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

Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

rnz.co.nz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 337 posts

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#191

Post by int_19h »

bilbo0s wrote: post #66
commandlinefan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is, by definition, censorship. It's not _government_ censorship, but it's still censorship.

Yeah, but so what? Companies need censorship to make money. They shouldn't have to lose money simply to satisfy your or my idea of not censoring. Now the government? Yeah. That's a whole other issue.

It becomes a political issue when all companies start engaging with it, especially when they do so under external political pressure ("We really don't want to pass a law - how about you self-regulate?").

Consider the situation in Australia, where all ISPs acted in concert to block websites. It's technically not government censorship, but the effect is the same - so any utilitarian rationale behind restrictions on government censorship should apply here equally.

Or maybe this should just be considered a form of illegal cartel.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#192

Post by floki999 »

pathseeker wrote: post #128
floki999 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps. Unfortunately absolute enshrinement of anything and the inability to critically evaluate when to allow for common-sense deviation from such enshrinement is a bit of a progress-stopper.

> common-sense deviation Common-sense deviations, a.k.a. an exceptions to the rules are often ill-conceived acts of emotional stupidity that don't age well. If it was so obvious, why wasn't it part of the rule in the first place?

Same argument applies to those rules or enshrined values. Times change.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#193

Post by incompatible »

int_19h wrote: post #185
incompatible wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that certain countries would describe LGBTQ activities as "terrorist and violent extremist content"? I don't think they would need to, they have special anti-LGBTQ laws already.

Given that Saudi Arabia considers atheism to be a form of terrorism already, I don't see it as particularly far fetched. The reason to do so is because it allows making misleading claims for propaganda purposes.

I suppose it's a familiar strategy, pass draconian laws against terrorism, then expand the definition of "terrorism" to anything you don't like.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/politics/georgia-offic...

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#194

Post by int_19h »

adbge wrote: post #43
basetop wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I rather live with the remote threat of extremism rather than live in a censored world. Would you rather live in North Korea with no extremism? You have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning than dying from extremism and yet you'd give up your right to free speech for some remote threat? That kind of thinking is the cause of north korea and nazi germany. Authoritarians always use remote threats to justify t…

It's also produced Singapore.

I would argue that Singapore is an example of a benevolent dictatorship. The problem with all such, that was already noted by Ancient Greeks, is that you have no guarantees that the next dictator is going to be benevolent.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#195

Post by int_19h »

hulahoof wrote: post #54
spamizbad wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, there's a few other "ISIS archives" that are used largely by intelligence analysts, journalists, historians, and academics for study. But I don't think NZ is saying "Hey journalists and academics, don't study a dump of 8chan!"

I wouldn't be so sure, following the aftermath of Christchurch my network (AU) and several others have not unblocked the Chan's. I don't believe they are planning to either.

Can you clarify if there are actual legal restrictions on that content in place, or is this still unilateral ISP action?

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#196

Post by PorterDuff »

CodiePetersen wrote: post #162
endorphone wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Let's just examine the governments currently signed to it." You picked three. How about Australia, Canada, European Commission, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom. Are you going to examine those? Most of those are the most free, most protective countries. "The hate isn't "spreading through social media" the hate and the fear were alread…

"Are you going to examine those? Most of those are the most free, most protective countries." I could I suppose go over more of them. The point though, that I was making when I mentioned in exempting fictitious future governments, is that it can be used NOW by real governments. Sure there will be nations that don't abuse it indefinitely, but you can't ensure a governments intent 5 years from now let alone 50. There a…

"...is that it can be used NOW by real governments." "They are just like casinos. Just look at twitter."

Two good, but arguably separate points. I'd say that the internet generally (besides the .0001% of it that is of bonafide intellectual content) has gone down the same road as slot machine design and they're getting better at it.

The main point (and threat) of agreements like this is that they set up a legal framework and the physical ability to control what people see from a central switch. Combine that with the ever-improving ability to both addict people to pictures on screens and to nudge them in a desired direction, it's really all about power.

I suppose in the final analysis it's all just takes the place of state sponsored religions.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#197

Post by int_19h »

Taniwha wrote: post #11
notfromhere wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first amendment is against government censorship, not private companies providing platforms for free speech on their private networks.

The 1st amendment also only applies in the US, in this case the US has essentially decided that it likes nazis and doesn't want to get involved with this international coalition

This guy was a socialist who literally killed Nazis. Please, spare a couple of minutes, and read what he had to say, and note that this was originally written in 1945.

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#198

Post by int_19h »

phil248 wrote: post #88
hugh4life wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The US has plenty of laws against the use of speech to promote violence." What laws are you talking about?

An example is the law against distributing information on making bombs/weapons with the intent of promoting/enabling violence. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842

You should be aware that just because something is in the US Code, doesn't mean that it's actually enforceable. For example, there's a law that bans burning the American flag:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/700

However, this act was explicitly ruled to be protected political speech under the First Amendment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Eichman

In a similar vein, the law you've linked to would still be subject to the "imminent lawless action" analysis, were someone to be charged under it.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#199

Post by PorterDuff »

int_19h wrote: post #186
0xADEADBEE wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to expand on this a little bit, it is contingent on ISP and as far as I know, the following websites: - voat.co - 4chan.org - 8ch.net - liveleak.com - archive.is - bitchute.com - zerohedge.com - kiwifarms.net I think I'm right in saying that Telstra, Optus and Vodafone are the 'Big Three', and they have blocked the above. Here in NZ, It's Vodafone, Spark and 2 Degrees, all of whom, I understand, blocked access,…

Wait, are you saying that watching the video is considered a crime in and of itself? Not redistribution, and not even mere possession, but just seeing it?

Evidently you can't even read the manifesto (which involves possession of course. Dunno if you get in trouble for reading it over someone's shoulder).

https://qz.com/1579660/new-zealands-manifesto-ban-explained-...

According to that article, having a copy is worth 10 years in the pokey.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#200

Post by BigJono »

anigbrowl wrote: post #179

It'd be great if people who want to explore this as a free speech issue would engage with the question of what happens to the free speech (and other) rights of people who are killed by extremists, and whether they are more or less important than the rights of people who advocate such killings.

The comparison isn't between 40 people's right to live vs every terrorist's right to free speech. It's between some probabalistic chance that 40 people's right to live isn't violated in the future due to these actions, versus some probabalistic chance of millions of innocent people being silenced and having their privacy violated in various ways due to the collateral damage from this kind of policy making for the foreseeable future. This shit never gets revoked once it's in place.

History is wrought with examples of people's free speech being violated. How many examples do we really have of when someone's free speech was successfully violated to protect proportionally more important rights?

The entire western world is slowly giving up every single ounce of privacy and freedom, in exchange, and for what? ISIS is finished, the rate of Muslim terrorist attacks seems to be falling off pretty fast, and the swell of fascist sentiment will slowly wind down too once the factors that triggered it are no longer present. This isn't some new concept that's never happened before. And in 10 or 15 years are we going to be happy with the state of government control in countries like Australia, NZ, UK etc given what we've got out of it?

Post reply on HN