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

791–800 of 1001 posts

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

#791

Post by richbell »

chonkerz wrote: post #790
richbell wrote: post #778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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]

> You know full well the series of companies Kiwifarms has gone through, because you are an obvious Kiwifarms user astroturfing this thread. I won't waste time on your bad faith questions.

I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the Kiwi Farms. I simply do not believe it is just that public pressure basic on dubious or false claims can completely kick a website off the Internet.

Regardless, it's clear by your response that you are operating in bad faith.

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

#792

Post by fzeroracer »

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…

You realize that the origin of their changing stance is because they got someone killed, right? It's great to posit that free speech is the best disinfectant, until your principles result in people getting injured and killed. They were warned that the Rally was likely to break out into violence by the city itself but went ahead with their lawsuit anyways.

As a result, going to bat for the Unite the Right rally in 2017 was a massive misstep and resulted in them losing a large amount of donors and professionals working for them. Naturally they would've needed to change or else they collapse and don't function at all.

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

#794

Post by gwright »

dcow wrote: post #767
greyface- wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really think HE owns most of the fiber they use? It's mostly leased from much larger behemoths that own the physical cables, who treat it as a private conduit for photons, and lack the ability to even know what's being transmitted over it, so can't censor. Source: https://he.net/about_network.html - you see them talk about "negotiating with the top fiber carriers" and even "long haul wavelengths", which means…

I don’t see a functional difference, do you? In other words, if I have been granted conditional protected exclusive ownership of physical fiber lines and that requires me to be a common carrier, I can launder the common carrier responsibility by leasing guaranteed bandwidth downstream? That does not check out…

I'm not sure if this transitive common carrier approach makes sense.

Wouldn't that mean that every company that used telephony, railroads, airlines, or shipping would have to be behave like a common carrier?

I'm not sure what the correct balance is but I don't think it makes sense to force common carrier status to propagate in the way you seem to be suggesting.

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

#795

Post by kmeisthax »

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…

You're right - there's an extra step. Most of the worst, most toxic shitholes on the Internet are not just unmoderated Nazi Bars, but actively moderated to silence the people telling the Nazis off. Nazi Bar explains the decay of USENET and 4chan, but not, say, Parler. Parler editorializes the shit out of their algorithm and website and actively bans left-wingers that might interrupt the perfect far-right echo chamber they want.

Major social networks don't do this, but they do actively boost things that create engagement, which is something right-wingers are very good at manufacturing. They use sockpuppet accounts to do that. This means that the underlying amount of toxicity on the Internet is not fixed - i.e. these forums not toxic purely because everyone else kicked them out and concentrated the toxicity, and we can't just disperse the toxicity. Dispersing the toxicity creates more toxicity.

Also, the forums you remember from decades ago were likely way more moderated than you remember, and probably run by people powertripping as hard as Elon Musk or Spez. The difference was that you could just leave without consequence and never come back. You don't have that luxury with Facebook or Twitter.

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

#796

Post by Dan_Sylveste »

fzeroracer wrote: post #792
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…

You realize that the origin of their changing stance is because they got someone killed, right? It's great to posit that free speech is the best disinfectant, until your principles result in people getting injured and killed. They were warned that the Rally was likely to break out into violence by the city itself but went ahead with their lawsuit anyways. As a result, going to bat for the Unite the Right rally in 201…

> your principles result in people getting injured and killed

Good principles remain good regardless of exceptional circumstances.

> needed to change or else they collapse and don't function at all

Yeah, they changed _and_ they don't function at all. Now they just protect the causes their donors agree with while retaining the prestige of the name.

Personally I think a total collapse would have been preferable.

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

#797

Post by phpisthebest »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #761
Dan_Sylveste wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people who want to exterminate people This is the oddly standard wording used in defense of these newly-fashionable 'everything you've ever done ever can be used against you' contributor codes of conduct and I have to find it very disingenuous. By and large nobody wants to exterminate anybody. People have legitimate differences of opinion and when they attempt to express them they're being told that even _thinking_…

> This is the oddly standard wording used in defense of these newly-fashionable 'everything you've ever done ever can be used against you' contributor codes of conduct and I have to find it very disingenuous. Please provide me an example of a code of conduct you find objectionable on these grounds. I have yet to see one that fits the language used both in this and the parent comment I originally replied to of being "…

Clearly you have not followed this topic closely, how about you look into the DruPal issues or "Dongle Gate" or the Firing the Firefox CEO, James Damore, or 100's of other examples of people being removed from projects for differences of opinions far far far far less than wanting to "exterminate" people

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

#798

Post by gameman144 »

jasonlotito wrote: post #737
amiga386 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, the ACLU have lost their way. https://web.archive.org/web/20210608004853/https://www.nytim... > the organization finds itself riven with internal tensions over whether it has stepped away from a founding principle — unwavering devotion to the First Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union... > Beginning in 2017, some individuals claimed the ACLU was reducing its support of unpop…

> 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-…

> 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."

This itself is the bad bit, IMO. My expectation of the ACLU is that they will always defend the rights of individuals, regardless of the goals of those exercising those rights.

When the ACLU defended Nazis marching in Skokie, they weren't defending the goals of Nazis to strip ethnic minorities of rights; they were solely defending first amendment rights.

The logic here seems so fragile that I don't see how one could see it as anything other than a bad thing if they value the ACLU as a bastion for defending rights.

For instance, if a criminal is actively going around and killing people from one political bent or ethnic background, they are clearly not respecting the rights of others.

Should we decide that it's okay to not grant them a speedy trial, since giving a jury the right to free them would definitely get in the way of theother rights we care about?

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

#799

Post by Dan_Sylveste »

hnbad wrote: post #567
mortenjorck wrote: post #8

It'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.

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…

> And this inevitably means you get an overrepresentation of

Why do you assume this very consistent pattern of 'new forum overrun by [the material you've mentioned]' is anything other than a transparent attack on free discourse?

I mean, it's very consistent, isn't it? Everyone knows it happens, and it's a good way to scare people off even thinking about visiting those forums if they think that any day they could go there and have their browser history full of ick.

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

#800

Post by gameman144 »

fzeroracer wrote: post #792
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…

You realize that the origin of their changing stance is because they got someone killed, right? It's great to posit that free speech is the best disinfectant, until your principles result in people getting injured and killed. They were warned that the Rally was likely to break out into violence by the city itself but went ahead with their lawsuit anyways. As a result, going to bat for the Unite the Right rally in 201…

> You realize that the origin of their changing stance is because they got someone killed, right?

The ACLU didn't get anyone killed, violent right-wing individuals did. The right to have a political protest rally is enshrined in the Constitution.

Consider the looting and rioting that took place following the George Floyd protests. It would be absurd to suggest that because violence and crime was happening at some of these events, the political speech they represented might not be worth protecting.

Post reply on HN