Live data from Hacker News

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

eff.org

881–890 of 1001 posts

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

#881
post #540

What 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?

What do you mean “do Nazi stuff”? Germany treads very lightly when it comes to limiting speech, even for Nazi things. They have plenty of far-right racist groups that model themselves after the Nazis. As long as you don’t display the swastika gratuitously (there is no blanket ban), you’re quite free to organize a racist political party and takes seats in the government. Hell, there are still SS alumni groups in Germa…

> Germany treads very lightly when it comes to limiting speech, even for Nazi things.

This is the image it projects, and maybe it was even true in the past. But not any more.

https://www.racket.news/p/madness-american-satirist-cj-hopki...

American playwright and humorist C.J. Hopkins, profiled in this space on numerous occasions, has been sent a “punishment order” by a German judge, offering him a Sophie’s Choice of 60 days in jail or 3,600 euros.

His crime? Essentially, insulting the German health minister in a tweet, and using a scarcely-visible image of a Swastika on a mask in a book critical of the global pandemic response, The Rise of the New Normal Reich.

They're literally punishing a guy for calling someone else a Nazi due to their political policies, under anti-Nazi laws. It's the wrong way around but they don't seem to care, the victim in this case was protesting against their COVID laws so down with those sorts.

Also remember the EU just handed itself the power to force tech firms to globally censor anything the EU decides is misinformation, which in practice appears to be anything that disagrees with their policies or ideology.

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

#882

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, you’ve got weird ideas about citizenship and civil rights if you think that’s the case.

Plenty of rights are conferred by merely being within the borders of a country, regardless of citizenship status. You can be a tourist or even an illegal immigrant in the US and have the right to habeas corpus or the right of non-self-incrimination, for example.

Talking about elevating corporations to be on par with citizens is a fascist idea, which is absolutely adjacent to corporatism.

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

#883

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I'd like to figure out is how there are still so many Nazis There are always going to be people who are fearful and ignorant and looking for a convenient external something to blame their problems on. There are also the people who are raised with those views and others who feel excluded and find a place to belong with a group of "outsiders". I don't think we can ever get rid of racist ideologies. We've evolved…

> To their credit they've also relaxed a bit over the years. For example, they > lifted the ban on Mein Kampf and it flew off the shelves (https://www.bbc.com > /news/world-europe-38495456) not because the country was full of secret Nazis > this whole time just waiting for it, but because the German people strongly > desire freedom. Factually wrong take. Mein Kampf was never "banned", in fact, there is no such thing…

Sure they ban books (or punish authors for writing them, which amounts to the same thing).

https://www.racket.news/p/madness-american-satirist-cj-hopki...

Just when you may have thought things couldn’t get any crazier: American playwright and humorist C.J. Hopkins, profiled in this space on numerous occasions, has been sent a “punishment order” by a German judge, offering him a Sophie’s Choice of 60 days in jail or 3,600 euros.

His crime? Essentially, insulting the German health minister in a tweet, and using a scarcely-visible image of a Swastika on a mask in a book critical of the global pandemic response, The Rise of the New Normal Reich. He was first accused of this “crime” in June, shortly after Roger Waters was placed under investigation for wearing his clearly satirical “Pink” costume in a stage performance in Berlin. As I wrote when C.J. was charged weeks later, authorities claim that through the use of the mask image, C.J. was “disseminating propaganda, the contents of which are intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization.”

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

#884

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Do you have any links to those forum posts?

go on kf and click a few, there's a ton on there. or just look at their _entire forum_ about a trans-woman named christine chandler, in which they document not only her address, but even have photos of her at walmart, game stores, etc

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

#885

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…

The EFF said it best:

> Just because there’s a serious problem doesn’t mean that every response is a good one

Problem: a forum full of misanthropes dedicated to saying the worst things allowed under the first amendment.

Bad solution: erode 1A at the case law level

Bad solution: censor the internet at the backbone level

Freedom isn't free. We're lucky to live in country with robust speech protections. The tradeoff is that there will always be some people who get a kick out of going right to edge of what they can get away. My view is that our civil liberties are worth it.

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

#886

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]

I doubt this. Hackernews still has a disproportionately large number of principled libertarians like me. I've personally gone on kiwifarms twice, both times triggered by a big hackernews story.

You know what would counter disinformation? Links to analysis of kiwifarms with methodology and citations. E.g. what proportion of threads (from, say, a random sample of 20) contain doxxing on the first page?

Edit: I've now done this. Looks like about 25%. Damn, that's high.

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

#887

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

For what it's worth, there are many sites that are just about posting people's PII. Sites like doxbin, which seem to be up with impunity. I'm surprised KF got got, while DB sticks around - DB seems overall worse to me considering that it _is_ a site that is expressly created for harassment

Hopefully the cops take down that site

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

#888
post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Using a common carrier for business is different from purchasing reserved quotas from them and then reselling the access. I can see how it isn’t clear when taken to the extreme, but there’s got to be some balance otherwise a carrier could just resell 100% of the bandwidth to some subsidiary to launder it. I don’t know the answer but this at least seems like a pretty big loophole if it were allowed.

I think you can pretty clearly mentally separate a derivative service originating from a leased common line and Hallmark accepting internet orders.

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

#889

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 c…

You aren't looking very hard

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

#890
post #888

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Using a common carrier for business is different from purchasing reserved quotas from them and then reselling the access. I can see how it isn’t clear when taken to the extreme, but there’s got to be some balance otherwise a carrier could just resell 100% of the bandwidth to some subsidiary to launder it. I don’t know the answer but this at least seems like a pretty big loophole if it were allowed. I think you can pr…

That's actually what Kiwifarms is doing. If you looked at their hosting structure, their providers 1-2 layers up are friends of the admin (one is even posting in this thread), so sending abuse complaints to the hosting provider is dangerous to personal safety. That's why the victims have to go farther upstream to complain to the first reseller who operates in good faith, rather than these fake corporate entities only operated to host kiwifarms.
Post reply on HN