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

321–330 of 398 posts

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

#321

Post by ghostly_s »

inevitable2 wrote: post #229
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 has multiple times condemned the kkk and neo nazi's as well as the groups you mentioned. What I don't understand from media coverage is why is what he said not treated like condemnation for those groups or that his words weren't strong enough or that it needs to be repeated at every news conference.

Congratulations, you're not paying any attention. He notably refused to condemn them initially, then released a textual statement condemning them days later in response to criticism, immediately walked back his condemnation in a press conference, before condemning them again. If you read that as "He condemned them! Twice!", I don't know what to tell you.

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

#322

Post by tommynicholas »

justadeveloper2 wrote: post #104
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…

Show me examples of corporations mass murdering people, though? Your faith in big government is completely misplaced. The truth is, you can't trust any entity with consolidated power to be forthright and favor humanity over all other considerations.

The entire point of my comment was to say that while I would generally be considered a "pro-government liberal", I do NOT trust "big government" and prefer to see power be more diffuse.

What did you think my point was, I'm interested to see how I could be more clear in the future.

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

#323

Post by ImaMicroService »

bmelton wrote: post #144
cjslep wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, like all those conservatives fighting for Hobby Lobby to not provide contraception support for it's employees because "first amendment" and all those mom and pop shops that don't want to serve gay people in the South because of first amendment rights. Seriously, conservatives in America want to have their cake and eat it too. "We meant freedom for corporations-as-people but only when it helps us".

> and all those mom and pop shops that don't want to serve gay people in the South because of first amendment rights. Citation? This seems like a clumsy attempt to bash the south. Considering that the two largest cases for violating public accommodation laws hail from Oregon (Sweet Cakes) and Colorado (Masterpiece), with other cases from Las Vegas (Walmart) and Ohio (Take the Cake), it seems ... off.

Yeah we're used to it. It's just assumed that all racism is in the South, and all Southerners are racists. I believe "whipping boy" is the term.

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

#324

Post by ForRealsies »

leereeves wrote: post #306
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We're already seeing freedom of speech liberties clashing with social media 'public utilities' (Twitter, Facebook, etc).

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

#325

Post by undersuit »

stillkicking wrote: post #173
undersuit wrote: post #15

I don't think private-sector companies have any obligation to host anything. The problem is we in the tech community have watched with only minor concerns as the web grew increasingly centralized and left the power to these companies. The Daily Stormer has no right to an domain name or search results or ad revenue, no site does. The Daily Stormer has every right to exist, but it doesn't have a right to be served fast…

I'd rather a political litmus test not be part of getting access to basic information society services. "I think despicable people have a right to talk, but I'd rather they be forced to string together two tin cans than be able to own cellphones or audio amplification equipment." "I think despicable people have a right to eat, but I'd rather they be forced to dig roots and vegetables out of the ground than be able to…

Where is the line? Before the internet you had to work hard to distribute your literature if you didn't have a publisher. Letters to the editor aren't a right.

>"I think despicable people have a right to eat, but I'd rather they be forced to dig roots and vegetables out of the ground than be able to buy processed foods from a supermarket."

OH you mean like segregation that the US is barely just getting away from. I had grade school teachers that told me about their experiences with segregation. We can't even figure out how to be nice enough to eachother to make cakes for gays in 2017. http://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/26/us-supreme-court-colora...

Businesses are not obligated to serve anyone, and it goes both ways and maybe the people making the choices not to do business with customers who have different opinions, sexual orientations, or skin colors should experience what it is like that it goes both ways.

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

#326

Post by tchaffee »

eeks wrote: post #89

I'm glad to see the EFF making the point I'be been trying to make all week; at the cost of multiple downvotes: "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."

It's not really a free speech issue. It's a monopoly issue. Google should be protected from government interference in their right to exercise free speech just like every other individual and company in the US.

The fact that they are a near monopoly is a problem that has side effects, but the real issue to focus on is the monopoly.

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

#327

Post by _b8r0 »

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 not just hatred that we have to worry about. It's any view that's considered abhorrent today.

Not so long ago, less than 50 years ago, there was little to no distinction between LGBTQ people and paedophiles. They were one and the same (look up the term nonce, British slang used against both LGBTQ people and sex offenders for one example, or the case of Alan Turing for another).

Some very brave people fought against the perceived wisdom of the majority, even when through association alone they would be considered to be paedophile supporters themselves. These rights for LGBTQ people are still being fought around the world today. People died over this fight. People are still dying over this fight.

I understand the desire to limit hurtful speech, but in doing so we hand over the power to set limits to an arbiter. An arbiter who may feel that today's moral majority view outweighs that of others.

What you feel today about people of colour, about LGBTQ people, others may feel about animal rights, human genetic engineering and AI rights in the future amongst others. If you limit the boundaries of free expression it is no longer free. You are taking those rights away from those seeking to fight injustice in the future.

It's not hard to hate Nazis. It's harder to see the consequences of our actions through the red mist. The British Government has the official position that censoring the Internet is something that must be done. Even the EU is starting to think this could be a good thing. If you think this stops with Naziism, then you're wrong. If you think this won't come to America, you're wrong.

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

#328

Post by awinder »

mantas wrote: post #137
awinder wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? You think that you could make private individuals carry water for ideals that conflict with their own? And that people, far and wide, would just be openly accepting of this idea? I’ve heard “freedom of speech” defined as a natural right, but this idea is the most unnatural way for people to act.

Private individual getting paid is not so private anymore. Especially once "protected classes" are brought in. Either go all in and allow anybody to refuse service to anybody or make everybody serve everybody. I don't see middle ground in there. It'd always result in he-said, she-said. Point in case - people bringing up the gay cake in mentioning of google memogate. Is a bus company right to refuse service to protest…

There’s ways to convolute any of those scenarios, but let me just explain why I think there are notable differences:

1. Protected classes are defined by a history of prejudicial treatment and blocked access to essential services, and they exist as a class of people defined by biological markers. So you can control being black or being gay, and you can’t access any bus service or use the same water fountain anywhere. This is very different than holding an opinion, and not being serviced by an add-on provider. 2. There are great differences between being denied a voice and being denied an amplification platform for that voice. We never mandated that newspapers print every letter to the editor, or even provide equal time to classes of opinions (although that did happen in a natural way).

If you tried to get a cake plastered with swastikas, that would not be protected free speech and could be denied service. You have to go find a Nazi baker or append the speech yourself. This is very different from being black and you can not get any cake from any baker, and they’ll know too, because you can’t exactly hide the fact that you’re black.

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

#329

Post by Fifer82 »

Blackthorn wrote: post #238
Fifer82 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was pretty embarrassed by it all to be honest. Nothing makes me cringe more than everyone responding ultra PC. It is bad enough with the commoners, but it is a disgrace when companies get involved with PC statements for no other real reason than to favor the brand. I may be the same as you only I was a 90s rap kid, the entire directory of music I have collected since the 00s could be considered violent and hateful.

Google and other companies have long been removing content from, for example, Islamic terrorists. Why is it only a problem now when they are removing content from white people?

It isn't alright under any circumstance. Given that my music is 99% black artists and I am white, the race card is ill placed here. I firmly believe that all adults should make their own choices. It is bad enough with government telling you what you can and cannot do, without self proclaimed goody two shoe companies declaring a PC line and imposing additional limits.

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

#330

Post by intended »

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?

Yes. The chance you has to deal with this has longt since past.

Besides - You think the other side is having a conversation in the first place?

No they are not. They're busy making in roads and winning audiences.

People thinking this is a discussion are under a mistaken impression.

It's a popularity contest. Has been for decades.

Post reply on HN