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

781–790 of 1001 posts

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

#781

Post by ForgottenPwd »

justrealist wrote: post #304
_lvbh wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile in the rest of the world, we don’t even have free speech. If only America could export their constitution like they do their weapons

I mean that's basically this history of the US in Latin America, but everyone complains anyway.

What? I don't recall ever having heard the US spread democracy in Latin America. The US destabilized democratically elected governments and propped up violent regimes in Latin America to benefit private industry and "combat Communism". The US Army School of the Americas was a finishing school for Latin American dictators and strongmen, as well as other murderers. https://irp.fas.org/crs/soa.htm

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

#782

Post by richbell »

habinero wrote: post #468
tjpnz wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been numerous civil suits against KF, not one of them has succeeded.

Mostly because they tend to pick on people who can only file pro se, not because of any inherent merit.

> Mostly because they tend to pick on people who can only file pro se, not because of any inherent merit.

This is demonstrably false. Kiwi Farms has thousands of threads on people ranging from Elon Musk to random Internet streamers. At least one of the most popular threads seems to be about a lawyer (Nick Rekeita).

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

#783

Post by dmitri_ignat »

concordDance wrote: post #636
chonkerz wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article, the EFF explicitly calls out the government for failing to enforce existing laws which would have shut down Kiwifarms >That’s what must happen here. The cops and the courts should be working to protect the victims of KF and go after the perpetrators with every legal tool at their disposal. We should be giving them the resources and societal mandate to do so. Solid enforcement of existing laws is som…

The issue there is that as best I can tell, kiwifarms the site doesn't break any laws. It officially discourages actual harassment of the people it insults. Individual users may harass people but as far as I could tell from my previous skim they do not organize this harassment in the open. And requiring service providers to monitor private communications for organisation of harassment seems Orwellian to me. (Intuitio…

I'm curious what the function of publishing a targets home address, personal phone number, place of employment, and so on is supposed to be if they don't condone harassment. One might suspect that the rule against harrassment is just paper-thin ass-covering. Officially they'll also tell you they just collate and archive freely available information, while for example publishing and micro-analyzing the hacked bank statements of a streamer they don't like, with enthusiastic support from the moderators.

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

#784

Post by digging »

Dan_Sylveste wrote: post #779
jasonlotito wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Indeed, the ACLU have lost their way. Indeed, they haven't. > The memo listed several factors to consider, including "the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values." i.e. Consider whether we'd be arguing against our own goals. How anyone reasonable could consider this a bad thing, I don't know. https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-…

> How anyone reasonable could consider this a bad thing, I don't know. Because it's completely unproven. Their theory is that 'free speech advances the goals of [others whose views are contrary to our values]' but that's not proven, that's just their theory. It's held for ages that free speech works as it allows for the 'disinfectant of sunlight' i.e. that ideas stand and fall on their merits with all relevant partie…

> It's held for ages that free speech works as it allows for the 'disinfectant of sunlight' i.e. that ideas stand and fall on their merits with all relevant parties allowed to discuss freely.

Also not proven ?

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

#785

Post by tastyfreeze »

yrro wrote: post #568
imadierich wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

blame the WEF and 16 UN STG

> Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels oh no how _terrible_

Many of those words have different meanings to the in group.

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

#787

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

0x0000000 wrote: post #774
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are not only a transit provider, in fact they wouldn't need to own IPs at all if they were. Inconvenient fact: Layer 3 routers use IP addresses for each of their network interfaces. This is actually how they provide transit.

RFC 6598? Interfaces needing an address does not mean the business needs to own IP address space.

I am not sure what you're trying to tell me with an RFC pertaining only to CGNAT. We're talking about transit providers running core and backbone routers here. Such routers aren't running NAT of any kind, and they aren't customer-facing appliances.

The transit provider needs to own some IP space to assign addresses to router interfaces. This is how internetwork routing works. It goes from one network to another, and the router must be a member of the source and destination network in order to participate in each hop.

A transit provider doesn't need many IP addresses in total; if all they're running is core routers then they need sparse allocations: a point-to-point link only needs a /30 or /31 to function correctly. They'll still need to own a variety of netblocks, though, because if they offer transit and backbone services then these will be geographically disparate, and they will necessarily transit a large amount of logical address space.

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

#788

Post by Dan_Sylveste »

digging wrote: post #784
Dan_Sylveste wrote: post #779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How anyone reasonable could consider this a bad thing, I don't know. Because it's completely unproven. Their theory is that 'free speech advances the goals of [others whose views are contrary to our values]' but that's not proven, that's just their theory. It's held for ages that free speech works as it allows for the 'disinfectant of sunlight' i.e. that ideas stand and fall on their merits with all relevant partie…

> It's held for ages that free speech works as it allows for the 'disinfectant of sunlight' i.e. that ideas stand and fall on their merits with all relevant parties allowed to discuss freely. Also not proven ?

What proof would you accept? What pass and fail conditions?

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

#789

Post by digging »

leetcrew wrote: post #756
hnbad wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstand the EFF's position here if you think this is some kind of enlightened centrist "I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to death for your right to say it": the EFF is opposed to ISPs filtering content because that is not the job of an ISP and not a level of analysis an ISP should be allowed (much less required) to do. The EFF very much promotes progressive values, more consistentl…

the "nazi bar" concept does accurately describe the problem with sites like parlor today, but I'd argue it's only true now because heavy moderation has become the default. most of the internet was not like this 10-15 years ago. forums and even large social media platforms were moderated lightly, if at all. you would commonly see edgelords dropping slurs, but it did not dominate the discussion. I don't think the entir…

> most of the internet was not like this 10-15 years ago. forums and even large social media platforms were moderated lightly, if at all. you would commonly see edgelords dropping slurs, but it did not dominate the discussion.

Either you're thinking of a time much further back than 10-15 years (that is, 2008-2013), or you're wrong. Or - could be you were just in the Nazi bars at the time, also. My experience in a variety of online places at that time was that "edgelords" got told off or kicked out in most. A few places didn't, and they were already or became the Nazi bars. Alternately, the Nazis would be herded into a smaller subset of the platform, which became the Nazi bar.

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

#790

Post by chonkerz »

richbell wrote: post #778
chonkerz wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kiwifarms makes shell companies so the hosting provider is a confederate and the only way to terminate service is to go over their head and complain to the upstream. You can even see "their hosting provider" posting weird political astroturfing in this thread. Spammers do this trick all the time to buy some plausible deniability.

> Kiwifarms makes shell companies Can you provide examples of shell companies they've used? As far as I'm aware, Kiwi Farms only had a single LLC which is based in the US.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN