Live data from Hacker News

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

eff.org

601–610 of 1001 posts

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

#601

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…

So not knowing either company, is IncogNet and CrunchBits related companies in some way? I ask because the article just talks about Crunchbits, which I didn't know about. I tried to look looking up CrunchBits, but that's not really possible on Bing based search engines. There are a few links to reviews, but the Crunchbits website seems to have scrubbed from Bing.

They're the direct customer of Hurricane Electric, and our server provider in that region of the US.

We have our ASN and IPs announced on their network.

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

#602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I'd like to figure out is how there are still so many Nazis There are always going to be people who are fearful and ignorant and looking for a convenient external something to blame their problems on. There are also the people who are raised with those views and others who feel excluded and find a place to belong with a group of "outsiders". I don't think we can ever get rid of racist ideologies. We've evolved…

Pretty much sums it up. Also of note is that Germany already had and still has laws against numerous forms of speech, most notably anything that could threaten the public order, which you could mold into a justification to basically stop any speech. The only thing preventing that isn't a law, it is the overall political culture. But with polarization rising, it can quickly become more serious. Most of these laws stem…

    > Also of note is that Germany already had and still has laws against numerous forms  
    > of speech, most notably anything that could threaten the public order, which you  
    > could mold into a justification to basically stop any speech.
Germany has no laws against "anything that could threaten the public order". This is just unsubstantiated nonsense.

There are laws against hate speech: "Volksverhetzung", a more direct translation: "incitement of the people", i.e. hate speech with the intent of causing mob violence or the persecution of minorities. There are also laws against disrupting the public order: "Erregung öffentlichen Ärgernisses", so "causing public offence", but those don't really target speech, they're more about taking your pants off in public and peeing on the sidewalk.

Also, neither of those laws are from the time of the monarchy.

    > The Nazis made a lot of political capital because people wanted them banned and  
    > censored. Of course that was just political play and they set new standards for  
    > suppression of information and propaganda, but that came after they got into  
    > power.
The Nazis also made a lot of political capital because people didn't ban them for democratic and free-speech reasons. As Goebbels, the Nazi's chief propagandist, himself said:

    > Wir gehen in den Reichstag hinein, um uns im Waffenarsenal der Demokratie mit  
    > deren eigenen Waffen zu versorgen. Wir werden Reichstagsabgeordnete, um die  
    > Weimarer Gesinnung mit ihrer eigenen Unterstützung lahmzulegen. Wenn die  
    > Demokratie so dumm ist, uns für diesen Bärendienst Freifahrkarten und Diäten zu 
    > geben, so ist das ihre eigene Sache.
Translation:

    > We enter the Reichstag [Weimar Republic parliament] to stock ourselves with  
    > weapons from democracy's own arsenal. We become assemblymen of the Reichstag to  
    > take down the spirit of Weimar with its own support. If democracy is so stupid  
    > to supply us with hall passes and diets for this disservice we do to it, then  
    > that is its own problem.
Your entire comment is a great example of the bullshit asymmetry principle.

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

#603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I'd like to figure out is how there are still so many Nazis There are always going to be people who are fearful and ignorant and looking for a convenient external something to blame their problems on. There are also the people who are raised with those views and others who feel excluded and find a place to belong with a group of "outsiders". I don't think we can ever get rid of racist ideologies. We've evolved…

> To their credit they've also relaxed a bit over the years. For example, they > lifted the ban on Mein Kampf and it flew off the shelves (https://www.bbc.com > /news/world-europe-38495456) not because the country was full of secret Nazis > this whole time just waiting for it, but because the German people strongly > desire freedom. Factually wrong take. Mein Kampf was never "banned", in fact, there is no such thing…

> The reason Mein Kampf could not be distributed until a few years ago is because after Hitler's death, the copyright on Mein Kampf fell to the state of Bavaria (

Bavaria used copyright to enforce an "unofficial" ban on the book. It's ridiculous to try to paint the situation as one where Bavaria just never got around to reprinting it.

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

#604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am such a free speech advocate. Why is a belief in the common carrier model ridiculous?

They want to be common carriers, but also be able to discriminate users.

Start by banning racists and bigoted users, then slowly start discriminating against other groups while offering new "private connection" for only $9.99/mo extra.

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

#605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To their credit they've also relaxed a bit over the years. For example, they > lifted the ban on Mein Kampf and it flew off the shelves (https://www.bbc.com > /news/world-europe-38495456) not because the country was full of secret Nazis > this whole time just waiting for it, but because the German people strongly > desire freedom. Factually wrong take. Mein Kampf was never "banned", in fact, there is no such thing…

> The reason Mein Kampf could not be distributed until a few years ago is because after Hitler's death, the copyright on Mein Kampf fell to the state of Bavaria ( Bavaria used copyright to enforce an "unofficial" ban on the book. It's ridiculous to try to paint the situation as one where Bavaria just never got around to reprinting it.

This was of course intentional, but you incorrectly claimed that

    > To their credit they've also relaxed a bit over the years. For example, 
    > they lifted the ban on Mein Kampf
This just never happened. No ban was ever lifted. This does not show some change in the German mindset towards being more tolerant of Nazi speech, as you insinuate. The copyright expired - that is all.

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

#606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Anti doxing laws should've shut that place down long ago. Reposting publically available information should never be illegal.

And tormenting mentally vulnerable people. You forgot to mention that.

If people saying mean things about you online bothers you that much don't read it.

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

#607

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…

Essential internet infrastructure should not be content-neutral. Content neutrality is a higher bar than you think it is. Content-neutral means the rules cannot take content into account at all . If the content is millions of ssh login requests on thousands of servers with ec2-user and the top 10000 most used passwords, the infrastructure should be able to block that. Content-neutrality would probably make it illegal…

DDoS generally has little to do about the content of the traffic. It's more about volume and traffic pattern.

Anyway, I think the details are in intent and the nature of the communication. Service providers shouldn't actively block communications where the only intent of the communication is consensual exchange of information between two or more parties (such as visiting a website) regardless of the content of the exchanged information.

SPAM would qualify as non-consensual from one party, so it would be exempt.

The intent of DDoS isn't to exchange information, so it would also be exempt.

I'm sure that it would need pages legalese to make this work, like ironing out the circumstances when ISPs can assume intent or consent. SPAM block lists should be reasonable.

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

#608
post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " Forcing private companies to do what you want them to do, even when they would prefer not to? " That's exactly the argument that bigots who owned businesses used to refuse service to PoC and oppressed people before the civil rights legislations of the '50s and '60s were passed. Funny to hear old discredited arguments used by far-right conservatives decades ago coming out of the mouths of the left these days. It's…

Sure, pretty much everyone except extreme libertarians agrees that there are limits to private property rights that can be overriden in certain circumstances. However, if we (rightly) force businesses not to discriminate on the grounds of race, then it seems logically consistent to also allow businesses to refuse to associate with racists. I am not sure how someone could be ok with government intervention to prevent…

I'm not saying it's a great policy, but it makes sense to me.

Running a whites-only business overlaps but is different from being racist.

In this scenario, it would be weird to force your business to associate with whites-only businesses. But those are illegal, so you're not forced to do that. You're only forced to work with racists that don't run whites-only businesses.

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

#609
post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of criminalizing "deadnaming" or in spite of it? For those that don't know, so-called "deadnaming" "is the act of referring to a transgender or non-binary person by a name they used prior to transitioning, such as their birth name." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadnaming

That should not be a criminal offence.

At this point, there's lots of books and CDs out there with 'deadnames' on the cover, and movies and games with them in the credits.

"Who directed 'The Matrix'?" probably shouldn't be a controversial question, let alone one with potential answers that are considered offensive or even illegal.

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

#610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am such a free speech advocate. Why is a belief in the common carrier model ridiculous?

That's not the ridiculous bit, the ridiculous bit is the advocating that the government crack down on people saying mean things about third parties to each other on the Internet. And make no mistake, that's 99% of what KiwiFarms does, the last time this came up on hackernews I browsed through hundreds of posts in a bunch of threads to see if there was anything other than that going on, so if its there it's in the DMs…

What they're really saying is the the bar for ISP intervention in speech should be higher than the bar for prosecution. Which is not particularly ridiculous.

It's not so much about the particular site.

Post reply on HN