ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is • Hacker News Board

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#351

Post by MathMonkeyMan » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 3:52 AM UTC

_lvbh wrote: post #257

amiga386 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, the ACLU have lost their way. https://web.archive.org/web/20210608004853/https://www.nytim... > the organization finds itself riven with internal tensions over whether it has stepped away from a founding principle — unwavering devotion to the First Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union... > Beginning in 2017, some individuals claimed the ACLU was reducing its support of unpop…

Meanwhile in the rest of the world, we don’t even have free speech. If only America could export their constitution like they do their weapons

Here's part of an English translation of the Russian constitution: http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm

and the Chinese constitution: http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/...

It's not about the constitution.

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#352

Post by at_a_remove » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 3:53 AM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #170

zeroCalories wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And Cloudflare are nearly as well behaved as they could possibly be. This is not true. There has been at least two high profile cases where Cloudflare dropped their commitment to free speech when under no real legal pressure(kiwifarms and stormfromt). Maybe you think they did the right thing, but it's clear that they are not a neutral party.

[flagged]

So, I love reminding people of this -- when they dropped the "literal Nazis," they kept supporting ... ISIS Murder Sites. Videos where people were executed with detcord around the neck, toddler terrorists in training shooting people, people put in cages and set on fire. Cloudflare kept those sites up but hey "Nazis."

Now, if you're a reasonable human being, you would think that dumping political snuff video sites would take priority over Stormfront. It's just virtue signalling.

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#353

Post by yashap » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 3:55 AM UTC

I agree, and I’m extremely far from a free speech absolutist - to a level that I’m sure most at HN would disagree with. I completely believe in limits to free speech on a case by case basis, online and otherwise. For example, I think HN would be a worse place without moderation, same with Reddit, I think my home country Canada would be a worse place without hate speech laws, etc.

Not against limits to free speech online, but I think ISPs are the wrong layer for them. Governments can go after specific sites carrying out illegal activities, online communities can moderate themselves to avoid devolving into 4chan, but ISPs shouldn’t make censorship decisions, it’s just too broad a reach/impact for a private company.

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#354

Post by EarlKing » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 3:56 AM UTC

junofan wrote: post #340

X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an extremely charitable description of what KiwiFarms is. What's your list of things to block that are higher up the list?

[flagged]

You mean, like, a court of law, where people are only tried for things that are actual crimes instead of behaviors you find personally offensive?

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#355

Post by f38zf5vdt » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 3:58 AM UTC

itsnotabtmoney wrote: post #300

IncogNET wrote: post #92

Glad to see this. Hurricane Electric has behaved in such an incredibly unprofessional manner regarding this entire ordeal. It began here: https://twitter.com/IncogNetLLC/status/1685359845505957888 We filed a complaint with the Washington state AG over their actions. HE's response was more or less technically obtuse garbage and, "You're not our direct customer" (paraphrasing, of course). So what they did, was take it…

> The safest business decision would be to remain neutral, respond to law enforcement requests if presented with one, and otherwise do the job you're paid to do. Have you considered that it might not be about money? What if the decision-makers and operators of Hurricane Electric just have certain people they just want to censor, and use their position to do it at the expense of money. Money is just a means to the end…

If they choose not to host a platform that they don't like, isn't that free speech? Ironically, appealing to authority to enforce an internet service provider to provide speech they don't want to transmit seems like an imposition on a private entity operating freely.

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#356

Post by nonethewiser » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 3:59 AM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #205

sneak wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a new internet payments technology that is 100% effective against abuses like this, even when the state decides it shouldn't be possible. Censorship-resistant payments are an essential prerequisite to a free society, something I have been asserting in public for a dozen+ years. Unfortunately as of late they have been vilified. If I were a paranoid man, I might point out that this happened right around the ti…

It turns out that censorship-resistant payments also attract the worst type of people along with scammers first. If you had paid attention then you would have realized that is exactly what was going to happen long before it did. There is no need for paranoia here, people tend to dislike and go after hives of scum and villainy (unless they are wrapped in pretty corporate words).

To be fair you are vilifying crypto here. You’re just saying it’s justified. Which proves its vilified. Im not even into crypto but it’s value proposition starts to look better in this context.

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#357

Post by hughesjj » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 3:59 AM UTC

nonethewiser wrote: post #306

dietr1ch wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an awful example from the third world. What's next? The IRS forces doctors not to treat some patients in ER because they may owe taxes? Access to water and medical attention are human rights, no matter how awful the humans may be according to the acting officers.

Or if the IRS investigates the President's political opponents.

Kk, so if I want to do crimes I just gotta be a political opponent to whoever is in charge this year and no one can do anything to me. Got it.

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#358

Post by richbell » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 4:00 AM UTC

f38zf5vdt wrote: post #349

richbell wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, sheesh. KF is a website that gleefully reposts terrorist murder videos treated with the same legal penalties as CSAM in other countries, and during the reign of ISIS and the Taliban I don't recall people sitting around defending the need for that particular free speech. Do you genuinely not see a problem with the New Zealand police ordering websites to remove content they dislike and hand over user informatio…

There is not a country in the world that does not believe some forms of speech are worth censoring. In most of the world, CSAM is treated similarly because they don't believe people should spread depraved images of other humans being harmed. US Federal law treats animal abuse imagery in this way: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/48

[flagged]

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#359

Post by tadfisher » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 4:02 AM UTC

richbell wrote: post #325

heavyset_go wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The amount of attention KiwiFarms gets is ridiculously outsized for what it is: a fairly small forum with a bunch of mean-spirited people telling mean-spirited "jokes" The site is probably one of the only sources of actual gang stalking on the planet, and when it isn't stalking and harassing people on an industrial scale, it also moonlights as a suicide factory. The psychopaths that run and participate on the site…

[flagged]

"Unlike other sites dedicated to harassing Internet users until they commit suicide, KF is public and has a rule against harassing Internet users until they commit suicide" isn't the defense you think it is.

It's perfectly reasonable to push against censorship, but KF being censored isn't a reason to portray them in any sort of favorable light.

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#360

Post by vdqtp3 » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 4:03 AM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #251

Dylan16807 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even a literal Nazi should have access to utilities. Though I would say cloudflare isn't quite up to that level. Edit: Seeing this downvoted is disappointing. Access to utilities needs to be treated as a right . Only the courts should be able to take it away.

The Germans who died in the 30s and 40s would be alive if the Nazis had been denied access to oxygen. As some of their heirs openly talk about murdering us I don't think in the long run we'll still be mutually protecting each others rights. It in fact might be kinder to deny them rights now than life later. People who openly advocate for mass violence even if vague and theoretical belong in prison.

> if the Nazis had been denied access to oxygen

>As some of their heirs openly talk about murdering us

> People who openly advocate for mass violence even if vague and theoretical belong in prison.

Wait.......didn't you just openly advocate for mass violence (denying them oxygen) against the philosophical heirs of Nazis, even if only in a vague and theoretical fashion?