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

931–940 of 1001 posts

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

#931

Post by dang »

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…

Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: it looks like you've been posting a lot of flamewar comments too, and not just in this thread. Can you please not? As I explained to the other user above, it's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

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

#932

Post by thrwaway1234567 »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #821
concordDance wrote: post #636

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…

Users of the site have actually been punished for calling out people breaking the "rules".

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

#933

Post by thrwaway1234567 »

sequoia wrote: post #845
gnopgnip wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4chan, pastebin go beyond the bare minimum legally required. 4chan includes "You will not post or request personal information ("dox") " and pastebin's prohibits content that is "libelous, defamatory, or fraudulent" and "discriminatory or abusive toward any individual or group" The other difference is the site owner actively encourages harassment and bans any discussion to the contrary

I've been doxxed & threatened on 4chan[0] (most of the doxxing was actually on pastebin), I contacted 4chan admins and received no response. 4chan does little or nothing to combat doxxing & harassment, I think you're incorrect that these sites "go beyond the bare minimum legally required" at least not 4chan. And yet, that site is still up. 0: remnants of some archived posts https://www.google.com/search?q=%22sequoia+…

4chan does remove posts and IP bans users for posting doxx. The thing is that IP bans are easy for some to work around. And that all 4chan threads expire after some time.

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

#934

Post by agentgumshoe »

digging wrote: post #770
agentgumshoe wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that bit you need to check, it's the 'how' behind it. 'Inclusive' is also incredibly easy to abuse.

> 'Inclusive' is also incredibly easy to abuse. How? Seems to me that, like with corporate accountability, you're either doing it and it's good or you're not doing it but lying and saying you are.

Where are the boundaries of 'inclusive' ?

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

#935

Post by thrwaway1234567 »

yanderekko wrote: post #516
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…

>You host death threats and leaked PII These death threats are not true threats and hosting PII is not illegal. Nor is encouraging "harassment" because what's encouraged is not actual criminal harassment. Every victim of a social media mob claims harassment, including Joshua Moon. When the good guys do it, of course, they just call it "consequences culture". >Even the EFF acknowledges the activity on your forum is il…

Kiwifarms, now banned, official twitter page said their goal was “exploitation of the mentally handicapped for amusement purposes”. ( Source: https://archive.is/jYp5p ).

I think Kiwifarms is (borderline) criminal. Null, the admin of the site, outright said he was ok with users posting stolen financial information, such as Social Security Numbers and Credit cards. Source: https://archive.is/0fOcS . There are many examples of private financial information being posted on the site.

I would describe them as operating with a paper thin layer of "plausible" deniability. Officially you aren't allowed to harass or interact with the targets. But even the rule against interacting with "lolcows" (called "cowtipping") is haphazardly enforced. For example, one user tracked down, and had sex with a "lolcow" and even posted photos of this. The admin explicitly said they would allow the content to remain up: https://archive.is/zYnpK#35%

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

#936

Post by pauldenton »

wredue wrote: post #823
RHSeeger wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Restricting company’s freedom to choose a business model is not the answer. Only, that's not how it works in our (and pretty much any) society. We, as a society, choose what we think is acceptable. And then we make laws to enforce that people behave in a way consistent with that. A company is not free to deny service to someone that is gay, or black, or married; just because that is their chosen business model.

They are, however, free to stop you from pushing Nazi propaganda on their resources. I’m quite discouraged by this thread not being taken down despite the very obvious brigade of alt-right Nazi sympathizers pretending that being gay is the same as yelling for the genocide of gay people.

Yes. But we saw how quickly censorship went from Alex Jones being banned from having a Twitter,Reddit, Twitch, Mailchimp, Shopify, YouTube/Google, Facebook/Instagram account, and being banned from all those platforms simultaneously. To having Donald Trump the Republican Nominee and at the time sitting duck President having his Twitter, Reddit, Twitch, Mailchimp, Shopify, YouTube/Google, Facebook/Instagram account being banned simultaneously. Starting off with "we want to stop Nazi propaganda" turning into banning Republicans is like saying "We want to stop Communist Propaganda" and Blacklisting Liberals

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

#937

Post by thrwaway1234567 »

876978095789789 wrote: post #907
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…

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?

Kiwifarms, now banned, official twitter page said their goal was “exploitation of the mentally handicapped for amusement purposes”. ( Source: https://archive.is/jYp5p ).

I think Kiwifarms is (borderline) criminal. Null, the admin of the site, outright said he was ok with users posting stolen financial information, such as Social Security Numbers and Credit cards. Source: https://archive.is/0fOcS . There are many examples of private financial information being posted on the site.

I would describe them as operating with a paper thin layer of "plausible" deniability. Officially you aren't allowed to harass or interact with the targets. But posting their home address, stolen passwords, phone numbers, and information about relatives is all allowed.

But even the rule against interacting with "lolcows" (called "cowtipping") is haphazardly enforced. For example, one user had sex with a "lolcow" and posted photos. The admin explicitly said they would allow the content to remain up: https://archive.is/zYnpK#35%

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

#938

Post by pauldenton »

rhelz wrote: post #815
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " Forcing private companies to do what you want them to do, even when they would prefer not to? " That's exactly the argument that bigots who owned businesses used to refuse service to PoC and oppressed people before the civil rights legislations of the '50s and '60s were passed. Funny to hear old discredited arguments used by far-right conservatives decades ago coming out of the mouths of the left these days. It's…

There is a very bright-line difference in the case of the civil rights-related curbs on private property privilege: Those actually were effective in solving the problem! Because the solution to the problem was very clear: everybody should be able to ride the bus, eat in a restaurant, etc. The contrast with regulating the media companies couldn't be greater. What, exactly, should these regulations be? I haven't heard…

You start off with a very clear solution, but don't explain why that very clear solution doesn't apply Everyone should be able to use the bus, eat in a restaurant, use a water fountain or a post office bathroom Everyone should be able to use Twitter, Facebook, Google, Uber, Shopify, Reddit. It's the same problem in both cases. Why is it different now so we should apply an exclusionary standard?

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

#939

Post by pauldenton »

rhelz wrote: post #819
stale2002 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not understanding. We already have many laws that effect companies. For example, power companies cannot just turn off your electricity because they don't like what you say. These are called common carrier laws and they are completely uncontroversial. We live in a society, and it is perfectly OK for us to put limits on what major monopoly type companies can do.

Private property rights are not absolute, sure. But is regulating media companies going to solve anything? Are there any regulations which both sides could be happy with, or would it just open up a whole new front in the culture wars, of endless, highly-politicized and ham-fisted control over, say, whether or not twitter has a block function or not?

I think the Telephone company model is fine. Have you ever had the phone company disconnect your call or cancel your services because they didn't like something you said?

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

#940

Post by thrwaway1234567 »

arp242 wrote: post #269
shadowgovt wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If you want to argue that internet infrastructure providers should be blocking access to areas of the internet due to bad consequences and "being able to sleep at night", then there many more obvious and larger targets. The amount of attention KiwiFarms gets is ridiculously outsized for what it is: a fairly small forum with a bunch of mean-spirited people telling mean-spirited "jokes". It's a very odd target for all…

>a fairly small forum with a bunch of mean-spirited people telling mean-spirited "jokes".

That is true, but that is only part of the story. If that was all, the website would not be so notorious.

Kiwifarms, now banned, official twitter page said their goal was “exploitation of the mentally handicapped for amusement purposes”. ( Source: https://archive.is/jYp5p ).

I think Kiwifarms is (borderline) criminal. Null, the admin of the site, outright said he was ok with users posting stolen financial information, such as Social Security Numbers and Credit cards. Source: https://archive.is/0fOcS . There are many examples of private financial information being posted on the site.

I would describe them as operating with a paper thin layer of "plausible" deniability. Officially you aren't allowed to harass or interact with the targets. But posting their home address, stolen passwords, phone numbers, and information about relatives is all allowed. Obviously, if they didn't want their targets harassed, they wouldn't post that.

But even the rule against interacting with "lolcows" (called "cowtipping") is haphazardly enforced. For example, one user had sex with a "lolcow" and posted photos. The admin explicitly said they would allow the content to remain up: https://archive.is/zYnpK#35%

I could probably post many other examples.

Post reply on HN