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

901–910 of 1001 posts

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

#901

Post by kelseyfrog »

psychlops wrote: post #718
kelseyfrog wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an interesting way it is also an exploitable facet of small government. If the private sector is susceptible to moral policing then then government downsizing implies a larger attack surface.

Are you suggesting that government (big or small) is immune to moral policing and that it's confined to the private sector? Any centralized system is subject to attack, the bigger the better.

I'm suggesting something different than that. I couched it with an if and I should have phrased it a bit differently in retrospect:

If the private sector is more susceptible to moral policing than the public sector, then (all things being equal) if public services are transferred to the public sector(ie: smaller government) then the attack area increases.

There are two conditions, and one conclusion. If you don't agree that the premises apply, then the argument doesn't really matter and also doesn't apply.

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

#902

Post by concordDance »

EamonnMR wrote: post #750
concordDance wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the ridiculous bit, the ridiculous bit is the advocating that the government crack down on people saying mean things about third parties to each other on the Internet. And make no mistake, that's 99% of what KiwiFarms does, the last time this came up on hackernews I browsed through hundreds of posts in a bunch of threads to see if there was anything other than that going on, so if its there it's in the DMs…

If kiwifarms was just about being a jerk and not about doxing I do not think people would have as big a problem.

Having accessed that disgusting site for the third time, it definitely looks like it's 80% being a jerk and 20% doxxing.

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

#903

Post by chonkerz »

richbell wrote: post #894
chonkerz wrote: post #873

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. I went looking for this out of curiosity. It seems to be a thread from 2022 with only 10 pages, and only about 10 total replies this year. Is this really your basis for claiming that "a lot" of people are coming from Kiwi Farms? How did you even…

[flagged]

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

#904

Post by CP3f6kMA »

jl6 wrote: post #689

I think it’s kind of incredible that Kiwifarms has become the poster-boy for abhorrent content, when Stormfront has been right there for decades and seems to still be going strong. Somehow they are perceived as worse than literal Nazis.

KF are literal Nazis too.

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

#905

Post by chonkerz »

richbell wrote: post #791
chonkerz wrote: post #790

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 res…

Here's a thread where your admin openly speculates about how to bypass financial restrictions via shell companies because banks won't do business with him and it's harming his business model of taking donations to support harassment campaigns for entertainment.

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/plan-in-motion-banking-and-fedn...

You already know about this activity, but you support it.

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

#906

Post by chonkerz »

richbell wrote: post #648
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The claim that Kiwi Farms is dedicated to driving transpeople to suicide was started by [specific people] Nice strawman. There are a huge number of different people who have independently arrived at the conclusion that KF exists to bully queer and autistic people, often to suicide, because it's a consistent pattern; the idea that this concept can be attributed to just one or a handful of people is wilfully misleadi…

> There are a huge number of different people who have independently arrived at the conclusion that KF exists to bully queer and autistic people, often to suicide, because it's a consistent pattern It's a convenient thing to accuse them of considering that it's already "widely accepted". The same person involved in this was also behind #DropKiwiFarms. They've been trying to blame Kiwi Farms for numerous suicides sinc…

[flagged]

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

#907

Post by 876978095789789 »

chonkerz wrote: post #408
IncogNET wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely false. We are in no way a 'bulletproof' hoster. You're free to review our IP subnets in use and compare them to actual bulletproof hosting providers. We actively and swiftly remove users engaging in ILLEGAL activity, such as malware, warez, etc. We're an American based business, registered in Wyoming, and abide by American law. No 'bulletproof hoster' is going to setup shop in America. Archiving what other…

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…

How come no one ever posts any links to any of this (or at least archives of said links), whenever this site is discussed? Instead we get DailyDot and Vice articles, or a wikipedia entry quoting those articles, and little else. If the site is such a clear and present danger to public safety, why is the proof to that effect never provided?

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

#908

Post by wvenable »

rhelz wrote: post #878
wvenable wrote: post #856

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Winners and losers exist now -- it's just that whatever is the status quo is the assumed baseline. It's just how humans view things but it's not logical.

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

#910

Post by skeaker »

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…

I don't really think this is as complicated as you're making it in this case. The regulation should be that ISPs are to simply pass along data that comes their way. If they fail to do that by impeding certain traffic, they should be fined or in egregious cases jailed. No different from how you'd fine or jail something like a restaurant owner for violating health codes. You would expect a restaurant to serve you clean, un-tampered food; likewise, you should be able to expect your ISP to serve you data and to not tamper with it.
Post reply on HN