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

681–690 of 1001 posts

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

#681

Post by 4bpp »

akira2501 wrote: post #107
CM30 wrote: post #46

I 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,…

Monopoly power seems secondary here, with the real problem being that there are sufficiently many people now with a totalitarian impulse to forbid others from engaging in speech they dislike that overrides almost any other principle, and no equally obstinate opposition. I am not engaged in and have no interest in any KF-like activity, but merely wanting to choose an ISP, domain registrar, Mastodon instance or email provider that would not filter them as a matter of principle would expose me to the risk of becoming collateral damage, as the armchair censors pressure the closest amenable nodes to participate in what they see as "cutting out the rot" - excise DNS records, range-ban, defederate from your node and recursively any node that would not participate in defederating you, thus forcing the whole world to pick a side.

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

#682

Post by krapp »

metalspot wrote: post #668
krapp wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making the mistake many people make in assuming all communication on the web is strictly two way, and that the only possible outcome of speech online is hurt feelings. If I post your real name, address and bank account credentials online, or photos of you in the bathroom, or start a forum to plan acts of genocide against your race or religion, or maybe spread plausible slander about you on every social media p…

if people are doing something illegal than allowing them to freely post about it online makes it much easier to detect and prosecute.

You'd be surprised how much damage can be done to a person within the technical limits of legality.

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

#683

Post by momirlan »

version_five wrote: post #120
gorwell wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's right. Authoritarian censors found an exploit. They couldn't use the government to clamp down on civil liberties because of the pesky constitution, so they invaded the administrative layer of big tech. It's not the engineers who built the web and these companies with Silicon Valley ideals. They were never intended to be used this way and are secretly horrified. > play moral police at the moment Moral fashion p…

From what I understand re twitter and others, it's the government that found a loophole. They used big tech to censor according to their agenda. The administrative class, while I agree probably has been invaded in some sense, is really just risk aversion run amok, like it always it, and will self organize to do what it can to minimize controversy.

i think it's rather the political establishment has allowed big tech to set the agenda for what it considers to be "the truth"

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

#685

Post by nullifidian »

gorwell wrote: post #109
CM30 wrote: post #46

I 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…

That's right. Authoritarian censors found an exploit. They couldn't use the government to clamp down on civil liberties because of the pesky constitution, so they invaded the administrative layer of big tech. It's not the engineers who built the web and these companies with Silicon Valley ideals. They were never intended to be used this way and are secretly horrified. > play moral police at the moment Moral fashion p…

>so they invaded the administrative layer of big tech.

Not exactly. While there are certainly people who espouse anti-free-speech views in the big tech, I'm pretty sure the companies themselves are pressured/threatened with increased regulatory scrutiny, anti-thrust action and anything else that is at congress/government's disposal. These congress/senate hearings about misinformation are exactly that.

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

#686

Post by woofcat »

metalspot wrote: post #658
chonkerz wrote: post #462

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 don't have to imagine. Instead on censoring speech why not provide tools that lead to better speech? This is perfectly possible from a tech stand point but companies would rather have the power that comes from censorship. 1. Get rid of anonymity/pseudonymity. Free speech is a right. Anonymity is not. If people had to post everything in their real name you would get rid of all of the fake b.s. and people would be mu…

That is a hot take. So if you post asking about abortion access as a 16 year old that should have your name plastered next to it.

The internet has saved many people by opening up questions you wouldn't ask your doctor.

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

#687

Post by momirlan »

plagiarist wrote: post #150

What I'd like to figure out is how there are still so many Nazis despite readily-available facts that Naziism is racist delusions? And how are countries like Germany still doing kinda okay despite making it illegal to do Nazi stuff? Isn't it a slippery slope directly from banning Naziism direct to North Korean-style authoritarianism?

"nazi" is a name people call those they don't like: mother in laws, their bosses, the school principal, political opponents... it is used so often, it lost a real meaning.

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

#688

Post by momirlan »

mftrhu wrote: post #593
aydyn wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you not take horseshoe theory seriously? There are countless examples of opposing extremists converging on similar beliefs.

Only at a very superficial level.

like Stalin and Hitler

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

#690

Post by ddingus »

CM30 wrote: post #46

I 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…

Lessig wrote about this in the 90's. His book "CODE" was more predictive than I prefer. :(
Post reply on HN