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

Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 398 posts

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#141

Post by CWuestefeld »

moron4hire wrote: post #29
corobo wrote: post #13

While I definitely don't support the people they're booting off I do have to agree with the EFF here. For example, "And music streaming services offered by Google, Deezer and Spotify have said they would remove music that incites violence, hatred or racism." Now these services have put it out there as policy someone has to define what's violent, hateful or racist in music. Racism? Ok nobody's really going to bat an e…

It's Tipper Gore vs. Frank Zappa all over again.

From the cover of a Zappa album at the time:

"WARNING/GUARANTEE: This album contains material which a truly free society would neither fear nor suppress. In some socially retarded areas, religious fanatics and ultra-conservative political organizations violate your First Ammendment Rights by attempting to censor rock & roll albums. We feel that this is un-Constitutional and un-American. As an alternative to these government-supported programs (designed to keep you docile and ignorant). Barking Pumpkin is pleased to provide stimulating digital audio entertainment for those of you who have outgrown the ordinary. The language and concepts contained herein are GUARANTEED NOT TO CAUSE ETERNAL TORMENT IN THE PLACE WHERE THE GUY WITH THE HORNS AND POINTED STICK CONDUCTS HIS BUSINESS. This guarantee is as real as the threats of ther video fundamentalists who use attacks on rock music in their attempt to transform America into a nation of check-mailing nincompoops (in the name of Jesus Christ). If there is a hell, its fires wait for them, not us."

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#142

Post by stillkicking »

corobo wrote: post #13

While I definitely don't support the people they're booting off I do have to agree with the EFF here. For example, "And music streaming services offered by Google, Deezer and Spotify have said they would remove music that incites violence, hatred or racism." Now these services have put it out there as policy someone has to define what's violent, hateful or racist in music. Racism? Ok nobody's really going to bat an e…

It's quite simple. Eminem is white and male, that means he's a hateful misogynist and homophobe. Azealia Banks is black and female, that means she's empowered by rapping about cunts, bitches and catching a nigga's warm goo in your do-rag.

Thanks to progressivism we can finally judge people by the content of their character.

(/s, Let's face it, everyone can see this is politically motivated and the demand for empathy and charity only ever goes one way. Apparently it's ok to set cars on fire and smash people's heads in for political reasons, just as long as you loudly explain that you're _against_ fascism and nazis while doing so.)

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#143

Post by gthtjtkt »

MBCook wrote: post #111
gthtjtkt wrote: post #33

It also had the opposite of its intended effect. Millions of people had no idea Daily Stormer existed until GoDaddy, Google, and CloudFlare kicked them out. Each one only added to their growing pile of free publicity. I guess Google never Googled "Streisand Effect"? First Damore and now this. Edit: Also kind of ironic that my comments are now being buried on HN because I posted some unpopular opinions. Maybe we shoul…

Some percentage of people learned the site exists. Some other percent learned there are still a lot of people (relative to what they thought) that believe in nazi principles. This attention would only be bad in my eyes if the first group was bigger than the second.

    Neo-Nazis: "We feel unfairly persecuted!"
    *hosts kick them off the internet*
    Neo-Nazis (in an angrier tone): "See! We were right!!!"
So now they've poked the hornet's nest, added credibility to the neo-nazis' complaints, earned the ire of the EFF, and didn't solve a single problem.

Mission Accomplished?

When I look at trending political stories today, all I see is mind-boggling stupidity on both sides.

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#144

Post by bmelton »

cjslep wrote: post #52
mantas wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's even more frustrating when people supposedly loving freedom say that freedom of speech was only meant to protect from government and private companies can discriminate as they wish. I'm 99.99% certain if freedom of speech was formulated today, it would include private companies as well.

Yes, like all those conservatives fighting for Hobby Lobby to not provide contraception support for it's employees because "first amendment" and all those mom and pop shops that don't want to serve gay people in the South because of first amendment rights. Seriously, conservatives in America want to have their cake and eat it too. "We meant freedom for corporations-as-people but only when it helps us".

> and all those mom and pop shops that don't want to serve gay people in the South because of first amendment rights.

Citation? This seems like a clumsy attempt to bash the south. Considering that the two largest cases for violating public accommodation laws hail from Oregon (Sweet Cakes) and Colorado (Masterpiece), with other cases from Las Vegas (Walmart) and Ohio (Take the Cake), it seems ... off.

