Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

privateinternetaccess.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 305 posts

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#271

Post by gdhbcc »

DanBC wrote: post #263
DanBC wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the same way child porn is objectionable I agree with you, but a disturbing number of people on HN think that images of child sexual abuse should not be illegal.

It's weird that this got downvoted, because in every thread about images of child sexual abuse there's always one or two people, and usually different accounts, saying exactly this. They'll claim that it's ridiculous to outlaw a series of bits, or that the abuse has already happened and so how can these children still be affected by the images. A bunch of arguments are very similar (perhaps unknowingly so) to argumen…

Perhaps if people actually presented convincing and consistent counter arguments to those you wouldn't see them as often.

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#272

Post by aphextron »

telesilla wrote: post #231
oska wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion aphextron was being overly reductionist in describing the manifesto as just a string of characters. The manifesto was a presentation of a political viewpoint (and perhaps a call to action - I don't know, I haven't read it). The manifesto qualifies as speech. The video was a record of a criminal act of great violence. I wouldn't classify the video as speech. (In contrast, a fictional portrayal of the sam…

New Zealand, and many other parts of the world, do not share the U.S.'s "free speech" concept. Speech is not protected and yet the country is high on the freedom of press index. https://freespeechfreepress.wordpress.com/new-zealand/

>Speech is not protected and yet the country is high on the freedom of press index.

For now.

The lessons learned and recorded through 2000 years of Western history, starting with the Greeks and culminating in the American revolution, was that such things can never be relied upon unless guaranteed by law.

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#273

Post by leereeves »

Carpetsmoker wrote: post #251
ignoramous wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's the thing though - as long as something is banned, it doesn't stay forgotten. Pretty much this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Also, govt (democratic ones, esp) are notorious for being short-sighted and taking populist measures, so no surprises here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses Imo, what the govt should considering doing (if they haven't already): 1. Weed out rouge element…

So basically to protect freedom we need to create a police state with permanent security everywhere and live in constant fear. Is /r/TopMindsOfHN a thing yet?

No, because that sub is pure snark and nothing like it belongs here.

> Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#274

Post by javagram »

jjcm wrote: post #179
XorNot wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they haven't. What they're doing is preventing the spread of radicalization to vulnerable demographics. They're breaking up the ability of alt-right groups to try and rally around it. You don't get to shoot a bunch of people and have your manifesto spread far and wide. You get forgotten. And your manifesto gets banned. Because who cares what you had to say - it's irrelevant. As to the video: go extract release for…

> You get forgotten That's the thing though - as long as something is banned, it doesn't stay forgotten. We see Tiananmen Square pop up all the time not because of its major historical significance, but because of the attempts by certain governments to censor it. There are better ways to forget something collectively as a culture. Right now if you google "New Zealand shooting", half of the articles are about the bann…

> We see Tiananmen Square pop up all the time not because of its major historical significance, but because of the attempts by certain governments to censor it.

My understanding is most young Chinese know nothing about Tiananmen Square because the Chinese government has in fact been very successful in censoring it within their borders.

NZ may have quite a ways to go until their internet censorship regime is as effective as China’s great firewall though.

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#275

Post by leereeves »

javagram wrote: post #274
jjcm wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You get forgotten That's the thing though - as long as something is banned, it doesn't stay forgotten. We see Tiananmen Square pop up all the time not because of its major historical significance, but because of the attempts by certain governments to censor it. There are better ways to forget something collectively as a culture. Right now if you google "New Zealand shooting", half of the articles are about the bann…

> We see Tiananmen Square pop up all the time not because of its major historical significance, but because of the attempts by certain governments to censor it. My understanding is most young Chinese know nothing about Tiananmen Square because the Chinese government has in fact been very successful in censoring it within their borders. NZ may have quite a ways to go until their internet censorship regime is as effect…

This is a step down that path.

I haven't read the manifesto and I have no desire to, but I still fear a government that would imprison me for reading it more than I fear terrorists. Terrorists are rare; such a government is an ever present threat.

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#276

Post by freshm087 »

ignoramous wrote: post #236
jjcm wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You get forgotten That's the thing though - as long as something is banned, it doesn't stay forgotten. We see Tiananmen Square pop up all the time not because of its major historical significance, but because of the attempts by certain governments to censor it. There are better ways to forget something collectively as a culture. Right now if you google "New Zealand shooting", half of the articles are about the bann…

> That's the thing though - as long as something is banned, it doesn't stay forgotten. Pretty much this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Also, govt (democratic ones, esp) are notorious for being short-sighted and taking populist measures, so no surprises here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses Imo, what the govt should considering doing (if they haven't already): 1. Weed out rouge element…

In fact, exactly NZ gov't should have continued doing things as usual. This tragedy, while having huge media-multiplied emotional response, is (from POV of rational security) is an absolute outlier. An average Kiwi has probably bigger chance to choke on beefsteak than to be killed by a political weirdo. Few politicians however are able to resist a temptation to pose as a "decisive leader" and play a security theater.

