I hope one day we will be able to condemn these politicians, bureaucrats and big corps for their crimes against free speech, just like we did with the nazis when they tried to subvert Europe.
We need serious laws with draconian punishments to protect our rights, what we have now is insufficient.
Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
241–250 of 337 posts
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is definitely incorrect: > The hate isn't "spreading through social media" the hate and the fear were already there. If extremism couldn't be effectively spread, extremists wouldn't bother trying. But they put quite a lot of effort into recruiting and propaganda. For those interested, I strongly recommend Neiwart's "Alt-America": https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MT2KCB2/ He's a journalist who in the 80s and 90s was…
Extremism was spreading long before the internet. We literally had a cold war to try to stop the spread of communism not to mention there are countless examples in history where the populace was swayed by extremism. The nazis didn't have internet but they were perfectly capable of getting people lined up for war. It's definitely not the technology, they will find any method they need to spread their message.
> Extremism was spreading long before the internet.
Yes but not as quickly, cheaply, or effectively. You might as well say "planes do nothing because people were migrating between continents before they existed".
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#243This just sounds like a giant can of worms that is going to blow up in people's faces. Remove for a moment any potential future government alignments, just so we aren't talking about hypothetical fictitious governments. Let's just examine the governments currently signed to it. Indonesia has harsh religious laws, crack downs on illegal reporting, and literally raids on LGBTQ gatherings. The Senegal government arbitra…
>The hate isn't "spreading through social media" the hate and the fear were already there.
Well, hate and fear maybe we all share. But the idea to express them in terms of killing innocent people is factually "spreading through social media".
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What constitutes ‘extremism’? It’s a term so vague as to be practically meaninglessness. No, it isn't. Inevitably someone like yourself will come into threads like these and attempt to start a slippery slope argument by trying to imply that the subject at hand is meaningless and, therefore, all attempts to address it are arbitrary. It really is strange how, for certain subjects, people just forget how English works…
> Although this is Hacker News, and I know it's futile here to suggest that standing in the way of bigots and extremists is anything but a slippery slope towards an Orwellian dystopian nightmare of fascism and thought-police and boots crushing our heads forever Of course it's futile, because you're not really "standing in the way bigots and extremists" but deciding for other people what ideas they are allowed to hear…
> If I then proceed to do something unlawful as result of my judgement, then that is my own fault and I will be held liable for it.
I am A-OK with that stance right up until it infringes on the rights of someone else. Taking illegal drugs in your own home vs taking them and then driving are both your "fault", sure, but one of them runs the risk of hurting others. But then how do you legislate for avoiding the second without infringing the first?
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does imply they take it less seriously than stormfront, though.
Do you mean Cloudfront? I suppose so, but I don't know enough about the company to reach a firm conclusion.
No, stormfront was a ... racially charged... website that Cloudflare actually did refuse to host.
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Certainly, like child porn, watching snuff movies was already illegal in NZ before the alt-right terrorist attack, all the NZ censor did was confirm that the snuff movie fell under that category, it was essentially born illegal. No one passed any special new laws to make it so. It also falls under the US supreme court test for obscenity and is equally illegal in the US
>It also falls under the US supreme court test for obscenity and is equally illegal in the US
I fail to see how a shooting video appeals to the prurient interest in any way.
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't accept that the internet has enabled people with obscure and extreme views to better find each other, legitimize each other, spread their views and recruit others to their causes?
better find each other, legitimize each other, spread their views and recruit others to their causes? It's allowed everyone to do that. That's why we have more acrimony today. Allow a level playing field, and the violent stupid losers will lose. Start taking away people's rights, and you've only given those toxic people a pretext. (Which is exactly what the Christchurch shooter was trying to do.)
> Allow a level playing field,
Say by allowing a clearly incompetent and deranged lunatic the same airtime as his opponent? Or by giving a racist grifter airtime on a flagship political program?
> and the violent stupid losers will lose.
Alas, Trump won. Farage won. Bolsonaro won. Duterte won. The violent stupid losers keep winning despite their views getting wide public airings.
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
There are no current legal restrictions as I understand, it is the decision of my provider to continue restricting this access. The restrictions are not unilateral, the largest ISP has released the restrictions.
I will be changing providers as soon as my contract allows.
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#249Make internet more expensive therefore limiting its impact among the stupidest members of society - the working class.
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#250This just sounds like a giant can of worms that is going to blow up in people's faces. Remove for a moment any potential future government alignments, just so we aren't talking about hypothetical fictitious governments. Let's just examine the governments currently signed to it. Indonesia has harsh religious laws, crack downs on illegal reporting, and literally raids on LGBTQ gatherings. The Senegal government arbitra…
"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…
> Most of those are the most free
Where the police come to your house about Tweets already
This isn't about anything but authoritarianism dressed as "safety".
First they came for the child pornography Then they came for the terrorists Then they came for the hateful