrastructure'[0], which is the crux of the issue here. My only question is; what is regarded 'internet infrastructure' these days? Is Cloudflare really just an ISP? Is VPN infra considered an ISP? Are mixer nets like Tor/Hyphanet an ISP? 'Essential internet infra…

No company, ever, is going to accept being forced to sell their services to a customer who will use it for obnoxiously illegal purposes. No government is ever going to mandate the use of resources for illegal purposes.

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

#479

Post by chonkerz »

pseudo0 wrote: post #39

Too bad they didn't touch on the net neutrality issues at play here. Washington passed a state level net neutrality law, and KF might end up being the test case. They have filed a complaint with the AG and are waiting for a response. https://archive.is/Je241

The authorities already said they didn't care and kiwifarms should work it out directly with HE

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

#480

Post by Cthulhu_ »

dietr1ch wrote: post #281
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...…

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.

What do you mean by "the third world" in this case? It's a geographic descriptor (non-Nato / Warsaw Pact countries), not one about how a country treats its people or its developmental state.
Post reply on HN