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

‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

news.umich.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 645 posts

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#361

Post by fomine3 »

babas wrote: post #101
vinni2 wrote: post #28

> ISPs in Norway are imposing what the study calls “extremely aggressive” blocking across a broader range of content, including human rights websites like Human Rights Watch and online dating sites like Match.com. I have no trouble accessing hrw.org and match.com in Norway. I wonder is it specific to some ISPs? I also couldn’t find any law that was passed to block certain pornogrpahic websites in Wikipedia [1] and I…

When I read that, I immediately dismissed the whole article. Both HRW and match.com are available on the 4/5 ISPs I have access to ATM. Home (Telenor), mobile (Telia), server host (domeneshop), my office (Telia, wired) and a customer network (Not sure about the downstream ISP). On the last one match.com is blocked by a firewall not the ISP. They should really check thier sources. My guess is that they tested on a net…

I agree from a Japanese point of view. I never heard any ISP censorship except child porn. Censoring news sites must be huge news but never heard.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#362

Post by tstrimple »

ttt0 wrote: post #186
paxys wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? It's the exact opposite. In the US sites like Facebook & Twitter routinely refuse to censor conservative content even if it is against their policies because they are afraid of pissing off Republicans in Congress. A "liberal" on Facebook calling for the beheading of a conservative politican would be banned (possibly even arrested) immediately. The opposite can and does happen every day, with no penalty. And all…

I could bet money that the opposite of what you're saying is true. But I think that illustrates a much bigger problem. The society is so polarized, that we can't even agree on basic facts. Something went terribly wrong with the internet and the media and now we're living in two completely different realities, that are fundamentally incompatible with one another.

I would take that bet and your money.

https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/10/two-new-studies-show-again...

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#363

Post by quicklyfrozen »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #235
d23 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you or the responders read the article? This reads like an assumption that the article is about tech companies in the United States and their effects to combat election misinformation. It's not. The part about the United States says this: > While the United States saw a small uptick in blocking, mostly driven by individual companies or internet service providers filtering content, the study did not uncover widesp…

HN really needs a way to force people to have at least clicked on the article before posting. Maybe something where the article has to be clicked on, and then a X minute timer is started so that people will be strongly incentivized to read the article before commenting.

Honestly clicking on the article just leads to paywalls or ad laden disasters that just consume my CPU (or complain if I have an ad blocker).

HN just works, so it's a lot less work just to read the discussion here.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#364

Post by fomine3 »

fomine3 wrote: post #361
babas wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I read that, I immediately dismissed the whole article. Both HRW and match.com are available on the 4/5 ISPs I have access to ATM. Home (Telenor), mobile (Telia), server host (domeneshop), my office (Telia, wired) and a customer network (Not sure about the downstream ISP). On the last one match.com is blocked by a firewall not the ISP. They should really check thier sources. My guess is that they tested on a net…

I agree from a Japanese point of view. I never heard any ISP censorship except child porn. Censoring news sites must be huge news but never heard.

> During the G20 period, we observed increased blocking of domains in the news media and E-commerce category in Japan. DNS blocking was observed in both categories while Echo blocking was seen in the E-commerce category to a smaller extent. The domains being blocked during this time period included popular news domains such as online.wsj.com and washingtonpost.com under the news media category and kickstarter.com and marketwatch.com under the E-commerce umbrella.

Lol. Blocking kickstarter.com for G20? It must be false positive or ISP's DNS server is just suck.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#365

Post by Pils »

mosdave wrote: post #341
Pils wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe Tim Pool? Big far-right podcaster, was famously an early intern at Vice, regularly claims to be one of Vice's founders.

In absolutely no way is Tim Pool "far-right"; to make such an assertion is an offense both to him as well as to far-rightists.

