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

171–180 of 398 posts

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

#171

Post by bmelton »

mantas wrote: post #68
celticninja wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely you can be free to say whatever you want but a business doesn't have to do business with you. For example I could wear a Nazi T-Shirt with "Hang all Niggers" emblazoned in it, and a shop could quite rightly refuse to admit me to their store or refuse to serve me if I did go into their store. So why is it different for Google or Facebook to say "we don't want you as a customer"?

That's what I'm saying. If it was truly freedom of speech, a shop couldn't refuse to serve you either.

By your definition, true freedom of speech would force me to open my home to Nazis so that they could come in and yell at me about how much they hate my consorting with Jews.

In the real world, freedom of speech is generally free enough as it is, and in the example above, is in tension with my right to freedom of association. Yes, the Nazis are allowed to yell at me, just as I'm allowed to distance myself from them. If I own property, I can go one step further by going home and locking the door.

I don't like Nazis, but Google's censorship here is giving me pause. Yes, of course they have every right to refuse to do business with whomever they like. Thankfully, so do I. If I don't care for Google's censorship, I'm free to use Spotify, or Pandora, or whatever other company (hopefully) makes a principled stand against censorship.

At the end of the day, it's their house, and if they want to lock the door to keep Nazis out, I can't imagine any fair world that would force them to open those doors.

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

#172

Post by lagadu »

mikeash wrote: post #81

Why don't people get upset like this when companies refuse to carry pornography? That's been really common for a long time, even if not universal, and I don't recall ever hearing a peep about it from the likes of the EFF. Maybe I missed it?

I agree with your sentiment but I only realise it now after having given it some thought.

The reason I disagree with the silencing of nationalist speech but didn't consider porn to be effectively suffering from the same issue is because I simply never considered censoring porn to be a speech issue. I had never thought of it as an idea, which is what I think of when it comes to political ideologies.

I think the difference here is more related to whom is doing the censoring. Google or MS don't censor porn on their products, Facebook only partially removes some related imagery so I don't see it as a concerted attempt to blocking the people's access to it, which is what I see as being the current trend when it comes to these more controversial topics. It's all my bias of course.

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

#173

Post by stillkicking »

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'd rather a political litmus test not be part of getting access to basic information society services.

"I think despicable people have a right to talk, but I'd rather they be forced to string together two tin cans than be able to own cellphones or audio amplification equipment."

"I think despicable people have a right to eat, but I'd rather they be forced to dig roots and vegetables out of the ground than be able to buy processed foods from a supermarket."

Where is that line, exactly? And what is the rationale for drawing it there?

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

#174

Post by hjnilsson »

yoavm wrote: post #156
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?

They can switch to a dns provider that tolerates their cause. But GoDaddy has no obligation to provide service to them if they do not want to.

(I assume GoDaddy only pulled their DNS service, Daily Storm still owns the domain. If this is wrong please correct me)

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

#175

Post by eli_gottlieb »

yoavm wrote: post #156
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?

He's saying no site is entitled to a domain name from a privately-owned registrar.

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

#176

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

adbachman wrote: post #117
NaliSauce wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>bigotry >intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. Quite an ironic comment.

It's the Paradox of Tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Refusing to tolerate the intolerant, when their intolerance _may_ be an imminent threat to society (e.g. neo-nazis in the US being defended by the current president) is paradoxical and distasteful, but not inconsistent with a liberal position on tolerance.

When ever I think about issues regarding racism and tolerance, I like to think of Daryl Davis and Keshia Thomas.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/black-man-daryl-davis... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/black-woman-recalls...

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

#177

Post by leereeves »

danblick wrote: post #167

I recently finished Tim Wu's "The Master Switch", which is a history about the early radio/telephone/television/film industries, consolidation in those industries, and the effects on free speech. One of my favorite examples from the book is the story about Hollywood and the Production Code in the 1930s. This was a voluntary code that the major studios obeyed for their own commercial interests (they wanted to avoid bo…

> Hollywood and the decency code in the 1930s

Hollywood suffered again under corporate censorship during the second Red Scare (the Hollywood blacklist). History should have taught us the dangers of the attitude that "free speech doesn't apply to private companies".

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

#178

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

salimmadjd wrote: post #9
bedhead wrote: post #2

It's increasingly uncomfortable to realize that a handful of tech companies are in many ways more powerful than the government. I don't like the direction anything is headed in.

Agreed! The initial intent of 1st Amendment was to protect the public against tyranny of the government. However, when entities like Google, Apple, FB have such impact on the population and spread of information, they can become the "great firewall". This is very dangerous and google should not be in the position to become the thought police.

This is a facet of American culture that I've always found interesting...

Self determination is a very core part of what I, an outsider, see as American-ism. But self determination only seems to apply to government interference, not private.

For example, in the US organisations like HOAs (Homeowners Associations) and employers are allowed to encroach on what from my perspective I consider personal freedoms, but people accept it in the US because they're non-governmental in origin.

Here in Europe, freedom is freedom. It is irrelevant who is telling you you cannot paint your home orange be it local government, a private entity, or your next door neighbour. But in the US freedom only applies to government, private entities are allowed to violate people however they want under the guise of "choice."

What I've found in my life is that choice is a perk of the wealthy. The poor often lack choice.

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

#179

Post by melling »

24gttghh wrote: post #155
melling wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

- Noam Chomsky

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

#180

Post by [deleted] »

scrollaway wrote: post #149
wildmusings wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN