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

691–700 of 1001 posts

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

#691

Post by jacquesm »

iteria wrote: post #677
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.

True but that's a different problem. As long as companies are allowed to consolidate just this short of obtaining a monopoly that kind of problem will remain. You'd have to address that separately for it to be effective. That's why you always see a lot of competition in a new field which eventually crystalizes out to two, sometimes three main competitors that all have double digit marketshare. It's why we still have Apple and Mozilla. But from the point of view of the would-be monopolists those are optional.

I far preferred it when we had a more diversified eco-system and long run I think we will come to regret this monoculture. But it is hard to spell out exactly what could be done to resolve all this without having the various negative side effects as well as a method of dealing with the now entrenched and very powerful players.

We need 500 search engines, not three, and 500 browser manufacturers, not four. And open, well published and not-dominated-by-a-single-entity standards.

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

#692

Post by lynx23 »

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…

Gibson (Neuromancer) and Stephenson (Snow Crash) have already predicted this corporate-power-future. And it is becoming a reality.

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

#694

Post by metalspot »

woofcat wrote: post #686
metalspot wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

its a free market so people are always welcome to run services that allow pseudonymity (nothing is actually anonymous on the internet, everything is logged and tracked and traceable) and people are free to use them.

the most popular services (facebook/instagram, twitter) are the ones that have the most real people posting stuff under their real names.

those companies continue to allow fake users for a variety of financial reasons but the fake users are actively degrading the experience.

twitter is working on KYC now, but it is a cheap AI version that is easily exploitable, so it won't make much of a difference (as i understand it so far).

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

#695

Post by refurb »

KSteffensen wrote: post #553
refurb wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is that people think “a lack of political debate and extreme views” is a healthy sign of democracy. It’s actually the opposite. Plenty of authoritarian regimes look awfully peaceful because the only acceptable views are the government approved ones. Id take political strife any day over forced “political harmony”. Far better to “air the dirty laundry” than pretend it doesn’t exist.

Depends. Political harmony is a problem if forced, but a common vision shared by much of society is a strength if arrived at through healthy, intellectually honest debate. Political debate is fine and healthy, but it should not be possible to end a debate by being louder, more obnoxious and more ready to do violence than the other debaters.

Of course, but having lived in a lot of “politically harmonious countries” I’ve noticed it’s not harmonious due to some universal belief in the political system, but a combination of political apathy, learned helplessness, political oppression (often subtle) or some cultural belief that you don’t question leaders or that they possess some special attributes that no one else does.

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

#696

Post by laputan_machine »

jeroenhd wrote: post #280

Edit: you know what, debating this here isn't worth the effort. Sad to see the state of this place.

"You don't agree with me so I'll throw my toys out of the pram"

Come off it, debate is debate, you're trying to come to a conclusion, but for that to happen your mind needs to be open to the possibility that you are wrong, can you do that? If not, then yes, debating is not worth the effort.

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

#697

Post by metalspot »

krapp wrote: post #682
metalspot wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

literally zero. if you incur any provable damage you have a legal cause of action in civil court.

[edit] adding here that "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" is a real thing in US law. so, legal remedies do exist.

https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/i...

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

#698

Post by jonititan »

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.

A parliament that cannot initiate legislation and not even completely refuse legislation introduced to the session. Very weird. In UK analogies it's more like the house of lords except it has less revision power on the legislation before it.

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

#699

Post by ddingus »

momirlan wrote: post #683
version_five wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

Big Tech was told they can either see regulation they don't like, or get with the program and ignore corruption like old media has done for decades.

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

#700

Post by ferbivore »

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…

Did you somehow miss the last five million years of history? People have no problem advocating for evil under their own name.
Post reply on HN