Live data from Hacker News

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

eff.org

871–880 of 1001 posts

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

#871

Once again the EFF is proving that they'll stand behind their principles and defend freedom even for those they disagree with. They are one of the few remaining organizations that I feel I can support without reservation. Taking this difficult position isn't easy, but it is the right thing to do and I'm so glad to see that the EFF has the strength to do it in the face of growing opposition to free speech ideals.

This is a weird one though. They're defending the freedom of criminals to commit crimes while simultaneously calling for the criminals to be prosecuted.

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

#872
post #568

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_

What about this:

  - Universal suffrage
  - Proportional representation
  - Voting for women
  - Minimum wage
  - Eight-hour workday
  ...

Not too terrible right? It's copied straight up from the Fascist Manifesto.

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

#873

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was later in July. To be clear, filing a complaint is simply an online form. This does not involve or require lawyers or any expense. The TLDR version is: We filed it as a violation of HB2282, Washignton State's Net Neutrality / Open Internet laws, the AG thought it was an appropriate complaint and forwarded it to HE. This gives them 21 days to respond. They (HE) responded relatively quickly, basically saying, "Na…

If HE is lying in response to a complaint forwarded to them by the AG, that seems like something the AG really should investigate. Edit: It's odd to see this downvoted. I don't care about Kiwifarms or all the other random crazy crap being discussed in this comment thread. But I do feel that companies should be honest in their communications. I'm surprised people here disagree.

A lot of the "people here" are from Kiwifarms because this thread got linked to from their site. So a lot of untrue claims are being made about the facts of the situation.

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

#874

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations are essentially citizens, and citizens have the right to free speech. We can agree or disagree, but this where we've allowed ourselves to get. HE is within their rights to say no, we will not host or route to KF, to stop us would violate our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression. They would then point to a litany of issues surrounding KF, how it would impact their business, and then w…

The idea of corporations being legal people is questionable in the first place, but now you’re going to argue that they’re not only people but citizens ?!

I don't disagree. If a corporation has civil rights, they're akin to being a person/entity in which those rights are guaranteed aka citizenship. Some might argue that America is a "corporatocracy" for this very reason.

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

#875

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

"bulletproof hoster communities like LowEndTalk" This is a joke, right? lmao

One of Kiwifarms past hosts was seized by the police for being a criminal bulletproof hoster and it made waves in the LowEndTalk community

https://lowendbox.com/blog/polish-bulletproof-host-lolek-hos...

>But, what is clear is right around the time Sprint data center kicked Kiwi Farms off their network (according to Joshua Moon, founder of Kiwi Farms), Lolek Hosted was seized by the FBI

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

#876

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It officially discourages actual harassment of the people it insults. I imagine the moderators giving the same "No, please, don't do this" with the exact same level of authority as Willy Wonka telling people "no don't": https://youtu.be/W9ZD3_ppcPE It's a bullshit, paper-thin "policy" that exists only for KF to cover their own asses. Let's make one thing clear, the only purpose for publishing someone's home address…

> the only purpose for publishing someone's home address, place of employment, phone number, etc.

I do not recall seeing those in the threads I looked at (which all have an opening post collecting information about the individual).

Can you confirm what proportion, if any, of main posts had that info? Can you also confirm that KF does not have a policy of removing that info?

I can't access kiwifarms at the moment to check, but I strongly suspect that information is in obscure posts by individuals and their "community" as a whole does not condone it and it is removed where obvious.

Edit: I have now accessed the site and confirm a culture of doxxing, with 3 of the 10 opening posts proudly having "doxx" sections.

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

#877
post #872
post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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_

What about this: - Universal suffrage - Proportional representation - Voting for women - Minimum wage - Eight-hour workday ... Not too terrible right? It's copied straight up from the Fascist Manifesto.

How dare the evil WEF curtail my RIGHT as a CAPITALIST to pay my employees as I deem fit?

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

#878
post #818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

// This sort of questioning // chuckle Surely you are not trying to suppress my right to ask questions? :-) We are all frustrated here and know things have got to change somehow. It's just not exactly obvious how, not to me anyways.

But suppose we actually did have a concrete proposal, something we could legislate. No matter what the legislation was, there would still be media winners and media losers. And the media losers would still feel they are being systematically excluded.

Here's the kicker--they would be absolutely right!! Moreover, they wouldn't have to appeal to vague dissatisfactions about "corporate abuses"--they could point to specific line items of regulations which had the effect of suppressing their speech. There would be endless, highly politicized fights about what the regulations should be, but no matter what they were, the regulations would inevitably have the effect of promoting some points of view and suppressing others.

I.E. I really don't how regulations could provide any sort of solution to this problem.

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

#879

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 g…

> His only crime was being a pedantic aspie.

If you actually read the article by Selam G., you'll immediately see that this is false.

"When I was a teen freshman, I went to a buffet lunch at an Indian restaurant in Central Square with a graduate student friend and others from the AI lab. I don’t know if he and I were the last two left, but at a table with only the two of us, Richard Stallman told me of his misery and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him."

This is clearly a case of sexual coercion. If, due to autism, RMS was totally unable to avoid sexually harassing women he had power over, then clearly he should never have had a position of power in FSF or anywhere else.

"Many, many years ago, women in the AI and CS labs met to deal with the problematic atmosphere for women in the labs. We met as a group, discussed the issues, complied examples, presented them to the labs, then wrote a report. In the early 80’s, it was a pretty big deal but it would seem it did not have lasting effects."

RMS clearly harmed many women over many years. It's telling that people like you never acknowledge the accounts of women who have specific, individual complaints against him. Even the Stallman Support page you link to has a bunch of pedantic corrections over whether RMS "really" defended Epstein, in addition to generic articles about cancel culture that say nothing about RMS harassing women grad students at MIT.

EFF was correct in criticizing RMS. He shouldn't have been on the board of FSF or any other organization.

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

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

#880
post #618

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…

I see no problems with banning Nazi and Communist parties after what they did to my country.

The AfD isn't a Nazi or Communist party, so that's pretty irrelevant.
Post reply on HN