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

951–960 of 1001 posts

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

#951

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

TeeMassive wrote: post #835
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #821

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…

> It's a bullshit, paper-thin "policy" that exists only for KF to cover their own asses. That's only your opinion. What OP says about KF is still correct.

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/why-host-dox.130254/

No, it really isn't.

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

#952

Post by [deleted] »

chonkerz wrote: post #920
tjpnz wrote: post #220

I would encourage those interested to read up on the individual behind the ISP harassment campaign and what might actually be motivating them to do it. That it's being done to protect trans people is highly disingenuous.

Their personal information is plastered all over Kiwifarms so it's pretty easy to find.

[deleted]

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

#953

Post by dietr1ch »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #480
dietr1ch wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an awful example from the third world. What's next? The IRS forces doctors not to treat some patients in ER because they may owe taxes? Access to water and medical attention are human rights, no matter how awful the humans may be according to the acting officers.

What do you mean by "the third world" in this case? It's a geographic descriptor (non-Nato / Warsaw Pact countries), not one about how a country treats its people or its developmental state.

Interesting, didn't even know about it's roots on the cold war and its politics. I think by the time I studied history it had already lost it's original meaning.

The more modern view I was referring to, is that third world countries are lesser, developing countries where things that are given elsewhere, like water, food, electricity, education, healthcare or internet access are a luxury. I guess a more accurate term is "a developing country"

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

#954

Post by Jiro »

refurb wrote: post #949
Jiro wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. No. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/13/afd-party-ban-ge...

"Considers". It's not banned.

Yet.

"Considers" can mean someone had an idle thought about it. It can also mean that the full apparatus of the government is able to do something, and is allowed by its own rules to do so, and just hasn't yet. This "considers" is the second kind.

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

#955

Post by heavyset_go »

pauldenton wrote: post #936
wredue wrote: post #823

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bei…

Were Jones and Trump banned for being Republicans or were they banned as a consequence of their own actions?

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

#956

Post by refurb »

Jiro wrote: post #954
refurb wrote: post #949

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Considers". It's not banned.

Yet. "Considers" can mean someone had an idle thought about it. It can also mean that the full apparatus of the government is able to do something, and is allowed by its own rules to do so, and just hasn't yet. This "considers" is the second kind.

But it still proves the point - association with Nazism is not outright banned in Germany. The law is actually quite delicately applied after much consideration.

That was my entire point.

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

#957

Post by barfingclouds »

nvm0n2 wrote: post #895
hnbad wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstand the EFF's position here if you think this is some kind of enlightened centrist "I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to death for your right to say it": the EFF is opposed to ISPs filtering content because that is not the job of an ISP and not a level of analysis an ISP should be allowed (much less required) to do. The EFF very much promotes progressive values, more consistentl…

The Nazi Bar "problem" is just a way to justify imposing censorship universally: 1. We ban people we don't like. They aren't actually Nazis, but we don't like them so we pretend they are. 2. They go to some other place where we don't yet dominate. 3. Now we assert that everyone in that other place is also a Nazi, because they aren't doing the same thing we're doing. If the Nazi Bar was really a real concept then ever…

Yeah this is a fear mongering tactic, and an intentional overreach.

The Nazi bar problem is not even hard in concept. If someone is not a Nazi, let them in. If someone is edgy, let them in. If someone is a Nazi, kick them out. Not rocket science. Nazis will not accumulate if done this way.

But people get looser and looser about their definition of Nazis, which ends up being “people I don’t like or who have different politics agendas than me” and pre emptively kick out tons of people in the name of keeping themselves safe

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

#958

Post by pauldenton »

cyanydeez wrote: post #651
CM30 wrote: post #46

I agree, we've got far too many entities that should just be 'dumb pipes' trying to play moral police at the moment, and it's a very worrying situation when it comes to free speech on the internet. Cloudflare is an often brought up example, as are payment processors like Visa and Mastercard and app stores like the iOS and Play Stores, but ISPs trying to block traffic for a site that's not actually illegal feels like…

The lack of government regulations will make businesses "regulate" themselves What you're seeing is how government is born. Corporatoctacy is just another form of authoritarianism and the more government pulls up stakes, they get replaced. The global strain of far right ethno isolationist politics is creating the public void these corporations are filling.

Please. We can see how much regulation matters when they're not enforced. If you went to San Fransisco you would be surprised to know it's against the rules to break into people's cars or shoplift hundreds of dollars of stuff, considering how many people guilty of doing those things are tried convicted and serve time

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

#959

Post by TedGetschman »

plagiarist wrote: post #180
lr4444lr wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I personally don't think the founding fathers of the US understood the future gullibility of their citizens. They absolutely did. When only white, male, decently educated property owners could vote, they had decent reassurance that a constitutional republic with state-specific voter management could work. I think they'd be horrified to see that today we don't even demand a basic proof of civics education. And I hat…

We need score voting. Being able to express a preference for a third candidate without danger of flipping the election would fix quite a bit. Unfortunately doing so currently is more useless than using the ballot as toilet paper.

Actually, implementing score voting (or approval or STAR or Majority Judgement) should incentivize all the candidates to move toward the majority opinion. The problem isn't the candidates, it is what platforms the current system pushes them to adopt. If we changed to any of these MaxVoting methods today, you would see majority opinion platforms emerge as the lead platforms within a year.

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

#960

Post by OrangeMusic »

minerva23 wrote: post #871
autoexec wrote: post #173

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.

I don't understand why this seems hard to understand. Their reasons are very clear and explained in the post.

Tier 1 ISP censoring internet has worse long term consequences than this website existing.

Post reply on HN