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

151–160 of 398 posts

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

#151

Post by tenaciousDaniel »

corobo wrote: post #108
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…

Yup, I expected more of a backlash and I'm not good with words under mob pressure. I prefaced it to avoid the "oh so YOU'RE a racist too huh??" potential retort.

Well, when we're at a place where asking where someone is from is considered an example of white supremacy, then it seems we need to couch everything we say with strained deference to social justice. Those are the times we're in, and I blame the left for its obsessive dismantling of our language.

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

#152

Post by narrator »

Even more disturbing to me is that youtube has started banning UFO research channels like Steve Greer's CSETI. I don't really bother watching these channels and consider the UFO thing a bit of a quasi-religion, but they aren't inciting violence or hate against anybody.

Has Google decided they are now the truth police? Is Google taking it upon themselves to be like the Chinese censorship bureaus except for the whole world?

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

#153

Post by Icedcool »

tgb wrote: post #106

I think the hypothetical that people like me on the left need to consider is the following. Our current vice president is extremely anti-abortion. It's no stretch of the imagination to see that portion of the country growing in strength to be there dominant view in power within ten years. In their view abortion doctors are literal baby killers, websites arguing the benefits of abortion are literally advocating the ki…

Well said.

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

#154

Post by justadeveloper2 »

randomstudent wrote: post #57
autokad wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

silencing people is never a good idea. let them speak their mind. only through interaction can a person's mind change. caging them in and then being surprised they did something awful is probably about as bad idea as the ones they have.

This attitude is naïve to the extreme... You're surely aware that prolonged suppression of certain ideas can and often does decrease the prevalence of such ideas in the population? And that such suppression might even make certain people change their minds? I'm not arguing that this is the right strategy, only that it is often extremely effective.

There's nothing naive about it--what is naive is assuming there is some entity out there with the godlike power to determine what speech is good and what is bad. It's either all on the table or none of it is. What we can't do is succumb to the lowest elements of society and that includes not only bigots, but reverse-racists (@see: South Africa), and this idea that low-information/low-intelligence people are somehow intellectually equivalent and all deserve the same respect. I don't mean to sound elitist, but come on--we had a mob destroy a statue of Lincoln in Chicago because apparently all statues are bad now?

The point is, there's some really dumb stuff going on and it's time to take back intellectualism from the ideologues and demand and end to the childish behavior and that might as well start with the baseless mistreatment of the Trump family as well as the baseless mistreatment of all conservatives, moderates, and other non-far-left, non-progressives.

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

#155

Post by 24gttghh »

melling wrote: post #99
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.

I think the article sums up the problem quite well: "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." Can I refused to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage? You can always go somewhere else.

Can we please stop comparing treatment of gays and treatment of nazi's like they're some kind of equivalent? Gay people from most accounts were born that way, and just want to remain being alive and gay. Nazi's should be given no safe harbor, as they want to opress and/or kill gay people along with everyone else who don't want nazi's to have power.

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

#156

Post by yoavm »

undersuit wrote: post #15

I don't think private-sector companies have any obligation to host anything. The problem is we in the tech community have watched with only minor concerns as the web grew increasingly centralized and left the power to these companies. The Daily Stormer has no right to an domain name or search results or ad revenue, no site does. The Daily Stormer has every right to exist, but it doesn't have a right to be served fast…

I'm confused. Are you saying no site should have a domain name?

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

#157

Post by gthtjtkt »

jlebrech wrote: post #43
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…

yes but, you cannot access any of it. the downside to them being down is that there's no more proof they were more than just white trolls.

Yes, but you'll easily find similar sites when you search for it.

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

#158

Post by throwawaymanbot »

stillkicking wrote: post #142
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…

I saw plenty of evidence that Nazis are doing the same in charlotesville and else where. There was an old Nazi by the name of Tubbs, who was actively directing skirmishes. <30 seconds of googling can help you factually on this.

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

#159

Post by watty »

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…

So true. I had to create a separate Reddit account to have these discussions about internet freedom and refusing service because people assume I'm a white supremacist / Nazi.

I'm not, I just think it opens up some interesting discussion as to what we can or can't discriminate against.

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

#160

Post by eli_gottlieb »

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…

>I assume that the vast majority of people on the planet don't support Nazis or anything related.

Apparently the vast majority of people on the planet aren't enough to stop fascists from threatening, beating, and murdering people.

Post reply on HN