Live data from Hacker News

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

eff.org

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

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?

I recall reading the other day about Germany making deadnaming a crime..

Do you have a handy link, btw? I did some searching and all I can find is their new "self-determination" law reported by AP[1], and their report doesn't mention deadnaming. The only places I can find saying that deadnaming will be fined are your standard right-wing transphobic nutjobs.

[2] (with an NSFW header image) explains that it only covers "[deadnaming] with the aim of harming the person" which is completely different from "deadnaming [is] a crime", right?

[1] https://apnews.com/article/germany-transgender-legal-registr...

[2] https://euro.dayfr.com/trends/756176.html

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

#972
post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The operator of the kiwifarms is himself a US citizen with a US business. It is an advertised fact that if a police force comes after or shuts him down with a legal reason, it will cease to exist and he himself has stated he wouldn't operate it out of any other country than the US. Pirate bay and sci-hub get affected by copyright law more than anything else and, to the best of my knowledge, kiwifarms is protected by…

>and has always complied with legitimate takedown requests. Then why do people who issue takedown requests get plastered all over the site and harassed?

Transparency I assume. I understand the admin likes free speech and maintains some transparency, to explain why content has been removed, and giving away your information is always a risk in legal issues.

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

#973
post #895
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…

[flagged]

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

#974
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…

[deleted]

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

#975

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The memo listed several factors to consider, including "the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values." This itself is the bad bit, IMO. My expectation of the ACLU is that they will always defend the rights of individuals, regardless of the goals of those exercising those rights. When the ACLU defended Nazis marching in Skokie…

The EFF article explicitly admits there are a lot of actual crimes on the Kiwifarms site. This trainwreck of an article is defending that it acknowledges as "illegal speech" and saying companies shouldn't do anything about illegal speech. They've gone so far down the rabbithole, they've come up the other end saying the government needs to take a more active role policing speech.

The article doesn't say there are crimes on KF, only that KF "provides a forum for gamifying abuse and doxxing". Magically, that abuse just happens without any planning of it appearing on KF, and then KF's users gossip about the results openly. The article says it supports prosecuting those missing-link people for crimes: "we fully support criminal and civil liability for those who abuse and harass others"

It does think companies should act on illegal speech; those "companies" are the people/orgs who run websites, like KF. "We should enact strong data privacy laws that target, among others, the data brokers whose services help enable doxxing". The EFF doesn't think other companies (network carriers, etc.) should act on illegal speech.

The government ought to take a more active role! Would you prefer the courts to affirm your legal rights, or for an oligopoly of private companies to brazenly deny you them, with no recourse?

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

#976

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, the ACLU have lost their way. https://web.archive.org/web/20210608004853/https://www.nytim... > the organization finds itself riven with internal tensions over whether it has stepped away from a founding principle — unwavering devotion to the First Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union... > Beginning in 2017, some individuals claimed the ACLU was reducing its support of unpop…

> Indeed, the ACLU have lost their way. Indeed, they haven't. > The memo listed several factors to consider, including "the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values." i.e. Consider whether we'd be arguing against our own goals. How anyone reasonable could consider this a bad thing, I don't know. https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-…

The ACLU does debate and reflect, but they _have_ visibly changed in the wake of Charlottesville. The ACLU writing a rebuttal article listing their defenses of right-wing speech since 2017 doesn't really fix that image.

There are multiple causes: even though it is not the ACLU's fault for the murder at the Charlottesville rally, its public image took a beating. Combine that with the massive influx of new supporters and new money in 2017, in support of the ACLU directly challenging Trump, it now has a lot more partisan supporters than it used to. Donations have tripled. Even if all previous supporters were right-partisan (which would be unlikely), the sudden addition of a bloc of left-partisan supporters, double the size of your previous supporter base, could sway your organisation.

From the NY Times article:

> But in interviews, several younger lawyers suggested a toll taken. Their generational cohort, they said, placed less value on free speech, making it uncomfortable for them to express views internally that diverged from progressive orthodoxy.

