Live data from Hacker News

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

eff.org

511–520 of 1001 posts

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

#511
post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess that's a neat legal perk for someone seeking to victimize severely autistic and vulnerable people. One's victims can't afford lawsuits.

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

#512
post #15

Are there any lawsuits pending against KiwiFarms? If not, why not?

Police and prosecutors don't seem to take much interest in online harassment cases (they're probably expensive to investigate, and it's difficult to even convince them to care at all), so criminal cases are unlikely. Meanwhile the site tends to pick victims that don't have money to hire lawyers for a civil suit (their victims are average people, not rich).

There's also the problem that their mode of operation may make it difficult to hold any single person liable. They basically engage in crowdsourced stalking, so there's many small contributions of different people whose connections would be hard to prove. As a collective, they obviously know what they're doing, but many individuals have plausible deniability. You can't try them with conspiracy. And that's if you can even track down who your pseudonymous stalkers are.

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

#513

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.

What part of the comment was maligning? It was entirely factual.

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

#514
post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any moral judgement that ignores the direct practical implications of that judgement is deeply immoral. You cant have meant well when you could have known better but didnt want to. >So what is "ok" and what is "not ok" - would you censor the NAZI party in the 1930s or do you think that letting theim air their views fully would convince Germans not to accept them? 10s of millions of lives depend on your choice. The ri…

I don't think the Germans now accept your reasoning and your specific story doesn't really provide support for it. Countries have laws againt hate speech and libel because we realise that these are evil forms of "free speech". We have laws about every action that we can do because those actions can harm other people and speech is another action which can harm others.

There is a real chance the next German election might result in an AFD government. Which after years of tribalistic conflict left them in a state where the most extreme positions are in control.

Just thinking that you ought to have those kinds of laws doesnt mean applying them wont result in a tragedy.

Edit: Might have misunderstood your reference. The KPD NSDAP dynamic is often referenced as the "verängstigte Bürgertum". It was quite the popular reference during Pegida, but it has been a common explanation since it happened and isnt just a modern take. The coups during Weimar, and the political reactions to them has to be seen in that light as well. Can recommend Heinrich Hannovers "Politische Justiz 1918–1933" on the atmosphere of the time.

Edit1: His "Die Republik vor Gericht 1954-1995" is also something i would recommend reading for a more realistic view of Western Germany. And Ingo Müllers Furchtbare Juristen. Might be worth reminding people that actual nazis got quite the nice treatment till very recently. The current wave of prosecutions against KZ guards is a historical abnormality, unless the allies actually hung you you got away with a slap on the wrist and in good social standing. Because you were needed against the Soviets. A AFD/CDU might get really bad, there were already CDU politicians during the burning refugee housings in the 90s that argued for more compassion for the drunk piss stained mob.

There was this great picture of a piss stained drunk doing a nazi salute during one of the Pogroms that i cant find on google and bing anymore. But luckily i dont have to worry about such things anymore because everyone means well.

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

#515

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…

[deleted]

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

#516

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…

>You host death threats and leaked PII

These death threats are not true threats and hosting PII is not illegal. Nor is encouraging "harassment" because what's encouraged is not actual criminal harassment. Every victim of a social media mob claims harassment, including Joshua Moon. When the good guys do it, of course, they just call it "consequences culture".

>Even the EFF acknowledges the activity on your forum is illegal and called on the cops to prosecute.

Which is a cowardly attempt at playing both sides. By juxtaposing "KiwiFarms users do bad things" with "criminals should be punished", the implication is that those bad things are criminal but the EFF maintains plausible deniability, which is wise since to do otherwise would constitute defamation. The important thing is that criminal activity should be determined through judicial proceedings, not armchair lawyering from midwits who likely think that there are laws against hate speech.

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

#517

> Cloudflare is an often brought up example And Cloudflare are nearly as well behaved as they could possibly be. The simple fact of them being everywhere makes them a major target of government pressure to censor. This is purely an end run around the constitution, not the desire of companies to control speech. > It feels like private companies are de facto writing the laws about what's allowed online and in society r…

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37314778.

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

#518
post #416

As 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.

[flagged]

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

#519
post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, the ACLU have lost their way. https://web.archive.org/web/20210608004853/https://www.nytim... > the organization finds itself riven with internal tensions over whether it has stepped away from a founding principle — unwavering devotion to the First Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union... > Beginning in 2017, some individuals claimed the ACLU was reducing its support of unpop…

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

They seem to mostly sell that as a package.

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

#520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'd argue that there are legitimate safety concerns that trump speech in this particular case. What makes HE well-positioned to be able to determine what constitutes a "legitimate safety concern"? What happens when a pro-life organization or a corrupt politician starts leaning on ISPs to enforce their own views of what constitutes a "legitimate safety concern"? Cloudflare denied service to KF on an imminent threat t…

I don’t think HE should be making that decision, especially in an upstream role—and the fact that they’re in that position points at a need for regulation. However, I would argue that KF is a long-term threat whose imminent dangers were honestly a very narrow lens that barely appeased a company that shouldn’t have been making the call in the first place. Their position in last year’s debate created a very volatile at…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN