Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by morgante » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 2:48 PM UTC

vowelless wrote: post #12

nxsynonym wrote: post #4

>"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." Maybe it's just me but I think enabling hate-speech and bigotry is much worse than failing to maintain 100% neutrality. There's nothing stopping these maniacs from starting their own intermediaries to host the content(trash)…

Where I grew up, websites used to be blocked by my government because of blasphemy and morality reasons. Criticism of Islam, pro secularism, and yes also porn. I used kazaa to get "God delusion" and "satanic verses", books that would have gotten me into serious trouble. Please don't let that happen in America. Making up hate or blasphemy reasons is very easy.

If the government had forced this domain to be taken down, then I would be outraged.

I don't think private companies have an obligation to support hateful websites.

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

#282

Post by mikeash » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 2:49 PM UTC

Sacho wrote: post #256

mikeash wrote: post #81

Why don't people get upset like this when companies refuse to carry pornography? That's been really common for a long time, even if not universal, and I don't recall ever hearing a peep about it from the likes of the EFF. Maybe I missed it?

They do get upset. In fact, both Google's and EFF's responses are results of people getting upset. There's people upset that Nazi imagery exists, and Google wants those people as customers, so they have made the decision to ban Nazi imagery. There's people upset that this ban is overbroad and poorly applied, and that it sets a dangerous precedent, and the EFF is voicing that fear. Youtube, Facebook, etc ban pornograp…

I think you misread my comment. Obviously people are getting upset about this Nazi stuff. My point is that similar censorship of porn is a time-honored tradition and these organizations don't seem to care about that.

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

#283

Post by empressplay » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 2:50 PM UTC

Angostura wrote: post #273

judah wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He condemned them by name, but it took 48 hours to do so.

And he then pretty much rolled back 24 hours later by suggesting some kind of equivalence between the white supremcists and those who opposed them.

He could have been more eloquent, but the poison that kills me a little more slowly than the other poison is still poison.

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

#284

Post by eli_gottlieb » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 2:50 PM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #217

odiroot wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with that. By the same token they would need to remove all the content that promotes communism in multiple countries. In my country it's illegal as is the case with nazism. I don't hold much hope Google, Spotify etc. would actually walk that road.

In what country is communism illegal?

Most of Eastern Europe. Suffering under totalitarian regimes tends to do that.

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

#285

Post by ForRealsies » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 2:51 PM UTC

sdenton4 wrote: post #275

judah wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He condemned them by name, but it took 48 hours to do so.

And then went right back to false equivalence and whataboutism less than 24 hours later. The third statement reinforced the insincerity of the second.

On Mass Hysteria Bubbles http://blog.dilbert.com/post/164297628606/how-to-know-youre-...

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

#286

Post by intended » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 2:51 PM UTC

stillkicking wrote: post #142

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…

It's quite simple. Eminem is white and male, that means he's a hateful misogynist and homophobe. Azealia Banks is black and female, that means she's empowered by rapping about cunts, bitches and catching a nigga's warm goo in your do-rag. Thanks to progressivism we can finally judge people by the content of their character. (/s, Let's face it, everyone can see this is politically motivated and the demand for empathy…

GOD no!

It's worse! You Americans are now dealing with the fall out from the consolidation of vote banks and the Fox News effect.

Decades ago, when Fox News was created I watched shocked as the first assaults - the first "alternate view points" on normal events were initiated.

Soon you saw assaults on climate change.

I thought "oh, science will win."

But no! Fox News cultivated cranks, gave them a platform, and after building it up, for scientists to come on their shows.

Scientists had studiously avoided talking to cranks - it would have given them more space and then credibility.

But with Fox News behind them? And it's audience which was much larger than anyone else's?

Climate denial became a force in its own right.

Anyway - those scientists went ahead to debate on Fox News.

Except it was never a debate. It was spectacle in the old roman sense. There was no debate, just derision.

And that was the first time I was truly worried for reason and logic itself.

And then America gave birth to creationism.

I couldn't believe it. American market dynamics found a way, to convince millions that evolution was a debated topic.

Imagine that!! People are debating whether evolution occurs!

Anyway, once the net came, even Fox News was found wanting. Those techniques could be reapplied and enhanced - and you got breitbart and the rest.

And now America has president trump, who just made up stuff about permits, and then brought up the concept of the alt left.

It's so unfortunate that the only thing left to do is despair.

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

#287

Post by mattnewton » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 2:52 PM UTC

judah wrote: post #255

orangecat wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 condemned them by name, but it took 48 hours to do so.

While reading a TelePrompter, some people in his administration got him to stay on the script, but when he went off the script in the next press conference it got even uglier.

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

#288

Post by AaronFriel » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 2:52 PM UTC

Would the EFF defend private companies hosting ISIS recruitment?

That's the question that matters.

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

#289

Post by existencebox » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 2:52 PM UTC

tyrw wrote: post #263

meri_dian wrote: post #47

This is how extremism spreads: 1. A Reasonable Position is expressed, in this case - 'Nazi's are very bad'. The Reasonable Position often involves an Enemy that must be stopped. Most reasonable people will agree with the Reasonable Position. 2. The Reasonable Position becomes the overriding factor in any situation that involves it. All other factors and considerations are dwarfed by it and forgotten. 3. Because the R…

Some examples would help here. Reading this did not bring any real world situations to mind for me.

(Edit/disclaimer, the sister post's examples of mcarthyism et al. are far better than my ken-burns-biased analogues) Prohibition comes to mind. Washingtonians and other early groups were based more in abstinance than prohibition; but the dogma shifted under a mix of social/religious pressures from the dominating voices in that fight to result in an all or nothing approach which, while it succeeded, had disastrous effects in the longer term.

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

#290

Post by koolba » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 2:53 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #276

MichaelGG wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

That's an interesting paradox: I'd argue that anyone who became a Nazi because someone mistakenly called them a Nazi, wasn't mistakenly called a Nazi.

It works like that for a lot of people called "Nerd" as children.