> “A dogmatism descends sometimes” inside the A.C.L.U., noted Alejandro Agustin Ortiz, a lawyer with the racial justice project. “You hesitate before you question a belief that is ascendant among your peer group.”

> Some argued for carefully vetting hires. “I never do a job interview without raising Skokie/Charlottesville and asking if they are comfortable with that history,” said a lawyer who asked not to be named because of the fear of inflaming colleagues. “Not many colleagues agree. It’s about the cause.”

It seems there is both an "old guard" and "new guard" within the ACLU, only time will tell if they retain full commitment to defending free speech.

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

#977

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the "nazi bar" concept does accurately describe the problem with sites like parlor today, but I'd argue it's only true now because heavy moderation has become the default. most of the internet was not like this 10-15 years ago. forums and even large social media platforms were moderated lightly, if at all. you would commonly see edgelords dropping slurs, but it did not dominate the discussion. I don't think the entir…

> most of the internet was not like this 10-15 years ago. forums and even large social media platforms were moderated lightly, if at all. you would commonly see edgelords dropping slurs, but it did not dominate the discussion. Either you're thinking of a time much further back than 10-15 years (that is, 2008-2013), or you're wrong. Or - could be you were just in the Nazi bars at the time, also. My experience in a var…

He is right, your assertions about alleged Nazi bars are obviously false.

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

#978
post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is moderated, but I cannot imagine many opinions that really would be outright banned or suppressed. It has strong requirements to the form, but not necessarily the content of the message itself. That is in essence not the topic people complain about, otherwise they probably wouldn't post. I am a free speech absolutist though, I tend to like the term too because I believe its intended derisiveness is mostly impote…

> It has strong requirements to the form, but not necessarily the content of the message itself. This is provably false. If I write a very formal and polite message asking for some horrible thing to be done to group X, the message will be removed as soon as HN mods see it.

Direct threats are not free speech.

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

#979
post #973
post #895

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

Here's a quick quiz. For the entire set considered together, which government is being referred to, the USSR or the Third Reich?

1. They set up a network of forced labor camps.

2. They discriminated against Jews, justifying this by claiming that as rich capitalists they were enemies of socialism.

3. They claimed to represent the working class.

4. They invaded and captured other countries.

5. They were a dictatorship.

6. They were famous for their high levels of propaganda.

7. In their printed materials they stated explicitly "We are socialists", demanded a program of nationalization and stated that all citizens were equal.

8. They imprisoned, exiled or killed their political opponents.

9. Most importantly for this thread, they aggressively censored their opponents and directly controlled the media.

You can't tell what the answer is, because every point is correct for both of them. The differences were much smaller than their similarities.

This matters because it leads to people using NSDAP/USSR ideological tactics like censorship of their political opponents, whilst claiming to be fighting the very same.

This obvious comparison has been suppressed by systematic and vicious attacks on anyone who points it out for a very long time, so I doubt this post will get good reactions and unfortunately HN isn't a good forum for pointing this out because it tends to blame people for the reactions of others regardless of how polite or intellectually curious they may actually be, giving a kind of hecklers veto to discussions. But the confusion here leads to people repeating the mistakes of the past and trying to fight fire with fire, so it's really important to point out. That's why Germany is now punishing an American author for using a swastika in his criticism of politicians: the whole point of studying history is to be able to say "wait, that behaviour looks like something we've seen before" and yet the people doing that are now being attacked as Nazis themselves. This upside-down sort of behaviour is inevitable for as long as people keep insisting on upside-down interpretations of history. You can't claim to be fighting Nazi-ism whilst simultaneously using their tactics!

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

#980
post #423

More nativity from the EFF, I dont think they live in the real world. It’s never worked that at and never will. Why? Because the systems become unusable for everyone. A simple and very very old example is email. Even back in the 1990s days of the Internet, we had spam on email and if your reputable isp caught you spamming you’d be in trouble. Same with shitposting on usenet. Sure there are nuances to consider as to w…

How exactly does the existence of KiwiFarms make the internet unusable for everyone?
Post reply on HN