Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 204 posts

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#111

Post by netsharc »

johnrichardson wrote: post #7
Overtonwindow wrote: post #2

"[W]e strongly believe that what GoDaddy, Google, and Cloudflare did here was dangerous. That’s because, even when the facts are the most vile, we must remain vigilant when platforms exercise these rights. Because Internet intermediaries, especially those with few competitors, control so much online speech, the consequences of their decisions have far-reaching impacts on speech around the world." Well said. I'm glad…

Indeed. It seems as though the entire West has lost its collective mind about the importance of free speech and free expression as bedrock principles which ensure peace, stability and prosperity. Additionally, I view these acts of censorship as a great opportunity for blockchain and other nascent decentralized web technologies to take off. It's a classic case of the innovator's dilemma - when a company or industry se…

Someone needs to invent a Godwin-like rule about the word "blockchain" being used in Internet conversations...

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#113

Post by LeratoAustini »

netsharc wrote: post #111
johnrichardson wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. It seems as though the entire West has lost its collective mind about the importance of free speech and free expression as bedrock principles which ensure peace, stability and prosperity. Additionally, I view these acts of censorship as a great opportunity for blockchain and other nascent decentralized web technologies to take off. It's a classic case of the innovator's dilemma - when a company or industry se…

Someone needs to invent a Godwin-like rule about the word "blockchain" being used in Internet conversations...

I don't understand how Godwin's rule is useful. Its only effect on arguments is that on top of the inevitable "Hitler" comment you now also get an inevitable "Godwin" follow-up, usually delivered with the air of having somehow won the argument. It's beyond redundant IMO.

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#114

Post by zimpenfish »

LeratoAustini wrote: post #113
netsharc wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone needs to invent a Godwin-like rule about the word "blockchain" being used in Internet conversations...

I don't understand how Godwin's rule is useful. Its only effect on arguments is that on top of the inevitable "Hitler" comment you now also get an inevitable "Godwin" follow-up, usually delivered with the air of having somehow won the argument. It's beyond redundant IMO.

There's no such thing as "Godwin's Rule" - it's "Godwin's Law" and it said nothing about winning arguments; only that as the length of an argument increased, the probability that a comparison with the Nazis would appear approached 1.

You can't invoke it either. It's a statistical observation.

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#115

Post by base698 »

infinite8s wrote: post #101
Overtonwindow wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One more quote because I think it sums things up very well: "Protecting free speech is not something we do because we agree with all of the speech that gets protected. We do it because we believe that no one—not the government and not private commercial enterprises—should decide who gets to speak and who doesn’t."

Although the only thing actually protected by the First Amendment is protection against censorship of speech by the government. Private commercial enterprises can do what they want (since technically you should be able to move to a competitor).

This is also dangerous for clear reasons. If speech deemed bad is censored we may have no examples with which to contrast good ideas. Think of free speech as natural selection for ideas.

John Stuart Mill thought free speech should extend into the private world:

Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them.

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#116

Post by rpiguy »

liberte82 wrote: post #70
dingaling wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I respect free speech. I don't respect absolutist speech. Then don't call it free speech. The animals in the zoo are of course permitted to roam free! It would be inhumane otherwise. All they have to do is remain within the confines of their enclosures otherwise they will be shot.

Many countries have free speech but they ban speech that is hateful and calls for persecution of minorities. These are reasonable limits to live together in a peaceful, tolerant society. Free speech is not an edict from God. It is a liberal idea with the intent of creating an open society. An open society is not one that advocates for the killing of minorities. Other free countries have done this to little fanfare an…

Other countries have done it and the results were disastrous for freedom.

Germany, Sweden, and France for example have taken the idea of hate speech and extended into the realm of control of information. If you post on Facebook the crime statistics for your town that show immigrants are responsible for 90% of the crimes in your district, you can be prosecuted. Freaking Brigid Bardot was fined five thousand Euros for saying Islam is bad for women in her biography.

It is a nightmare. Why did we bother with the Cold War if we are going to institute the thought police we were so against for 60 years.

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#117

Post by axedwool »

liberte82 wrote: post #59
e9 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all know Nazi are bad, no one in their right mind will deny it. But the way they are currently handled through violence and censorship is not right and downright illegal. You are feeding their anger instead of squashing their ideas. We are American citizens and should respect each others right for free speech and engage in civil debate over ideas we disagree. If we resolve to silencing and violence without debate…

Nazis don't have ideas. They will jump from truth to lies as it suits them to win an argument. They do not live in the world of civil debate. Think of them as trolls from before trolls were a thing. They are not an ideology, they are a hate movement. Silencing them does not make their hate grow, they are already fundamentally about hate. They are a passion, not an ideology. Tell me what is the tax policy of a fascist…

So in your estimation, Nazi hate is so powerful that even the example of World War 2 and seventy years of progress in racial equality was not enough to inoculate the vast majority of the people of the United States against it -- but passing a law against saying it in public will?

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#118

Post by base698 »

tekromancr wrote: post #97
gcp wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point that's being made is that, indeed, as private entities they have the right to ban this content from their sites. But due to the SIZE of these operations, their actions practically amount to censorship. Saying that the right of free speech only protects you against the government does not mean much in practice, in these circumstances.

It means all the difference in the world. It means that they won't be arrested for their speech. They won't be jailed. They won't be executed for speaking out against the government. Which is, ironically, very different from the historical treatment of dissidents by governments who adopt their politics. It also means that, for example, they have the freedom to pool funds and buy their own server, and host it in a dat…

Writers on free speech thought social pressure was a more effective censor than the government:

Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them.

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#119

Post by Raz2 »

axedwool wrote: post #112
Raz2 wrote: post #92

Uneducated people should be protected from ideas that are proven to be bad. Looks like America just can't learn lessons like Sandy Hook or this one.

Who decides who is uneducated? What are the parameters for "bad"?

1. It is better to protect everyone. Uneducated people don't know history. Those who know are not affected anyway. 2. If more than 10 mil died because of some idea = bad

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#120

Post by liberte82 »

axedwool wrote: post #117
liberte82 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nazis don't have ideas. They will jump from truth to lies as it suits them to win an argument. They do not live in the world of civil debate. Think of them as trolls from before trolls were a thing. They are not an ideology, they are a hate movement. Silencing them does not make their hate grow, they are already fundamentally about hate. They are a passion, not an ideology. Tell me what is the tax policy of a fascist…

So in your estimation, Nazi hate is so powerful that even the example of World War 2 and seventy years of progress in racial equality was not enough to inoculate the vast majority of the people of the United States against it -- but passing a law against saying it in public will?

Yes, it would help. It's been 70 years since WW2 ended and people are fast forgetting its lessons. Take an example, pretty much everyone agrees that ISIS uses the web as an online recruitment tool to radicalize young people and that they are very effective with it. This point is fairly non-controversial. Yet when the same point is made about extreme right-wing movements radicalizing young Americans, these concerns are largely not taken seriously. We expect our youth to be wise, discerning, able to think critically and immune to propaganda in a society that has steadily devalued education for decades.

"Hitler did nothing wrong" is a joke meme, until it isn't.

Post reply on HN