Earlier quoted context omitted.
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]
[deleted]
ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
611–620 of 1001 posts
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#612Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yes, I suppose there is a logically consistent space there, but not one that seems either appealing or consistent with the way the legal lines have been drawn in the US. For example, as it is not illegal in the US to express hatred for people of a particular ethnicity, should bakeries therefore be required to bake 'Ethnicity X sucks' cakes? That seems both absurd and inconsistent with the eventual outcome of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
My overall point here is that it does not make much sense to object to the freedom of association arguments being made in this thread on the grounds that similar arguments were used to support discrimination against Black Americans prior to the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act recognized racism as a unique evil that required special legal remedy; it did not recognize racists as requiring special legal protection. So, yes, freedom of association permits you to avoid associating with racists but does not (in all cases) permit you to avoid associating with people of a particular ethnicity.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#613As 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.
I didn't publish my writeup(s) yet because it would put me at a strategical disadvantage for the time being. I'm not ready, and still need some time for preparing my tech stack. If you're curious, it's gonna be released on the Tholian Network website.
There have been a couple of investigations that I helped with in the German media though, in case you're interested. They mostly focus on bigger topics though, like the fact that AIMS was used for vote manipulations, or about the troll factories in middle/west Africa etc.
They didn't talk about the hacker groups in detail because I think there's some missing expertise in that sector (also in regards of being able to defend themselves), but everything around those groups on telegram can be dug up pretty quickly. It's not like they care about their secrecy.
[1] https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/team-jorge-israel-des...
[2] https://www.ardmediathek.de/video/wdr-dok/propagandaschlacht...
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#614Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Happens all the time. As this is the first time I hear of this, I'm curious. Do you have any examples?
The comment you’re replying to lists several examples already, like the use of the Spamhaus DROP list. https://www.spamhaus.org/drop/
What tier-1 provider is irresponsible enough to use this?
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#615As 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…
Thank you for this post. I'm sorry you went through this. I don't exactly understand what you mean by feminism (GC/radfem or the average suffrage feminism).
> I don't exactly understand what you mean by feminism (GC/radfem or the average suffrage feminism).
I think that the dissonance in the feminism movement versus their counterparts is that there's a different level of expectations in the topics that they as a movement want to discuss.
When women (or LGBTQA+) are talking about these issues, they're looking for allies, they're looking for compassion and comfort on their journey; and are not interested in the rational solution in the first place.
The obvious topics that nobody talks about in similar topics like child abuse is ridiculous from their perspective. They see the world as "all men are talking about protecting children, but none of them talk about that they need to protect children from men" and that's something that hits the ego on the other side. Men usually have problems putting their egos aside from the topic, and that's what causes the "defending arguments" game; because they project those accusations on themselves directly.
Hence, incels exist, and why kiwifarms, /pol/ and others have huge overlaps in their communities because of it. They simply cannot differ between personal accusations, and comfort themselves with generalizations out of anger and hate.
And everything that was said in a state of anger wasn't true anyways, because it was either an excessive statement to make a point or some over-stylized hearsay. But that's the blame game that worked in school until the more rational side gave up, and hence why nobody is able to put their egos aside later in life to actually try to find a compromise.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#616[dead]
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#617Earlier quoted context omitted.
Freedom of speech is a pretty fundamental value. It's not surprising to expect it beyond where it's legally required.
Freedom of speech was a pretty fundamental value. A couple of generations ago.
Freedom of speech is being distorted by some actors in bad faith that want the freedom to be racist etc.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#618Earlier quoted context omitted.
From an outsider's perspective (NZ) Germany's democracy looks a lot healthier than the US's.
Well, right now there's a odd vogue to think that a healthy democracy does things like ban political parties (currently an active debate regarding the AfD in Germany), or embrace indigenous apartheid movements (NZ, Australia), or to cede sovereignty to unaccountable transnational elites that promise to protect you from the ravages of political misinformation (the EU as a whole.) I don't think these notions will stand…
I see no problems with banning Nazi and Communist parties after what they did to my country.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#619Earlier quoted context omitted.
When in all of US history were private companies not controlling the public discourse and "censoring free speech"?
We didn't used to let private companies control the public discourse. The mail is government-run and there are mail privacy protections as deep as the constitution. In the age of radio and TV we at least had the equal time rule and some level of public oversight.
The mail wasn't really public discourse though.
Newspapers/tv/radio were, and no one was giving nazi's equal time on every issue.
Newspapers only ever published what they wanted to, censoring any viewpoint they felt like censoring.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#620> 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. We know that this will backfire in the long run. Instead, we go after the bad guys themselves and hold them accountable. I like this analogy it hits it home. It really shou…
This analogy doesn't hold up, if you were using a room in a house for illegal activity and you didn't come out, they would absolutely cut your power to come after you.