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

191–200 of 204 posts

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

#191

Post by novaleaf »

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…

except they are.

They say "we agree with the ban" but then say "it's dangerous!"

of course it's dangerous, and yes, the speech is vile. but freedom of speech doesn't stop when we are insulted.

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

#192

Post by Caveman_Coder »

namlem wrote: post #185
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…

Hardly. America is just finally catching up to Europe on banning hate speech.

...which isn't a good thing in my opinion.

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

#193

Post by gcp »

tchaffee wrote: post #189
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.

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.

I concur!

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

#194

Post by gcp »

anigbrowl wrote: post #175
gcp wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also means that, for example, they have the freedom to pool funds and buy their own server, and host it in a datacenter that is willing to do business with them, or they can host their shit on ipfs. It's not going to help them much if they can't get a domain registrar, or effective DDoS protection (rather relevant given their situation).

So what? The Daily Stormer isn't being treated as a pariah because Andrew Anglin is Caucasian, but because he calls for white supremacy and war against others.

So what?

So they don't get freedom of speech, which is the discussion here. Most people believe freedom of speech is a good thing we want.

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

#195

Post by gcp »

Raz2 wrote: post #106
gcp wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uneducated people should be protected from ideas that are proven to be bad. Like capitalism? Or free Negroes? Western Culture?

Please don't make it absurd. The border is very clear. Ideas that undoubtedly caused tens of millions of deaths. It is even worse than child porn.

Ideas that undoubtedly caused tens of millions of deaths.

Yes, I mentioned Western Culture, didn't I?

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

#196

Post by spiffytech »

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...

"Any internet conversation of unbounded size will inevitably attempt to solve social problems with a blockchain."

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

#197

Post by peoplewindow »

CaptSpify wrote: post #37
xupybd wrote: post #20

"It’s unclear whether this is for a limited amount of time, or whether Google has decided to effectively take ownership of the dailystormer.com domain permanently" Wait, what, they can do this? So if I get Google to host my domain they can just take it at will? Given the value of some domains that's insane. Google must be on shaky legal ground here.

I was surprised by this too, but Google is one of the biggest kids on the playground right now, so I guess it's natural for them to throw their weight around. Obvious note: Outsourcing your stuff to a 3rd party like that is risky, and should be considered so

It's not really about them being a big kid in the playground ... they're surely a minor player in the DNS hosting market.

It's more that their internal extremism means they feel justified in doing this sort of thing because they feel 'dangerous' speech must be suppressed.

I am concluding that Google is no longer trustworthy enough to run a search engine.

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

#198

Post by jeffdavis »

tchaffee wrote: post #188
jeffdavis wrote: post #135

"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.

True, and we are free to criticize them for abusing their power. Further, we should reconsider the high amount of trust we place in Google, et al.

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

#199

Post by marcus_holmes »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #128
zimpenfish wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is that a useful observation, though? As the length of any internet argument grows, the probability of anything being said would approach 1.

I don't know about anyone else, but unless the discussion is actually historical in nature, then the point at which I find a discussion ceases to be interesting and reverts to name-calling is about the point that Godwin's Law appears.

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

#200

Post by BearGoesChirp »

namlem wrote: post #187
BearGoesChirp wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

What happens if the deaths are a direct result, but not openly stated in the 10 minute summary?

Take for example, a group that wants to remove undesirables from the US (I'll leave which group open for imagination, it doesn't really matter). They advocate non-violent removal through legal means. This sounds nice in practice, but many, especially libertarians, will quickly realize that any police enforcement of such laws would result in threats of violence. Namely, either the group leave willingly or police will begin to physically attack them to arrest them, and any resistance would be met with tasers on a good day or bullets on a bad day.

Even though they advocate non-violent methods, I think it is reasonable to say they are actually advocating violence (unless they can purpose some truly non-violent method that I'm unaware of).

Post reply on HN