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#277

Post by freshm087 »

ElCapitanMarkla wrote: post #237
jjcm wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You get forgotten That's the thing though - as long as something is banned, it doesn't stay forgotten. We see Tiananmen Square pop up all the time not because of its major historical significance, but because of the attempts by certain governments to censor it. There are better ways to forget something collectively as a culture. Right now if you google "New Zealand shooting", half of the articles are about the bann…

I disagree. I’d rather it was banned and this shit gets squashed. Yeah it’s still available and people can try seek it out, but they have to seek it out. No one on Facebook will be sharing it on their wall, etc. And this isn’t a one or the other thing, NZ has banned that crap and rallied around the families. A huge amount of money has been raise of which the total is still rising. The whole country stopped on Friday…

NZ is in a state of collective shock, and, at the moment, apparently a very cool head, and bravery (understanding that you will get massive social pressure, and lots of ugly accusations) needed to stand against censorship. By no means it's a normal situation for a political debare.

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#278

Post by freshm087 »

ElCapitanMarkla wrote: post #242
antpls wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because who cares what you had to say - it's irrelevant. I do care about what everyone has to say. I'm interested to access any real footage of the reality to cross-check what we are told, and make my own opinion. If people are expecting to stop violence by censoring information, they might first look at banning firearms...

It’s the digital age, banning something isn’t the same as it was 100 years ago. A ban won’t remove something from the internet but it will stop people freely sharing that crap around.

Why you believe you should stop other people from sharing something?

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#279

Post by freshm087 »

seventhtiger wrote: post #203
sintaxi wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The manifesto includes direct calls to violence. So promoting and spreading the manifesto in that way should be a crime. However, reading and sharing the material for informing ones self should be seen as right that one has - especially since it is being used as justification to take rights and freedoms away.

Any radical voice that made the news, in any light, has gotten a larger following. Every single time a moderate brings a radical to debate it is a net gain for the radical. You can measure this by simply plotting the number of various social media followings such voices have, and plotting them against time and marking notable appearances. If someone is so radical they reject all authority, whether it's political or s…

Any radical voice that made the news, in any light, has gotten a larger following. Every single time a moderate brings a radical to debate it is a net gain for the radical.

You literally don't believe in democracy. Not that you are obliged to, but it's interesting if you realize it?

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#280

Post by salawat »

ElCapitanMarkla wrote: post #242
antpls wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because who cares what you had to say - it's irrelevant. I do care about what everyone has to say. I'm interested to access any real footage of the reality to cross-check what we are told, and make my own opinion. If people are expecting to stop violence by censoring information, they might first look at banning firearms...

It’s the digital age, banning something isn’t the same as it was 100 years ago. A ban won’t remove something from the internet but it will stop people freely sharing that crap around.

No, it won't.

There is a non trivial portion of the population that will resist informational control attempts at all costs.

Information is power, and it isn't always pleasant. The greatest failing of our time is the power we've built up to engage in institutional perception management.

To deal with this sort of radicalization, hiding it in the dark is the single worst thing you can do. You end up lending it moral credibility through the Streisand effect, and amplify the "unjustness" in that person's manifesto from whatever craziness it was, and add on top of it "Oh, wow. The government is willing to black hole you as a citizen."

I appreciate the logic behind contagion theory, but I reject the conclusion it leads to. Memes, like viruses can only be countered through a sufficient and omnipresent enough psycho-societal immune response. That means everyone needs exposure, everyone needs to process it, and if there are quote "vulnerable" populations, it's up to their immediate social circles to take care of business in terms of either A) rehabilitating them, or as a last resort B) informing authorities before anyone gets hurt.

The hardware/software for institutional perception management has no place in a civilized society. The policies that encourage it should be met with outrage and scorn.

You lift up your society when you can hold up the deeds of it's worst members and state "They chose this. They felt X way. How they lived led them and those around them to a grisly end. We will continue. We will thrive. We will not break. We will learn. We will care, and we will adapt."

We live in a time filled with radicalism and distrust; the only way to get past it is to air it all from the rooftops, and rely on each other to come to terms with it's impact, and be able to discuss what it means while building a common worldview in the process.

Change only happens when we can admit there is a problem. Covering our eyes doesn't do that. I understand a lot of people feel that by breaking such a taboo as resorting to violence should be treated with immediate erasure from the public eye, but the having to resort to violence is a message in and of itself, and will be a constant threat in a free society. Note that the free society should always be more important than the absence of threat, because safety only truly exists on the good will of a free people.

Vigilance is justified. Denial and petty acts of revenge are not.

Post reply on HN