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

221–230 of 398 posts

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

#221

Post by tome »

mantas wrote: post #58
lmm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm 99.99% certain if freedom of speech was formulated today, it would include private companies as well. Freedom of speech already does. Unfortunately Americans tend to conflate the broad concept with the US First Amendment.

Which "freedom of speech" does? European Freedom of speech has quite a few caveats too. There were cases where people lost their jobs for their extracurricular legal activities that were hate speech according to someone. Like in US, private companies seem to give in much quicker than government that tries to follow the law to the letter.

The general notion of what it means for speech to be free, not a legal protection of that notion.

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

#222

Post by thanatropism »

leereeves wrote: post #168
watty wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So true. I had to create a separate Reddit account to have these discussions about internet freedom and refusing service because people assume I'm a white supremacist / Nazi. I'm not, I just think it opens up some interesting discussion as to what we can or can't discriminate against.

Reddit is particularly bad. I'm glad there's a place like Hacker News where people who disagree can still speak to one another civilly.

On occasion I have the impression that all my recent comments have been downvoted by 1 in a short span of time.

Not that HN karma matters, but it's very well possible that that is already going on.

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

#223

Post by 24gttghh »

splintercell wrote: post #184
24gttghh wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we please stop comparing treatment of gays and treatment of nazi's like they're some kind of equivalent? Gay people from most accounts were born that way, and just want to remain being alive and gay. Nazi's should be given no safe harbor, as they want to opress and/or kill gay people along with everyone else who don't want nazi's to have power.

I don't think you understand 'freedom of speech', when you start saying 'I believe in freedom of speech for only X kind of speech, because the other kind abhorrent'.

I didn't say anything about freedom of speech.

I do not believe nazi's or any other group have any right to promote hate and violence against others.

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

#224

Post by mantas »

bmelton wrote: post #171
mantas wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I'm saying. If it was truly freedom of speech, a shop couldn't refuse to serve you either.

By your definition, true freedom of speech would force me to open my home to Nazis so that they could come in and yell at me about how much they hate my consorting with Jews. In the real world, freedom of speech is generally free enough as it is, and in the example above, is in tension with my right to freedom of association. Yes, the Nazis are allowed to yell at me, just as I'm allowed to distance myself from them.…

At least in my country, there're laws for disturbing public. Even if you shout "I love political correctness" too loudly and too long, you can be taken to custody and fined.

If Nazis are such a big problem, secret service and whatnot should start looking into them. It's not a job of private company to enforce it's own point-of-view on the society. Wether it's correct not, but a private company cannot hold a a fair trial. And censorship without one is just wrong. I'd rather have a pissed off bakery serving gay cakes and coffeeshop serving nazi teaparty than letting a private company apply censorship.

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

#225

Post by [deleted] »

psyc wrote: post #127
koolba wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

For a long time, it seemed it was only Tumblr types who were calling everyone nazi. Recently, even people I've known for 20 years, who I thought were normal, have been posting/tweeting to the effect of either you're loudly proclaiming your opposition to nazism, or you're on their side.

[deleted]

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

#226

Post by averagewall »

24gttghh wrote: post #155
melling wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the article sums up the problem quite well: "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." Can I refused to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage? You can always go somewhere else.

Can we please stop comparing treatment of gays and treatment of nazi's like they're some kind of equivalent? Gay people from most accounts were born that way, and just want to remain being alive and gay. Nazi's should be given no safe harbor, as they want to opress and/or kill gay people along with everyone else who don't want nazi's to have power.

Choice vs born-with-it isn't a valid reason. If science discovered a way to change your sexuality, would you be OK discriminating against gays after-all? Religion is also protected and nobody is born with a particular religion. Country of birth is something that people are born with but we heavily discriminate against that - a Syrian can't just get the plane to America and go set up home there. You Americans will almost unanimously agree to stop him for no other reason than an accident of birth.

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

#227

Post by arkh »

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…

The French anthem would be removed with those rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Marseillaise#Lyrics

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

#228

Post by thanatropism »

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…

If some people had their say, Islam would be banned as a whole based on an anti-hatred policy.

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

#229

Post by inevitable2 »

orangecat wrote: post #145
CWuestefeld wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's stupid. But that's the place we're at in the culture war. Pres. Trump is being crucified right now precisely for failing to provide such a statement. We all have to be careful to pay our tributes, or we'll be ostracized. Can you think of any other reason for such widespread repetition of these useless words? (And of course I must, too. I'm speaking here from a completely abstract standpoint which shouldn't…

Pres. Trump is being crucified right now precisely for failing to provide such a statement. It's a bit more than that. Trump has had no problem condemning Antifa thugs and violent radical Islamists, so it is noteworthy when he equivocates on violent white supremacists, especially when some of them are claiming that he supports them.

He has multiple times condemned the kkk and neo nazi's as well as the groups you mentioned. What I don't understand from media coverage is why is what he said not treated like condemnation for those groups or that his words weren't strong enough or that it needs to be repeated at every news conference.

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

#230

Post by MichaelGG »

psyc wrote: post #127
koolba wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

For a long time, it seemed it was only Tumblr types who were calling everyone nazi. Recently, even people I've known for 20 years, who I thought were normal, have been posting/tweeting to the effect of either you're loudly proclaiming your opposition to nazism, or you're on their side.

I saw a thread where trolls were rejoicing, saying: they kept calling everybody a Nazi so some of us actually became Nazis.

While well some people might put disclaimers on everything others are simply giving up. This started during the Trump campaign where everybody was called racist. The same with anti-semitism, especially against the current president who has a Jewish daughter. When people sling these around just as general insults and as a way to say you're wrong, then they lose their power.

Post reply on HN