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

311–320 of 398 posts

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

#311

Post by sctb »

pyroinferno wrote: post #59
gormo2 wrote: post #37

If recent events have shown anything, it is that we need to do a lot MORE to stop neo-Nazism. I'm not saying doxx all neo-Nazis and whites, supremacists. But we need to name them. Make them known. Don't support their businesses. Don't let them have domains or websites. Kick them off Google platforms, Facebook, even OKCupid. All private companies need to take action now and make sure none of them can use the internet…

I agree, we should do this with Muslims too, right? Since they also kill people.

We've asked you many times not to post pure inflammation on Hacker News, so we've banned the account.

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

#312

Post by devmunchies »

Angostura wrote: post #267
devmunchies wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I'm not, I just..." There it is again. Wow, this is a really interesting social phenomenon we're seeing.

It’s not really that interesting, it’s a normal human conversational technique.

one man's "normal human conversational technique" is another man's "interesting social phenomenon".

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

#313

Post by brightball »

corobo wrote: post #108
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…

Yup, I expected more of a backlash and I'm not good with words under mob pressure. I prefaced it to avoid the "oh so YOU'RE a racist too huh??" potential retort.

Try having a conversation about civil war history. You reference any historical information that makes views on the war less cut and dry, you'll gain the label immediately.

I'm from South Carolina and after seeing all of the conflicting historical information on the internet since the Dylan Roof shooting, I decided to pick up a bunch of books on the subject from both sides. My main driving force was a strong belief that people are inherently good and I had a really hard time believing that all of my ancestors were the evil scum of the earth portrayed in assorted narratives.

As it turns out, there's some critical details left out and now that I understand the build up to the war better I can at least rest easier. It's virtually impossible to have a conversation about though.

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

#314

Post by soundwave106 »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #160
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…

>I assume that the vast majority of people on the planet don't support Nazis or anything related. Apparently the vast majority of people on the planet aren't enough to stop fascists from threatening, beating, and murdering people.

Does the music in the song directly threaten to beat and murder people?

If not, I believe taking it down would do more harm than good.

Apparently the post that identified some of the bands is here: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/08/14/white-supremacis... Googling a few, they do seem to be strictly "national socialist" / white nationalism oriented bands.

The trouble is, this easily can lead to a very slippery slope on one hand, and charges of "double standards" on the other.

There is a lot of music that directly depicts violence (hip hop and metal in particular are loaded with violent imagery). In most cases, the people making it are not directly involved in said violence. Sometimes, the violent imagery is actually there for anti-violent reasons, even.

That being said, there is also some music is made by people with actual criminal histories and/or nasty opinions. This includes well known figures in genres such as black metal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varg_Vikernes) and hip-hop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Shmurda). Even on simple "racism", you'd definitely be excluding certain music from a well known country musician (the infamous, IMHO mostly cringe-worthy, "underground" albums from David Allan Coe.)

The few bits of music I've heard that trade heavily in white nationalism is very poor quality -- which of course seems quite the likely outcome to me. Such music is atypically metal or punk, genres which are considerably influenced by the blues. Most of the best musicians keep an open mind to all sounds; rock and roll (which historically was a fusion of "hillbilly music" and R&B) doubly so.

So I think removing these obscure white nationalist bands does more harm and good. Such makes them "more underground" and probably more appealing to those "rebelling" for whatever reason. In contrast, keeping the music around lets most people see just how awful and cringe-worthy these type of bands typically are.

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

#315

Post by Chaebixi »

colordrops wrote: post #197
andygates wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to come especially from (apart from actual supporters, obvs) people who think that neonazis are interested in the same sharing of information and arguments in good faith that the majority are. That hasn't ever been so. So while the "freedom to speak, whatever" side has a point, they're also being naive.

So we become like them to stop them?

We must destroy the village to save it.

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

#317

Post by Sacho »

mikeash wrote: post #282
Sacho wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

The EFF has addressed porn when it comes into their purview - e.g. the recent string of anti-"revenge porn" laws. But you answered your question yourself - censoring porn is a time-honored tradition(it's an exception in the FA), while censoring political speech is not(there are wide-ranging protections for political speech). In this sense, the EFF is championing its primary cause - the application and effectiveness of laws as they pertain to the digital world. The issue of private companies and public spaces for free speech has been controversial(http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/54-quasi-...) and the EFF has usually fought on the side of expanding the concept of public places, as far as I know.

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

#318

Post by tommynicholas »

ameister14 wrote: post #60
tommynicholas wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, in that it sucks that it's a literal handful, but on the flip side it's nice to know the government is set up in such a way that it isn't by default the most powerful entity in every imaginable way. The people themselves, private companies, etc have a chance to be more powerful than the government in a variety of ways. I'm a pro-government liberal who is extremely wary of the power of global corporations, bu…

>on the flip side it's nice to know the government is set up in such a way that it isn't by default the most powerful entity in every imaginable way. The people themselves, private companies, etc have a chance to be more powerful than the government in a variety of ways. That's been the case before, it's not a great thing. In the late 18th and early 19th century, a few magnates were arguably more powerful than the US…

I mentioned that I'm uncomfortable with how few companies have so much control. It's far better now than it was in the pre-Trust-busting days, for sure. However, it's trending the wrong direction.

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

#319

Post by moduspol »

bedhead wrote: post #2

It's increasingly uncomfortable to realize that a handful of tech companies are in many ways more powerful than the government. I don't like the direction anything is headed in.

Well sometimes it works out in our favor. Like when Apple fought the FBI trying to get legal precedent for compelling them to create a backdoor for their own devices / software.

As strange as it is, who else but a huge powerful tech company could do that?

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

#320

Post by mantas »

brightball wrote: post #313
corobo wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, I expected more of a backlash and I'm not good with words under mob pressure. I prefaced it to avoid the "oh so YOU'RE a racist too huh??" potential retort.

Try having a conversation about civil war history. You reference any historical information that makes views on the war less cut and dry, you'll gain the label immediately. I'm from South Carolina and after seeing all of the conflicting historical information on the internet since the Dylan Roof shooting, I decided to pick up a bunch of books on the subject from both sides. My main driving force was a strong belief t…

What you mind to point to some more... controversial literature? Or some handbook you found rather objective on the matter?
Post reply on HN