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

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

#271

Post by rgbrenner » Thu, May 16, 2019, 7:37 AM UTC

danans wrote: post #175

jakeogh wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, the "cant happen here" argument.

Before the Internet came around, it was actively happening "here". You couldn't shop your violent extremist video around to pre-Internet mass media outlets, or if you did, you would probably be referred to law enforcement. Not all forms of this look like China, some look like the USA circa 1990.

Pre 1990 extremists would maintain mailing lists and send each other communications and videos.

You have no right to mass media outlets. Just as I have no right to barge into your home and force you to listen to my speech... you have no right to force the owner of a tv or radio station to broadcast your message. Your right to free speech is not a right to violently force others to deliver your message against their will... those other people have the right to free speech and liberty too.

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

#272

Post by icebraining » Thu, May 16, 2019, 7:44 AM UTC

devmunchies wrote: post #177

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?

I don't know that you can prevent hostility after combining large groups of people from different cultures. Maybe throttle the stream of immigrants from different cultures so people can assimilate? Better than censorship.

What if that throttling involves a good percentage of them dying? Is that still better than censorship?

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

#273

Post by tomp » Thu, May 16, 2019, 7:48 AM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #170

tomp wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another source suggests that death rate from "Islamic terrorism" in the US is somewhere around 1 in 3,500,000. Yeah, that can't be right. Or, it can be, if one only takes into account years after 2001, when at least 3000 people were killed, or 1 in 100 000 US residents.

The 1 in 3,500,000 rate is for years 1975 to 2015 and includes the 9/11 attack. Since 2001, the rate is about 6 deaths per year for a total of 100 over 17 years. This gives a post 2001 rate of less than one in 50 million. See page 4 of the previously referenced document.

Ah, so you're likely using the annual rate. Parent was using lifetime risk.

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

#274

Post by tomp » Thu, May 16, 2019, 7:50 AM UTC

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #236

tomp wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the same source: Odds of death by police: 1 in 7700 Odds of death by car ("any motor vehicle incident"): 1 in 315 I'd agree with basetop , I'd rather live in a world free of censorship and "full" of extremism.

These seem like very high odds. Odds of death by car ("any motor vehicle incident"): 1 in 315 Per the source, "any motor vehicle incident" is actually 1 in 108.

They're lifetime odds, not yearly.

> 1 in 108

Oops you're right, I picked the wrong line :D

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

#275

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 16, 2019, 7:53 AM UTC

CodiePetersen wrote: post #143

This 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…

[deleted]

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

#276

Post by meheleventyone » Thu, May 16, 2019, 7:54 AM UTC

hyperdunc wrote: post #171

EdwardDiego wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That looney was radicalised on the Internet, by a subset of Internet culture.

According to his manifesto the largest factor was a visit to France, not online activity.

And you don’t think his manifesto is propaganda rather than a attempt at reliable narration?

Coming to “the truth” seeing the reality of the world at first hand is a much more stirring story than being radicalised by lies on the Internet. Plus it fits directly into all the other racist propaganda put out by white supremacists about the state of Europe and France in particular.

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

#277

Post by DarkWiiPlayer » Thu, May 16, 2019, 7:56 AM UTC

Aren't they missing the point here? The problem isn't that this guy streamed what he was doing on facebook, it's the fact that he did it in the first place?

As these large hosts move more and more away from mere platforms to content curators it does make a lot of sense that they'd also be more responsible for what they curate, but at the same time, it seems like this responsibility will ultimately leak back into the parts of these services that are really just platforms and ultimately to those that don't curate content at all.

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

#278

Post by DarkWiiPlayer » Thu, May 16, 2019, 8:01 AM UTC

pryce wrote: post #206

CodiePetersen wrote: post #143

This 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. 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 believe it's something in between both views: Society is just shifting its operations to social media. This does bring a few changes, but ultimately nothing new is happening, it's just happening somewhere else and becomes easier to identify.

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

#279

Post by zimpenfish » Thu, May 16, 2019, 8:02 AM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #263

zimpenfish wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Is it possible that perhaps this difference could be split by legislating against harming others?

It could. But I'd put (at least) extremist/hate speech into the category of "harming others" and that puts me on the side of "censorship" which, I think, is in disagreement with them (and, it seems, most of the people in this thread.)

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

#280

Post by writepub » Thu, May 16, 2019, 8:22 AM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #174

prolepunk wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Digging up the profoundly dirty history and reality of the US is unfortunately not taken very seriously, and actions by the police towards minorities etc are excused as justified by the same people that would argue against government tyranny. It's easier to claim that the US is an absolute bastion of free speech when you can conveniently hand wave all of the instances where it is not. Especially when it never actuall…

The case you cite [1] should only strengthen the argument for free speech.

The first amendment is likely what saved the lady from a frivolous lawsuit/censorship from those who abuse the power to regulate other's speech.

What you want is that power to reside with a cabal that aligns with your politics, you want a thought-police you approve of, all while citing a case where someone was literally sued for a thought-crime. I hope you see the irony, and that power often shifts with wild swings. Someday, you might find yourself at the wrong end of a thought-policing policy you shilled for, because those in power aren't aligned. Hence the case for constitutional free speech protections.

[1]: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/08/562823691...