Being able to choose which private entities your business materially supports is a natural consequence of freedom. As long as ISPs are private businesses, their operators will and should have basic freedoms. The fact that _people_ are dropping KF left and right is just normal and healthy socialization at work. Lack of competition with American ISPs and whether they should be public utilities are real concerns, but fundamentally has nothing to do with KF being widely regarded as a flaming turd.
ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
741–750 of 1001 posts
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#742Earlier quoted context omitted.
Focus on speech though. Can the Phone company cut you off because of the content of your communication? Assuming you aren't breaking any other law like harassment? The deciding factor is if your business revolves around facilitating speech. The law has some way to go to catch up with the current state of affairs, but right now the government is enjoying the power of censoring that speech so it may not be an easy path…
Kiwifarms is breaking a lot of harassment and stalking laws.
[deleted]
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#743Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read up on the Kiwifarms Wikipedia page [0] it sounds like someone needs to go to jail. Until this moment I'd never believed that sending someone a pizza would qualify as an act of violence - but now I can see it. If the site doesn't break laws then there is no reason to ban it. But there are criminals using that site and they should be caught. Banning the site is just dodging the real problem. [0] https://en.…
>>you read up on the Kiwifarms You should read up on what actually happened, one a unbiased source. Which si not Wikipedia.
But why not take the extra 30 seconds to link (what you consider to be) an unbiased source?
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#744It's heartening to see the EFF come out sticking to principles on this in a time when other organizations of their stature have not. I hate to say it, but I could easily imagine something like the ACLU opposing the EFF on this.
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.
The corporation is either responsible for its content or it's not.
If they can pick and choose whatever message they like with absolute discretion, then that's effectively the corporation's speech and should be treated as such, with full responsibility over it.
If they don't want to bear the responsibility for what they publish, then it's easy, don't pretend to have the legitimacy to choose.
That the same social media platform can have as big of a change in views as Twitter/X did is insane to me. That's not "the public changing opinion". That's a corporation exercising speech. Full stop.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#745Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not every mental disability makes people stupid enough to make them need a filtered internet. It's not about being stupid, it's about being vulnerable. Also it may not be appropriate in every case. I am also weary of removing the ability to access the internet from otherwise functioning adults. I've not quite happy to have a solid stance on it just yet. As I said: "[..] a filtered version of the internet should be…
If you think it’s in societies best interest to filter the internet for people like me, don’t worry about my access to firearms. I’m not an idiot and I don’t need guns to dedicate all my time to ruining society and destroying infrastructure.
> If you think it’s in societies best interest to filter the internet for people like me, don’t worry about my access to firearms.
I can't talk about "people like you", I don't know you. Your immediate jump towards the destruction of society upon discussion on an opt-in filtering of your internet is concerning.
> I’m not an idiot and I don’t need guns to dedicate all my time to ruining society and destroying infrastructure.
I'm not calling you an idiot. The guns were just an example of a right that can removed if a person is mentally unwell. Again, I am still completely undecided how it would be offered in such a way that cannot be politically weaponized. I would default to the null position, which is not to offer it unless such issues could first be addressed.
As for your disillusions of grandeur regarding the 'ruining society and destroying infrastructure' - I think your years of smoking weed to treat your depression are catching up with you. I won't reply further as I don't want to fuel whatever it is you're going through, but please reach out to those around you for help.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#746Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>It's not the engineers who built the web and these companies I 100% disagree with this, the engineering level of silicon valley left the old "libertarian" hacker ethos behind a long time ago, at the engineering layer there is idea about using technology to build a "better society" where "better society" is ensuring people with "wrong opinions" isolated so they can not "harm" others with their "violence" and violenc…
> I 100% disagree with this, the engineering level of silicon valley left the old "libertarian" hacker ethos behind a long time ago And thank fuck for that. > at the engineering layer there is idea about using technology to build a "better society" where "better society" is ensuring people with "wrong opinions" isolated so they can not "harm" others with their "violence" and violence is now words on the internet. Peo…
Yes there’s a strange double standard with the “its just words on the internet” perspective. On the one hand, it’s an Orwellian nightmare that Twitter would ban accounts for “having the wrong opinions”, but on the other hand who cares it’s just talking on the internet.
Which one is it? Does your speech have a real world impact? If yes, then you have to acknowledge that it can cause real damage and that private companies have no obligation to accommodate that. If its just meaningless words, then why does it matter that companies ban anyone for any speech?
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#747Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate to tell you, but attributing all feminist campaigning to some kind of misplaced compassion or lack of rationality is pretty misogynist. We got plenty of things that need and have benefitted from advocacy. Feminists and queer people are not a monolith, and they're allowed to care about the things they care about specifically - just like everyone else. Fascists are responsible for being fascists, not foreigners…
> I hate to tell you, but attributing all feminist campaigning to some kind of misplaced compassion or lack of rationality is pretty misogynist. That's exactly what I am talking about. Attributing all feminist campaigning to anything specific is impossible (and therefore an excessive statement to make a point). It's far beyond human knowability by any means anyways. And implying misogynist behavior to the statements…
Let me just full-quote you, because this seems pretty clear, regardless of tone.
> 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.
Criticizing that you are baselessly asserting that women and queer people are irrational, not interested in solutions and instead "looking for compassion and comfort on their journey" and that this assessment might be a product of your prejudice against women is irrational?
Irrefutable logic. Circular even.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#748Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I find it baffling that so much of the public is content with ostracizing despicable people when it's precisely "racists and bigoted users".
The only reason that those are despicable nowadays is precisely because minorities and their supporters, which were considered despicable at the time, exercised their freedom of speech.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#749What 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.
It retains that meaning in 99.98% of political discourse: "[topic] is something I dislike and/or reminds me of something/someone I dislike, and it's the only way for me to express that my enemy is subhuman without sounding like a psycho fascist myself"
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#750Earlier 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…
If kiwifarms was just about being a jerk and not about doxing I do not think people would have as big a problem.