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

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

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 398 posts

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

#301

Post by tradesmanhelix »

Tomte wrote: post #279
tradesmanhelix wrote: post #254

While I definitely don't support these people, I do have to point out: The problem with the approach taken by Google & Co. is that it criminalizes beliefs, regardless of whether or not adherents have taken illegal actions based on their beliefs. If people 1) believe something, and 2) perform illegal actions based on their beliefs, a free society can punish #2. However, a free society can neither outlaw nor punish #1…

Strange. Quite a few countries manage to outlaw and punish (expressions of) Nazi beliefs, without "sinking into despotism". Actually, the country many people are very concerned about now happens to be the country that is a free-for-all when it comes to Neo-Nazism and White Supremacy.

Isn't punishing beliefs (right or wrong) a characteristic of despotism?

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

#302

Post by HumbleGamer »

I hear the arguments for and against. I've noticed its always easier for people to argue these type of things when they feel they aren't the target of the harrassment. People who can take a "not me" position can reason that the site deserves a voice. That said, if the site was spouting ideologies that did target you, would you continue to argue for its existence? Were this an Isis site, would you argue it deserves a voice as well? Just wondering.

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

#303

Post by empressplay »

psyc wrote: post #127
koolba wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While I definitely don't support the people they're booting off... A bit off topic but how many bytes are spent on prefaces like this on responses to this topic? I assume that the vast majority of people on the planet don't support Nazis or anything related. I find it interesting that any discussion of them has to include that line lest the speaker/writer be labeled as one (which happens quite a bit anyway but that…

For a long time, it seemed it was only Tumblr types who were calling everyone nazi. Recently, even people I've known for 20 years, who I thought were normal, have been posting/tweeting to the effect of either you're loudly proclaiming your opposition to nazism, or you're on their side.

It's a very convenient (but extreme) strawman.

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

#304

Post by eli_gottlieb »

devmunchies wrote: post #213
tyingq wrote: post #17

"And music streaming services offered by Google, Deezer and Spotify have said they would remove music that incites violence, hatred or racism." That sounds like a big job, and one filled with ambiguity. Classifying forum posts is one thing, but trying to determine intent with music is going to be tricky.

Its a roundabout way of saying "music that engages in far-right conservative thought." Its definitely a political issue.

There's never been anything conservative about the far-right. Comparing Chesterton and Pinochet is an insult to Chesterton, let alone comparing him to Hitler!

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

#305

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#306

Post by leereeves »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #292
tgb wrote: post #106

I think the hypothetical that people like me on the left need to consider is the following. Our current vice president is extremely anti-abortion. It's no stretch of the imagination to see that portion of the country growing in strength to be there dominant view in power within ten years. In their view abortion doctors are literal baby killers, websites arguing the benefits of abortion are literally advocating the ki…

The missing distinction here is between a public utility with monopoly privileges (more like Google) and just some business (GoDaddy or some gym). Nazis should be able to use public utilities, but the thing is, if we decide Google is a public utility, then so should communists, pornographers, drug dealers, criminal gangs, et al. And in fact, great, let's do that! Let's pass those statutes, let's break up the internet…

The problem is what happens in the meantime, when Google is effectively a public utility but not regulated as one.

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

#307

Post by odiroot »

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?

Poland, I'd guess most other Warsaw-pact countries as well.

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

#308

Post by ameister14 »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #266
smokeyj wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's my comment from the Cloudflare thread, sitting at -4. > But what's the end game? Do service providers have to morally support those who they provide service to? Because that's how things are looking. And what do you know. That's exactly what's happening.

Someone in that thread, unironically, said that Google etc. had to allow Nazi's to use their services. And then immediately said "Whatever happened to "Don't be evil"?". Apparently the concept that providing your services to Nazi's could be thought of as evil totally escaped their thoughts. It seems like quite a lot of people have deeply internalized the opinion that "Free Speech" is an unalloyed good, and are confus…

Not necessarily evil, but attempting to abridge their rights.

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

#309

Post by tradesmanhelix »

tyrw wrote: post #274
tradesmanhelix wrote: post #254

While I definitely don't support these people, I do have to point out: The problem with the approach taken by Google & Co. is that it criminalizes beliefs, regardless of whether or not adherents have taken illegal actions based on their beliefs. If people 1) believe something, and 2) perform illegal actions based on their beliefs, a free society can punish #2. However, a free society can neither outlaw nor punish #1…

Google has not criminalized anything, certainly not beliefs. A different word might suit your argument better.

criminalize

    v. To impose a criminal penalty on or for; outlaw.
    v. To treat as a criminal.
I suppose the idea of "outlawing beliefs" might be more fitting. In any case, outlawing or criminalizing, isn't the result is the same?

Maybe a better response by Google: For any searches that would turn up these detestable sites, include some contrasting/opposing results. Balance it out - show how stupid the Neo-Nazi arguments really are using sites with well-reasoned counter-arguments. My concern is that flat out removal just allows the scoundrels to cast themselves as victims and sets some bad precedents.

[1] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=define+criminalize&t=ffab&ia=defin...

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

#310

Post by Tomte »

tradesmanhelix wrote: post #301
Tomte wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strange. Quite a few countries manage to outlaw and punish (expressions of) Nazi beliefs, without "sinking into despotism". Actually, the country many people are very concerned about now happens to be the country that is a free-for-all when it comes to Neo-Nazism and White Supremacy.

Isn't punishing beliefs (right or wrong) a characteristic of despotism?

In the same way that eating bread is a characteristic of a circus clown.
Post reply on HN