[deleted]
ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
521–530 of 1001 posts
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#522Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The Constitution would not provide a carveout for the long-term censorship of a forum like KF based on some rationale like "creating a volatile atmosphere", so I don't know what you expect regulation to accomplish here. And of course activists would scream if such regulation were applied in a viewpoint-neutral fashion (eg. platforms being mandated to delete content that advocates for crime / violence - imagine how Tr…
I can't find anything in the Constitution about the Internet.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#523Earlier 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.
Kiwifarms is not just a site about "opinions", they organize destroying people's lives and celebrating when someone kills themselves. There's a clear moral distinction between "I believe trans women do not belong in women's bathrooms" and "Here's their address, do your thing until they are gone!".
Celebrating when someone kills themselves is a matter of opinion. Doxxing is another matter.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#524[deleted]
[dead]
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#525I agree, we've got far too many entities that should just be 'dumb pipes' trying to play moral police at the moment, and it's a very worrying situation when it comes to free speech on the internet. Cloudflare is an often brought up example, as are payment processors like Visa and Mastercard and app stores like the iOS and Play Stores, but ISPs trying to block traffic for a site that's not actually illegal feels like…
> It feels like private companies are de facto writing the laws about what's allowed online and in society right now, and that it's almost become a loophole for censoring free speech on a whim. This is why monopoly power is dangerous as without it you could just move to a more tolerant competitor and be on with your business. The courts almost never consider the "secondary markets" that exist around these behemoths,…
blame the WEF and 16 UN STG
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#526Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You might want to watch Yes Minister so you have the context to comment here. Thanks for the input.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#527Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read an interesting article the other day. It was about the Freedom of Information Act. We now take this for granted, but getting it passed was a huge ordeal. It dramatically strengthened the accountability of government and gave citizens one of their strongest tools available. It was, unsurprisingly, vehemently opposed by both major parties and nearly every form of the US political establishment. It would eventual…
> For a man to be surrounded by such possibilities, yet remain true to his own values - he's going to need to be rich enough that people can't afford to bribe him, or some once in a millennium Aurelius like man of true character. Not really. The easiest way to be rich enough that you don't need to take bribes to betray your core values is to take a bunch of bribes over issues you don't really care about.
That doesn't solve the bribe problem though. (Or did you forget the /s ?)
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#528Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Same in the US, evidently
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#529Indeed. Companies should be able to just rake in profits regardless of social, cultural or environmental impact without taking any responsibility.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#530Earlier 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.
Who cares what they say, the Russian constitution can be rewritten in a couple of days when a certain person needs something from it.