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#145

Post by orangecat »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #129
koolba wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While I definitely don't support the people they're booting off... A bit off topic but how many bytes are spent on prefaces like this on responses to this topic? I assume that the vast majority of people on the planet don't support Nazis or anything related. I find it interesting that any discussion of them has to include that line lest the speaker/writer be labeled as one (which happens quite a bit anyway but that…

Yes, it's stupid. But that's the place we're at in the culture war. Pres. Trump is being crucified right now precisely for failing to provide such a statement. We all have to be careful to pay our tributes, or we'll be ostracized. Can you think of any other reason for such widespread repetition of these useless words? (And of course I must, too. I'm speaking here from a completely abstract standpoint which shouldn't…

Pres. Trump is being crucified right now precisely for failing to provide such a statement.

It's a bit more than that. Trump has had no problem condemning Antifa thugs and violent radical Islamists, so it is noteworthy when he equivocates on violent white supremacists, especially when some of them are claiming that he supports them.

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#146

Post by andygates »

koolba wrote: post #70
corobo wrote: post #13

While I definitely don't support the people they're booting off I do have to agree with the EFF here. For example, "And music streaming services offered by Google, Deezer and Spotify have said they would remove music that incites violence, hatred or racism." Now these services have put it out there as policy someone has to define what's violent, hateful or racist in music. Racism? Ok nobody's really going to bat an e…

> While I definitely don't support the people they're booting off... A bit off topic but how many bytes are spent on prefaces like this on responses to this topic? I assume that the vast majority of people on the planet don't support Nazis or anything related. I find it interesting that any discussion of them has to include that line lest the speaker/writer be labeled as one (which happens quite a bit anyway but that…

It seems to come especially from (apart from actual supporters, obvs) people who think that neonazis are interested in the same sharing of information and arguments in good faith that the majority are. That hasn't ever been so.

So while the "freedom to speak, whatever" side has a point, they're also being naive.

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#147

Post by throwawaymanbot »

devmunchies wrote: post #133
koolba wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While I definitely don't support the people they're booting off... A bit off topic but how many bytes are spent on prefaces like this on responses to this topic? I assume that the vast majority of people on the planet don't support Nazis or anything related. I find it interesting that any discussion of them has to include that line lest the speaker/writer be labeled as one (which happens quite a bit anyway but that…

We're in the midst of a political witch hunt. I saw a sticker on a stop sign in Seattle that had a nazi symbol in the "O" of "GOP".

Sadly, The Nazis do identify with the GOP, Not the democrats. For example US Nazis/Alt-right types are trying to actively infiltrate local GOP chapters. (As seen in tweets published online) As long as they self identify as belonging only to the GOP, than stickers like that will happen.

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#148

Post by moron4hire »

celticninja wrote: post #74
melling wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the 1970's all over again... https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-sp... We seem to keep forgetting what "Freedom of Speech" means. [Update: Added Chomsky quote] "If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky

But that was the state stopping Nazis from marching, this is a private company refusing to do business with someone. Free speech is a right guaranteed by the state, so you won't go to prison for stating your beliefs. But no one should be obliged to help you air those beliefs against their will.

When private companies obtain near-monopoly status, they become a significant danger to the public interest and the government rightly scrutinizes their every move. I still think WalMart should have been compelled to stop altering music CDs in the 90s. And I still think any "too big to fail" company should be broken up under antitrust proceedings.

This wouldn't be a problem without the Citizens United ruling. Corporations should not be considered people, especially when doing so comes to the harm of real people.

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#149

Post by scrollaway »

wildmusings wrote: post #48
corobo wrote: post #13

While I definitely don't support the people they're booting off I do have to agree with the EFF here. For example, "And music streaming services offered by Google, Deezer and Spotify have said they would remove music that incites violence, hatred or racism." Now these services have put it out there as policy someone has to define what's violent, hateful or racist in music. Racism? Ok nobody's really going to bat an e…

> Racism? Ok nobody's really going to bat an eye at that disappearing. Violence and hatred though? You've got this all backwards. We should be most concerned about censorship of political beliefs, however wrongheaded they are.

How can you call racism a political belief?

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#150

Post by cleansy »

ZoeZoeBee wrote: post #128
celticninja wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that was the state stopping Nazis from marching, this is a private company refusing to do business with someone. Free speech is a right guaranteed by the state, so you won't go to prison for stating your beliefs. But no one should be obliged to help you air those beliefs against their will.

Did you apply this logic to the bakery who refused to bake the cake for a gay wedding last year? The issue of freedom of speech when it relates to businesses is a pretty good hypocrisy litmus test. Last year the Left was outraged when a business refused service based on moral grounds, while the Right sided with the business, and we have the opposite in this case.

IANAL - but that's a different deal. You are (afaik) not allowed to discriminate against gender, sexual orientation etc. as a business or private person. Whereas Freedom of speech is just about what the gov' can and can't do to you.

Edit: so it's not quite comparable in this way.

Post reply on HN