Tbf, I know very little about Tim Pool. I did see the viral tweet where he claimed the reason he was voting for Trump was because of the Kenosha shooter, which reads very "right accelerationist" to me.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#366

Post by washadjeffmad »

> obviously bad, like child pornography or pirated content

No one who would equate the potential loss of revenue from copyright infringement and the systematic sexual exploitation of children is doing so in the children's interest.

It's too far to say that this is how the US can pass and renew DMCA but can't find it in their hearts to arrest anyone on Epstein's frequent flyer list, though, isn't it?

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#367

Post by cortic »

tstrimple wrote: post #359
cortic wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Propaganda is vulnerable to open discourse, promoters of false information are handicapped by the flaws in their arguments. The only way it can flourish is censored away into manipulative misdirection and secretive groups. There is also the immunity to bad ideas aspect; Its important that the propaganda is heard openly and argued against in public, as this makes people immune to these arguments. Censor these bad idea…

> Propaganda is vulnerable to open discourse, promoters of false information are handicapped by the flaws in their arguments. The only way it can flourish is censored away into manipulative misdirection and secretive groups. This is so false it's bordering on the absurd. Anyone with even a little experience with debate and techniques like Gish gallop, which are widely employed, know that rational arguments simply do…

Think of the last hundred years, the countries that supported some form of free expression and discourse are now the most progressive rational societies on the planet. And the ones that enforced moral standards and 'ministries of truth', usually religious, are the most regressive.

It doesn't matter whether you can change someones mind on the spot, it matters that your argument is superior and the public tend to repeat and re-argue the superior argument. And yes, things like election fraud, that might be possible, and has happened before, is harder to argued against than a flat earth. But these positions are also the ones where we might be wrong.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#368

Post by noodles_nomore »

d23 wrote: post #182
varispeed wrote: post #40

The problem is that we didn't teach people about manipulation techniques because that was governments' favourite tool to control the masses. Now that anybody can reach anyone with any information, bad actors use these techniques to control people to their advantage. Governments' are now in an awkward position - ramp up education in these areas and forever give up a tool that worked for ages, or censor the information…

Did you or the responders read the article? This reads like an assumption that the article is about tech companies in the United States and their effects to combat election misinformation. It's not. The part about the United States says this: > While the United States saw a small uptick in blocking, mostly driven by individual companies or internet service providers filtering content, the study did not uncover widesp…

>This reads like an assumption that the article is about tech companies in the United States and their effects to combat election misinformation.

I completely disagree with this. The parent didn't mention companies once. This must be some kind of 'blue-black or white-gold' thing because the rest of your post reads like nonsense to me. I'm sorry that I haven't got anything substantial to add to this, but I'm just very confused by the fact that your comment is the highest response right now.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#369

Post by [deleted] »

tboyd47 wrote: post #114

It is not surprising that this would happen in a democratic state. Democracy is not necessarily friendly to individual rights and freedoms. If the majority of citizens want to take your freedom away, you have no recourse in a democratic society. What we recognize as freedoms and human rights are more appropriately associated with limited government, separation of powers, and republics. We often associate democracies…

[deleted]

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#370

Post by tekknik »

no_op wrote: post #345
VBprogrammer wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The president of the United States has been using these platforms to lie to the entire world unashamedly. For the most part not even the skillful half truths, statistics and selective quoting that politicians are known for, just complete fabrications and nutjob conspiracies. The corporations had the choice to continue to be complicit, silence him completely or provide some balance from other sources. It seems to me t…

Are companies that provide one-to-one communications services, like cell phone companies, complicit in drug dealing, insider trading, and all the other nefarious acts that are no doubt organized using their networks? I think most people would say they're not. Meanwhile, one-to-many communications services, like broadcast TV, by their nature require editorial decisions. If you're only broadcasting one stream someone h…

> Are companies that provide one-to-one communications services, like cell phone companies, complicit in drug dealing, insider trading, and all the others nefarious acts that are no doubt organized using their networks? I think most people would say they're not.

Unfortunately this same logic isn’t used when discussing the PLCAA or gun manufacturers in general.

Post reply on HN