Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
[deleted]
Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
331–340 of 398 posts
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#332While 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…
All these things remind me the old days when the Soviet government had a list of "not recommended" music bands. E.g. Black Sabbath - violence, religious obscurantism; Kiss - neofascism, punk, violence; Scorpions - violence, etc. Here is a full list translated to English http://i.imgur.com/Aj9wYpN.gif
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#333Earlier 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.
Not only that, he then went on to complain[1] about the removal of "beautiful" Confederate statues, effectively siding with the Neo-Nazis, who were in Charlottesville specifically to protest the removal of a Confederade statue.
This is par for the course for Trump, who (only when under extreme political pressure from his own party) will belatedly condemn right-wing extremists with one corner of his mouth, but give them a verbal wink with the other.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#334Earlier 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.
The phenomenon is called a self fulfilling prophecy.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely you can be free to say whatever you want but a business doesn't have to do business with you. For example I could wear a Nazi T-Shirt with "Hang all Niggers" emblazoned in it, and a shop could quite rightly refuse to admit me to their store or refuse to serve me if I did go into their store. So why is it different for Google or Facebook to say "we don't want you as a customer"?
The problem is really that a very few private companies have become core infrastructure providers on the Internet, effectively acting as the government of the net, however they face little to no regulation or accountability - Google, for example, is too firmly entrenched for consumers to realistically move to an alternative. So the question is, at what threshold (of size, competitors, etc) should free speech move fro…
But you are not being prevented from using the Internet, the shop is not preventing me from buying, just from coming in whilst wearing the t-shirt, take it off and I can shop freely. The Nazis can use the internet, they are not being barred from it, they are just not allowed to use Google or Facebook to display their message.
I think that something like ifps.io may partially solve this issue as the Nazis could host their own site and individual nazis could provide storage and bandwith to keep it online.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#336I think a lot of people, me included, play on both sides of this fence too often. Where we shun companies that host this content, but will also blame them for restricting freedom of speech if they remove it.
I definitely see both sides to this argument, but how extreme does a website have to be in order for it to be OK by everyone for companies to remove the content? If it were my company, I wouldn't want to be associated with content like this either. So if it's lose-lose either way, I would probably do the same thing as these companies.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you apply this logic to the bakery who refused to bake the cake for a gay wedding last year? The issue of freedom of speech when it relates to businesses is a pretty good hypocrisy litmus test. Last year the Left was outraged when a business refused service based on moral grounds, while the Right sided with the business, and we have the opposite in this case.
Yes. People who defer to the legal definition of protected classes and insist that members of them must be protected and everyone else be damned are the showing clear hypocrisy. It would be funny if in another 1000 years we'll all agree that the current US popular leftist morals turned out to be the right ones: It's wrong to discriminate against someone because of their race, religion, sex, or sexual preferences (as…
> When they're old they might become the new racist uncle
Honestly, that's what's got me concerned. Political mores are changing so fast and so constantly, and people are being so black-and-white about them, that it seems like the only "acceptable" position to some people is getting pretty close to a full-throated condemnation of everything and everyone that happened before they were born.
If it wasn't so easy to fail the purity tests, maybe fewer people would become Nazis (either out of ostracization or to troll purity the testers).
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL - but that's a different deal. You are (afaik) not allowed to discriminate against gender, sexual orientation etc. as a business or private person. Whereas Freedom of speech is just about what the gov' can and can't do to you. Edit: so it's not quite comparable in this way.
Not really. The Federal Civil Rights Act only prevents discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Sexual Orientation was never included in the legislation, though some states do have legislation with respect to sexual orientation and political affiliation. California being one of the states which does not allow discrimination on sexual orientation or political affiliation. As detestable a…
> California being one of the states which does not allow discrimination on...political affiliation.
Cite please, I genuinely curious.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's even more frustrating when people supposedly loving freedom say that freedom of speech was only meant to protect from government and private companies can discriminate as they wish. I'm 99.99% certain if freedom of speech was formulated today, it would include private companies as well.
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.
A private individual providing public accommodations has many additional responsibilities than a private individual.
We see this in the offline world, ADA compliance can be expensive, but is a cost of doing business. Providing services to someone you find morally repugnant can be emotionally expensive, but you may not be able to legally refuse them service, while servicing others. It's not clear to me why it's ok to pick and choose customers because of their (terrible) political beliefs, offline or online. If their content is illegal, let a court decide that and issue an order requiring it to be taken down. The domain registration, and associated NS records are unlikely to be illegal.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you understand 'freedom of speech', when you start saying 'I believe in freedom of speech for only X kind of speech, because the other kind abhorrent'.
I didn't say anything about freedom of speech. I do not believe nazi's or any other group have any right to promote hate and violence against others.
> I didn't say anything about freedom of speech.
> right to promote
You just did. Promotion is speech.