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

851–860 of 1001 posts

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

#851

Post by Anon_Forever »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #828
yanderekko wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall reading the other day about Germany making deadnaming a crime..

It sure seems strange to want to fight for your right to be deliberately rude to someone. If someone says they want to be Stephen instead of Stephanie, choosing to continue calling them Stephanie is just being a dick for no reason. It's one thing if you've known them for years and so breaking the habit of calling them Stephanie is hard, but when that happens, you apologize and call them Stephen. While I agree that ma…

[flagged]

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

#852

Post by bloopernova »

chonkerz wrote: post #813
dmitri_ignat wrote: post #783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sta…

[flagged]

It's annoying that they're trying to remove your comment via downvoting.

It's amazing to me that some people are so determined to defend KF when it appears that the best defense they have is: "no suicides have been definitively linked to KF." I know their public reason is all about censorship etc, but I'd like to know what their private reason really is.

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

#853

Post by kiitos »

t43562 wrote: post #451

I think it might be impossible to avoid having to make moral judgements. You might wish to believe that you free society can exist without any morality but I don't think it can really. So what is "ok" and what is "not ok" - would you censor the NAZI party in the 1930s or do you think that letting theim air their views fully would convince Germans not to accept them? 10s of millions of lives depend on your choice.

Of course it is impossible to avoid moral judgment. Moral judgment is an obligation of every society.

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

#854

Post by stale2002 »

pfisch wrote: post #627
stale2002 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we made laws to prevent them from doing so. In the US, related to this specific situation, the laws are called "Net Neutrality" and "Common Carrier" laws. Such laws are well established and uncontroversial. Pretty much everyone agrees that it is a good thing that the power company can't shut off your electricity just because you said something that it didn't like.

Those weren't really the public square or a mass communication system though. You're kinda comparing apples and oranges.

If you want an example of something that is almost quite literally the public square, you could look at the court case robin vs pruneyard.

In this case, the government forced privately owned malls to allow political protests. So yes the government has forced public squares to be open to the public and prevents private companies from censoring political speech in those public squares.

> or a mass communication system though

Common carriers quite literally are mass communication systems. What do you think common carriers "carry"? The answer is that many of them carry communication.

Things like the phone system are for mass communication.

So yes, we have laws that effect both the public square and mass communication systems.

ISPs are also communication systems and laws called "net neutrality" laws force them to do certain things.

In fact, this article itself is about how the ISP is acting illegally and is breaking existing laws about what the ISPs can censor.

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

#855

Post by b215826 »

teachrdan wrote: post #842
b215826 wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol. EFF are now a bunch of virtue signalling hacks pretending to care about Internet free speech. They outed themselves as total hypocrites when they joined the "RMS is an ist" bandwagon and removed Gilmore from their board. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-... http://techrights.org/2021/11/05/not-the-frontier-anymore/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/25/john_gilmore_removed_...

> They outed themselves as total hypocrites when they joined the "RMS is an ist" bandwagon Are you suggesting that, because of his work writing and promoting open source software, that EFF should never be allowed to criticize RMS? Is that what makes them "total hypocrites"?

No, the EFF is allowed to criticize RMS as much as they want. Criticizing RMS doesn't make them hypocritical. However, linking [1] and spreading slanderous lies (I'm talking about Selam G.'s hitpieces [2] from 2019) isn't very fitting for an organization that claims to defend Internet free speech.

RMS never defended Epstein -- not even once. His only crime was being a pedantic aspie. If the EFF considers that to be good enough reason to cancel him, then yes, I think that EFF are total hypocrites. FWIW, EFF's official blog post only linked Selam G.'s hitpiece that has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere [3].

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-...

[2] https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix...

[3] https://stallmansupport.org

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

#856

Post by wvenable »

rhelz wrote: post #818
wvenable wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But calling for more government regulation of privately-owned services? Forcing private companies to do what you want them to do, even when they would prefer not to? Yes! That's what it's going to take. If you want checks and balances, this is how you get them. Ultimately capitalism is supposed to benefit society as a whole and when it doesn't it needs a kick in the ass. > The whole point of private property is tha…

What, exactly, do you think these regulations should be? What kind of regulation would solve this problem? E.g. contrast with, say, regulation of pharmaceuticals by the FDA. Certainly a curb on private property rights, but, its also pretty clear what the regulations should do: allow companies to sell only drugs which have been proven to be both safe and effective. Is there such a very clear idea of how these proposed…

This sort of questioning just supports maintaining the status quo even if that benefits nobody.

I don't know what the regulations should be but that doesn't mean regulations shouldn't exist. Businesses are under perhaps thousands of regulations and I can only name a few. How many can you name? What problems do those regulations solve? Do you think they shouldn't exist as well?

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

#858

Post by chonkerz »

mrweasel wrote: post #592
IncogNET wrote: post #92

Glad to see this. Hurricane Electric has behaved in such an incredibly unprofessional manner regarding this entire ordeal. It began here: https://twitter.com/IncogNetLLC/status/1685359845505957888 We filed a complaint with the Washington state AG over their actions. HE's response was more or less technically obtuse garbage and, "You're not our direct customer" (paraphrasing, of course). So what they did, was take it…

So not knowing either company, is IncogNet and CrunchBits related companies in some way? I ask because the article just talks about Crunchbits, which I didn't know about. I tried to look looking up CrunchBits, but that's not really possible on Bing based search engines. There are a few links to reviews, but the Crunchbits website seems to have scrubbed from Bing.

[flagged]

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

#859

Post by chonkerz »

IncogNET wrote: post #595
chonkerz wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You host death threats and leaked PII, and the forum owner explicitly encourages his followers to harass specific people he has a personal grudge against. He names entire sections of his forums after his victims and encourages people to post about his victims. You're lying. He's not running a neutral operation and neither are you. The forum doxes employees of their hosting providers. Even Russian hosters terminated k…

Except, we don't host them? Didn't you hear, Hurricane Electric didn't allow us to host Kiwifarms. I haven't followed up with our customer to see who their new hosting provider is. If you believe we're hosting something illegal, I do encourage you to message our abuse department so we can review it and take appropriate action if deemed necessary. I understand you feel strongly about the issue but we run an honest bus…

[flagged]

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

#860

Post by [deleted] »

t43562 wrote: post #451

I think it might be impossible to avoid having to make moral judgements. You might wish to believe that you free society can exist without any morality but I don't think it can really. So what is "ok" and what is "not ok" - would you censor the NAZI party in the 1930s or do you think that letting theim air their views fully would convince Germans not to accept them? 10s of millions of lives depend on your choice.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN