Don't we already block and shutdown Islamic terrorist sites? How are Nazi terrorist sites different?
You're getting warmer.
Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression
181–190 of 204 posts
Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you please make a complete list of all of the ideas I can't read about because I'm too stupid? Thanks!/s Who decides who is uneducated? Who decides what ideas are so bad they can't read? What's the enforcement mechanism?
1. Incitement to hatred based on religion, sex, race. 2. No need to decide who is uneducated. 3. Who decided that child porn is bad? I believe America can manage it. Most European countries could.
Again, what's the enforcement mechanism?
Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see open Nazis having a seat in government in any country where it is legal to advocate Nazi ideologies. On the other hand, Austria and Germany, two countries where that is illegal, have together 5 European MP's from their respective Nazi parties.
Apparently you haven't seen Trump.
I get where you're coming from, but imagine Trump was openly affiliated with Nazis. He would not have been elected.
Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently you haven't seen Trump.
I get where you're coming from, but imagine Trump was openly affiliated with Nazis. He would not have been elected.
Well, I guess it depends on your definition of "open". There is such a thing as an "open secret". And I think we all know which side of the fence Trump is on.
Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression
#185"[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…
Hardly. America is just finally catching up to Europe on banning hate speech.
Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression
#186Earlier 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).
Why not? If I own a bar I shouldn't be allowed to decide what entertainment I hire based on their content? We can't have a society where all speech is protected, even from private actors.
Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, there is no slippery slope. This is a group that advocates an ideology that, when it was put in place, resulted in catastrophe for mankind. In other words, what they advocate is what exists at the bottom of the slope. You know, Godwin's Law and all that?
>This is a group that advocates an ideology that, when it was put in place, resulted in catastrophe for mankind. And what about other ideologies which have had similar results? How many has died under communist? What about religious extremist whose beliefs have led to mass murder? Are we being consistent with the reasoning? If not, then the reasoning given isn't the actual reasoning, so what is the actual reasoning?
Ideologies that inadvertently caused many deaths are different from one where mass murder is the stated goal.
Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression
#188"incite hate" That is a scary, clever manipulation of language. Inciting violence is an exception to free speech because it is directly linked to a specific violent result. "Hate" is non-specific, and not an action at all. It often means nothing more than offending someone or violating some political correctness. Hate speech is and should be protected speech.
Hate speech is protected from the government interfering with it. Other than that, there are no protections. Google or any other company or individual is perfectly free to give a platform to only the speech they decide to. Because they too are protected from government interference.
Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression
#189I really don't understand the resistance here. I have heard no arguments against no-platforming isis propaganda. Youtube, twitter, facebook all have a policy of removing such content. I don't really have a problem with white supremacists also being no-platformed. These are private entities, deciding for themselves that they refuse to be party to such content. Let the dipshits buy their own damn servers. Now, the minu…
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.
Which is why we should stop calling this a free speech problem and call it what it is: a monopoly. The government can actually do something about that one.
Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like a false equivalence to me, given that Google (et al) are not the government nor acting due to pressure from the government. I do understand and value the concern around legislating free speech, but I think different rules apply for governments and corporations.
It only takes one lawsuit that goes to the supreme court to turn this whole debate into a federal legislative debate about civil rights or some other expansive constitutional issue. When your in a situation where domain registrars and other core infrastructure are making judgements about what political speech they will allow on the internet then I would imagine your very close to a whole host of issues that cut the c…
The guy in Denver who refused to bake a gay wedding cake has his case before the Supreme Court this term.