Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by m0zg » Thu, May 16, 2019, 7:00 AM UTC

cf498 wrote: post #257

m0zg wrote: post #35

Yeah, this is not a slippery slope at all, no sir. And the real extremists will just use Tor.

The police in Germany already proposed to ban Tor as its "really not needed in western democracies".

Laying down the groundwork for the Fourth Reich, I see. 30 years down the road someone gets elected who really doesn't want to go when the term is up. If things are well bolted down by then, they could stay indefinitely by simply sending people to jail for "extremism". It's as if history doesn't teach people anything at all, even recent history of less than 100 years ago.

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

#262

Post by rgbrenner » Thu, May 16, 2019, 7:01 AM UTC

Taniwha wrote: post #253

asdf21 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It also falls under the US supreme court test for obscenity and is equally illegal in the US I don't think that's correct. There are no federal obscenity laws. The U.S. government does not expressly prohibit obscene conduct. In fact, the U.S. government expressly protects some communications in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. https://legalcareerpath.com/obscenity-law/

18 USC 71 ... is the federal obscenity law, it's been much patched in and around child porn, but the basic law is still there. Of course there's been a lot of Supreme Court rulings in and around it culminating in the Miller test ... Your 'shooting video' is really a snuff film, probably one of the few genuine ones (along with those made by ISIS, and just as bad) and certainly falls under the Miller test

You can't just redefine a murder video as pornographic because you don't like it. You mentioned the miller test, so you already know it requires that it depict "sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law".

Ignoring the state law requirement (which you haven't cited), the video does not depict sexual conduct.. and there's no way you can twist this into being illegal in the US. It's not illegal. Period. ISIS videos aren't illegal either.

You've clearly misunderstood our laws.

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

#263

Post by Kalium » Thu, May 16, 2019, 7:04 AM UTC

zimpenfish wrote: post #244

lliamander wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Is it possible that perhaps this difference could be split by legislating against harming others? This also has the benefit of not requiring lesiglative bodies to spell out every circumstance that could be involved.

It sounds like you might be in full agreement with the person you have quoted.

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

#264

Post by ploika » Thu, May 16, 2019, 7:06 AM UTC

acct1771 wrote: post #215

ploika wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Live streaming murder is horrifying.

Being completely disconnected from the killings you sponsor with your taxes is horrifying.

I agree, but that's not really relevant to the discussion about extremism and online censorship.

Also I'm Irish, living in Ireland. Apart from maybe funding a health service that's not fit for purpose, it's a serious stretch to say that my taxes are sponsoring the killings of anyone.

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

#265

Post by gcb0 » Thu, May 16, 2019, 7:06 AM UTC

chris_wot wrote: post #219

gcb0 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

please don't compare selling a book with being a nazi.

Nor compare reading a particular book makes one a Nazi.

hum.. that's exactly the point of not comparing both things.

Reading a book, as bad as it is, start a well informed debate, that might improve the world. You can't critique or remedy something you doesn't know exists.

While hating a particular group of people (because you read the book, or didn't pay attention in life, or any other reason) does not improve anything.

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

#266

Post by Kalium » Thu, May 16, 2019, 7:06 AM UTC

ausbah wrote: post #139

Kalium wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of alternative would you like to see? How do you propose to evaluate if it's preferable to censorship?

That's the thing, I can't recommend an alternative other than censorship. All I know is that violent extremist groups or identities like ISIS, white nationalism, and others can be linked in part to a good chunk of the mass shootings and other acts of mass violence that many parts of the world have experienced over the past 10-15 years.

Those are excellent points. The rise of extremism is very worrying. Have you considered the possibility that this is might not be unprecedented, and that censorship may have been tried previously?

It may be worth considering that it might be acceptable to not choose censorship as a policy. Some might opine that an inability to find an alternative should not be construed as support for censorship, and that this is merely the politicians syllogism at work.

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

#267

Post by Bendingo » Thu, May 16, 2019, 7:24 AM UTC

0xADEADBEE wrote: post #183

LilBytes wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4Chan and LiveLeak have both been blocked (via DNS) in Australia and New Zealand. So, the scrutiny albeit region specific has occurred.

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,…

zerohedge.com is not blocked on telstra (Australian) network as of yesterday (when I last visited).

Don't know about the other sites.

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

#268

Post by rgbrenner » Thu, May 16, 2019, 7:26 AM UTC

dredds wrote: post #180

scottlocklin wrote: post #132

It's almost like they give more of a shit about people posting things on the internet than some looney slaughtering 51 people.

- he posted on sites which were considered targets. - he posted a manifesto online (it's been censored in NZ) - he livestreamed the act (also censored) - his attack has been referenced by subsequent attacks (this was his goal) - he wants to use the courts as a platform (our media has voluntarily agreed to censor proceedings) - he said his rights are being infringed by not having phone and other communication (his "ri…

If the US President incites hate and violence via Twitter we would be having the same discussion no?

No. We might be having a conversation about the inappropriateness of such comments, but we have no laws against hate speech. In fact, a sitting president can call for imminent violence against a person or group (which is illegal) and the only recourse would be impeachment or waiting until the next election (he can be prosecuted after his removal though). So there wouldn't be much we could do if the US President did call for violence.

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

#269

Post by icebraining » Thu, May 16, 2019, 7:36 AM UTC

atoav wrote: post #173

pathseeker wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your bad idea is better than doing nothing and nobody can come up with something better, you could do it. Where is the evidence that this is better than the status quo?

If your problem as a society is the spread of extremist content and ideology (in parts because social media algorithms reward everything that provokes reactions), than "doing things" to avoid specifically extremist content linked to terrorists might not be a bad start? Isn't this the way the US government treats islamist terrorist propaganda too? I am not sure why we should treat rightwing terrorists different. Both…

> Isn't this the way the US government treats islamist terrorist propaganda too?

No.

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

#270

Post by meheleventyone » Thu, May 16, 2019, 7:36 AM UTC

CodiePetersen wrote: post #229

pryce wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The hate isn't "spreading through social media" the hate and the fear were already there. This is an idea worth examining more closely. In one view, social media acts as simply a passive reflection of an existing culture; in another, social media reproduces that culture which later becomes (in part) a reflection of social media etc. The causality goes both ways. Organised white supremacists have decided that social…

I definitely agree. I totally understand that they use it. And hell with the amount of demographic information advertisers give, I'd wager you could target down to the individual for your message. I just don't think censorship is the way. If anything you just run them into more private circles where potential recruits won't readily see the other side of the argument.

Seems like a false dichotomy you can both run white supremacists into private circles and provide a counter-narrative that’s readily available. See Islamist radicalisation for example.

The other issue with the concept of winning a war of ideas is that the other side isn’t usually available in the venues espousing white supremacy. They are already private circles in that sense with moderation. So we’re in the situation of hoping the people being actively radicalised by them happen on other side of the argument and haven’t already been poisoned to it. Which seems like wishful thinking.