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

211–220 of 398 posts

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

#211

Post by eli_gottlieb »

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?

>Why don't people get upset like this when companies refuse to carry pornography?

Because it's not about freedom of speech. It's about making sure that the political Right and far-right get as much platform as they need to spread their message, and damn all other principles.

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

#212

Post by Sacho »

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.

Is that really a paradox in the US? Popper talks about unlimited tolerance, but this is not the case in the US or really any country. There's not even unlimited tolerance of speech, as we're well aware of narrow exceptions to the FA - defamation, obscenity, fighting words...

It seems to be by the time intolerant people become an imminent threat, they would have already broken the tolerance levels in the US - e.g. physical violence.

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

#213

Post by devmunchies »

tyingq wrote: post #17

"And music streaming services offered by Google, Deezer and Spotify have said they would remove music that incites violence, hatred or racism." That sounds like a big job, and one filled with ambiguity. Classifying forum posts is one thing, but trying to determine intent with music is going to be tricky.

Its a roundabout way of saying "music that engages in far-right conservative thought." Its definitely a political issue.

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

#214

Post by optimuspaul »

koolba wrote: post #70
corobo wrote: post #13

While I definitely don't support the people they're booting off I do have to agree with the EFF here. For example, "And music streaming services offered by Google, Deezer and Spotify have said they would remove music that incites violence, hatred or racism." Now these services have put it out there as policy someone has to define what's violent, hateful or racist in music. Racism? Ok nobody's really going to bat an e…

> While I definitely don't support the people they're booting off... A bit off topic but how many bytes are spent on prefaces like this on responses to this topic? I assume that the vast majority of people on the planet don't support Nazis or anything related. I find it interesting that any discussion of them has to include that line lest the speaker/writer be labeled as one (which happens quite a bit anyway but that…

> I assume that the vast majority of people on the planet don't support Nazis or anything related.

Sadly that is a bold assumption that the facts do not necessarily support.

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

#215

Post by eli_gottlieb »

lagadu wrote: post #172
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 differ…

So to be clear, you think "Heil Hitler! Enslave the blacks and exterminate the Jews!" is a more socially important sort of speech than, "Fuck me harder, I love it!"?

I don't want to live on this planet anymore, with the bizarre reversals in basic sense of priorities here.

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

#216

Post by watty »

averagewall wrote: post #36

Why are big companies banning this? Surely Google, GoDaddy and Cloudflare, even Spotify aren't going to be hurt by any public backlash. GoDaddy is already widely despised as a bad actor. I can understand a small startup at risk of being destroyed by an internet mob for supporting Nazis, but not these. Are they afraid of legal consequences? Aren't they safe to just wait till the police asks them to take it down before…

It's the opposite - they believe that banning them will get them GOOD publicity, and it has. Look at how many people are talking about OkCupid today for banning that Nazi in the Vice video.

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

#217

Post by colordrops »

odiroot wrote: post #131
corobo wrote: post #13

While I definitely don't support the people they're booting off I do have to agree with the EFF here. For example, "And music streaming services offered by Google, Deezer and Spotify have said they would remove music that incites violence, hatred or racism." Now these services have put it out there as policy someone has to define what's violent, hateful or racist in music. Racism? Ok nobody's really going to bat an e…

I agree with that. By the same token they would need to remove all the content that promotes communism in multiple countries. In my country it's illegal as is the case with nazism. I don't hold much hope Google, Spotify etc. would actually walk that road.

In what country is communism illegal?

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

#218

Post by yoavm »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #175
yoavm wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah, agreed. I was confused by the use of the word right in "has no right to an domain name", but English isn't my first language.

I agree that a private company does not have to host any neo-nazi materials (or anything really, for that matter). I would do the same if it was my company and I would rather work with such a company as a customer.

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

#219

Post by SaltySolomon »

mantas wrote: post #23
salimmadjd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's even more frustrating when people supposedly loving freedom say that freedom of speech was only meant to protect from government and private companies can discriminate as they wish. I'm 99.99% certain if freedom of speech was formulated today, it would include private companies as well.

But wouldn't you limit the speech of a person that way, I mean it is also the freedom of association that is given to those companies and they choose not to associate with them.

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

#220

Post by throwawayjava »

elefanten wrote: post #162
justadeveloper2 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me examples of corporations mass murdering people, though? Your faith in big government is completely misplaced. The truth is, you can't trust any entity with consolidated power to be forthright and favor humanity over all other considerations.

This is beyond stupid. A democracy is structured to be open and conflict is embedded to force decision-making by consensus and compromise. Corporations are structured to be closed, authoritarian structures. We're lucky there isn't much history of corporations having state-like scale + monopoly on legitimate violence. Super lucky.

> We're lucky there isn't much history of corporations having state-like scale + monopoly on legitimate violence. Super lucky.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

Post reply on HN