[deleted]
Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
201–210 of 398 posts
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#202There are a huge number of DNS registrars. So the fact that GoDaddy and Google chose not to act as their DNS registrar doesn't follow that they can't find _anyone_ to be a DNS registrar. (And indeed, they were able to find a DNS registrar in Russia.)
Similarly, there are a large number of ISP's and hosting partners. So if Amazon were to choose not to want to host their web site, on the theory that they were going to get huge numbers of DOS attacks, and they don't want to do deal with the PR blowback of supporting an extremely unpopular group --- is that really censorship?
This seems to be another variant of "freedom of the press" doesn't mean "free presses" issue. To say that the owner of a printing press should be forced to print Racist materials seems to be... morally dubious. It's true that the owner of an apartment isn't allowed to choose not to do business with someone based on their race, gender, religion, etc. Unfortunately for the Alt-Right, the neo-Nazi's aren't a protected class. If they think it should be, they should feel free to lobby to change the law. If President Trump thinks there are "very fine people" who belong to the Alt-Right, maybe he would even be willing to sign it....
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#203Earlier 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.
Did you apply this logic to the bakery who refused to bake the cake for a gay wedding last year? The issue of freedom of speech when it relates to businesses is a pretty good hypocrisy litmus test. Last year the Left was outraged when a business refused service based on moral grounds, while the Right sided with the business, and we have the opposite in this case.
There is a fundamental difference between large businesses and small businesses that operate on a personal scale.
Hilton discriminating on race: wrong.
Google discriminating on politics: wrong.
Doctor refusing circumcision: OK.
Bakery refusing gay wedding cake: OK.
Musician refusing to play in $religious_building: OK.
Especially if a large business is a monopoly.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure this kind of policy even has whatever the intended effect is, seems how it appears to be a reaction to Charlottesville events. Take "music that incites racism" (what do you put into Pandora to get that genre?) for example. If you have users listening to it (because before Charlottesville you thought it was okay!) and you remove it telling them their music is basically banned aren't those users just going…
Absolutely. Neo Nazis have been a fringe group for decades and never caused much trouble. Now I actually feel some affinity to them because I see them as an underdog being beaten down. That's how you get supporters - get oppressed. In fact that's how the original Nazi movement started in the first place - a vent to Germans' frustrations at being oppressed by the winners of WWI.
What’s also interesting is the media’s concerns with “how could these group of white males form these groups, what would motivate them to do it?” Totally miss the point that the same social-economic stressors and cultural resentment are what lead to the growth of gangs And radicalism terrorist groups.
I would love to see everyone stand up and deplore gang violence with the same aggressiveness considering people are dying in cities daily.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
See here's a great example of why I prefaced my message. Sorry but I'm lacking in either English language skills or politics but I haven't got a clue what you're saying. I'm ill-equipped to respond to this sort of reply. I'm not even sure what side of the fence you're debating for here. Now imagine if it was filled with accusations of being a racist, I'd probably just be curled up in a ball under my desk waiting for…
I think you may just need to read more carefully. It's abundantly clear what he's saying, and "what side of the fence" he's on.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#206Earlier 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?
Sometimes it seems as if there are as many definitions of 'racism' as there are people discussing it.
'Race nationalism' is certainly political. I suspect most people would associate that with 'racism' in at least some way.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#207>"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." Maybe it's just me but I think enabling hate-speech and bigotry is much worse than failing to maintain 100% neutrality. There's nothing stopping these maniacs from starting their own intermediaries to host the content(trash)…
>bigotry >intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. Quite an ironic comment.
I find it more ironic that last week people applauded Google for firing James Damore and saying "there's no room for that here", and this week Google is threatening free speech by removing real threatening content.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where I grew up, websites used to be blocked by my government because of blasphemy and morality reasons. Criticism of Islam, pro secularism, and yes also porn. I used kazaa to get "God delusion" and "satanic verses", books that would have gotten me into serious trouble. Please don't let that happen in America. Making up hate or blasphemy reasons is very easy.
Not saying that I agree, but some people say that the best way of making sure what you describe doesn't happen to America is by stopping the Nazis right now. Yes, you loose the high ground of supporting absolute free speech but supposedly you gain a more restricted form of free speech that is more likely to stand the test of time.
This is assuming that there is some nazi uprising, but the thing is, there aren't any powerful nazi groups in the US. There is no point in wasting your time in "stopping the Nazis". Everyone keeps shouting about nazis but its such a small threat, and is only gaining traction because people are obsessed.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's Tipper Gore vs. Frank Zappa all over again.
From the cover of a Zappa album at the time: "WARNING/GUARANTEE: This album contains material which a truly free society would neither fear nor suppress. In some socially retarded areas, religious fanatics and ultra-conservative political organizations violate your First Ammendment Rights by attempting to censor rock & roll albums. We feel that this is un-Constitutional and un-American. As an alternative to these gov…
It’s ironic how the political tables have turned.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#210Earlier 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.
When private companies obtain near-monopoly status, they become a significant danger to the public interest and the government rightly scrutinizes their every move. I still think WalMart should have been compelled to stop altering music CDs in the 90s. And I still think any "too big to fail" company should be broken up under antitrust proceedings. This wouldn't be a problem without the Citizens United ruling. Corpora…
So now it becomes a regulatory issues, ie should they be regulated and treated like utilities in that access should be available to all regardless of race, wealth or political persuasion.