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

671–680 of 1001 posts

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

#671

Post by zirgs »

chonkerz wrote: post #455
nonethewiser wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I agree, we've got far too many entities that should just be 'dumb pipes' trying to play moral police at the moment This is one of the positives of capitalism. The only color that matters is green. More competition please.

It's because the police have really failed to enforce existing laws that people have to resort to leaning on ISPs and payment processors to do it.

As far as I know - no laws prohibit adult pornography. Payment processors just decided to enforce their own laws.

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

#672

Post by metalspot »

wrp wrote: post #347

Serious legal question...What is the difference between an online venue and telephones? Is it simply that implementation of censoring is practicable? Could the telephone companies start "moderating" all phone communications to prevent unsavory communication?

censorship is all about power so the focus is on controlling any mechanism of broadcast communication that could result in political organization. traditional voice communication over phones is very inefficient compared to internet based text communication so it would probably be a low priority by comparison.

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

#674

Post by hotdogscout »

cookiengineer wrote: post #615
hotdogscout wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I did not fully understand your post (men are irrational when being accused of enabling child abuse, I still don't know what kind of feminists you mean).

I think you also didn't spend enough time among incels, KF or /pol/ to understand them.

KF is a moralist forum, they have more jn common with progressive twitter with the incessant policing of behaviour than incels or /pol/.

Incels resent women because they don't have them, it's a sour grapes situation.

/pol/ is a containment board for politics on 4chan. These people exist before feminism took the internet stage of most important topic, even in the atheist vs religious era. I don't think they're a response to feminists generalizing men (which is irrational, if you disagree please state your reasoning).

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

#675

Post by sneak »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #656
chonkerz wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EFF is arguing that companies should lose their right to withdraw service due to TOS violation, unless the government says it's ok. This is as anti-freedom as it gets. What is wrong with them

Do you think your phone company should be able to deny you service if they don't like the things you say on the phone?

Any company should be free to deny you service for any (or no) reason. Consent should be able to be withdrawn by anyone at any time.

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

#676

Post by newsclues »

bArray wrote: post #641

> That’s why EFF has long argued that we must “protect the stack” by saying no to infrastructure providers policing internet content. I agree with this, but you need to understand what you agree to. It's not just the content you want to see - it's also the content you don't want to see. It's the freedom of the most extreme content imaginable - CP, snuff, murder, doxxing, drugs, etc, etc. People will experience severe…

"If you receive government assistance (money/drugs) for a mental disability, a filtered version of the internet should be available to you."

Not every mental disability makes people stupid enough to make them need a filtered internet.

As someone in that category, but still able to think, if people like you nerf my internet, the amount of rage and anger that I will unleash upon society is going to be endless.

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

#677

Post by iteria »

jacquesm wrote: post #673

They don't have to police it, but they don't have to facilitate it either. ISPs should be just as free as any other company to decide who they want to do business with.

For that to be a reasonable stand people should have reasonable ways to avoid doing business with various ISPs and that's not thr case for many. Their options are one company, maybe two and then they're out of luck. At least if ISP were a real utility in the US they're be able to apply pressure with their votes.

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

#679

Post by 6LLvveMx2koXfwn »

ben_w wrote: post #666
yanderekko wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The EU isn't unaccountable, unlike most free trade agreements it's also got a parliament that citizens can vote for. NAFTA or TTIP — unless I've fallen for the exact same propaganda that led to Brexit — would have been better examples.

Whatever it's benefits the EU is a terrible example of democracy, to the extent that I would say it is not directly representative of 'the people'.

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

#680

Post by raxxorraxor »

indigo945 wrote: post #602
raxxorraxor wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tra…

There are also laws against "gross mischief". While the legal definition is more precise than the term might imply, you can be certain that such laws exist.

I picked the example because it can collide with freedom of speech as you can imagine. If you demonstrating something and your placard is seen as insulting, the police can force you to take it down.

Laws against speech like "Volksverhetzung" were already in place in the late 19th century. The monarchy was ended in 1918. There is a constant with laws restricting speech and it is mostly those in power just wanting to do so. That was mostly the case in Germany.

> As Goebbels, the Nazi's chief propagandist, himself said

Perhaps he said that so people start to destroy democracy themselves. He had a knack for propaganda and fooling people.

Post reply on HN