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

391–398 of 398 posts

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

#391

Post by intended »

colordrops wrote: post #345
intended wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are the other side.

And I have tried- a lot.

It's over.

You can't win a propaganda and disinformation war with polite conversation.

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

#392

Post by imron »

xamuel wrote: post #365
imron wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's nothing stopping these maniacs from starting their own intermediaries to host the content(trash) they want to peddle. Who decides on what is and isn't trash? The article states "And music streaming services offered by Google, Deezer and Spotify have said they would remove music that incites violence, hatred or racism." Does this mean they will remove things like 'Fuck tha police' or 'Smack my bitch up'? I d…

"Fuck tha police" is from an album which was recently selected for preservation by the Library of Congress for being "culturally, historically, or artistically significant". The album was also rated the 144th best album of all time by Rolling Stone magazine.

Exactly! And that's why it's a good thing that I'm not the arbiter of what can and can't be listened to on the Internet.

Who would you give that power to though? And can you be sure that the people you give it to will agree with you on everything that should and shouldn't be allowed?

'Fuck tha police' talks about slaughtering cops, using sniper rifles to take them out, a bloodbath of cops dying and so on. Can you trust that a company that says it will remove all music that incites violence and hatred to allow such a song to be available online?

Can you trust that once a company has set a policy of removing things that incite violence and hatred that other people won't come along and petition to have such songs removed on those grounds?

I might not like that song but I'm not going to try and ban it, because I accept that it's ok for people to like things I personally find distasteful. If I don't like it, I have the freedom to choose not to listen to it.

I am worried though when I hear companies talk about banning things with such large umbrella terms that can be arbitrarily enforced.

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

#393

Post by [deleted] »

danharaj wrote: post #388
rad88 wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand you have people who are not materially threatened by white nationalism deciding to kick the hornets nest because they're in a bad mood. That was bullshit and should be condemned. The far right's persecution complex is directly tied to their violence and oppression against more vulnerable groups, so when some tech CEO validates that complex needlessly it really is counterproductive and harmful. The p…

> The far right's persecution complex is directly tied to their violence and oppression against more vulnerable groups, so when some tech CEO validates that complex needlessly it really is counterproductive and harmful. The far right has had a persecution complex for decades . It is a self sustaining social phenomenon. Again, there's this extravagant counterfactual claim that if no one materially opposed the nazis, t…

[deleted]

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

#394

Post by foota »

judah wrote: post #373
pmoriarty wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Arguing against removal of Confederate statues is not siding with neo-nazis. (Corollary: arguing for the removal doesn't make you a violent Antifa Communist.) Condoleeza Rice, an African American woman with political clout and experience, has argued we should keep the statues. Others have made a strong case for removing statues of people who committed treason. But whatever your view, this should be done legally and p…

Nit: it does quite literally mean you are on the same side as the neo-nazis, at least in that case.

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

#395

Post by freech »

randomstudent wrote: post #102
rdtsc wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure they are stopping just maniacs and crazies? Do you trust them? I don't know, maybe growing up in Soviet Union made me skeptical of "let us censor this for you to keep you safe" claims.

Some people believe that stopping the maniacs and crazies right now is the best way to make sure the West doesn't turn into a new Soviet Union. Whether you agree or not, it's certainly a defensible position. Yes, you can argue that the Soviet Union didn't happen because the Tsar failed to censor enough, I'm just trying to say that thare is some substance to the argument for stopping the maniacs.

I think the opposite is true. Russia was among the countries where spreading communist ideas was punished the most. Marx and Engels were free to write in Britain, yet there was never a communist revolution there.

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

#396

Post by lagadu »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #215
lagadu wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your sentiment but I only realise it now after having given it some thought. The reason I disagree with the silencing of nationalist speech but didn't consider porn to be effectively suffering from the same issue is because I simply never considered censoring porn to be a speech issue. I had never thought of it as an idea, which is what I think of when it comes to political ideologies. I think the differ…

So to be clear, you think "Heil Hitler! Enslave the blacks and exterminate the Jews!" is a more socially important sort of speech than, "Fuck me harder, I love it!"? I don't want to live on this planet anymore, with the bizarre reversals in basic sense of priorities here.

I feel they are both socially important.

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

#398

Post by 24gttghh »

Chaebixi wrote: post #340
24gttghh wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am sorry you think the ability to promote hate is something worth defending.
Post reply on HN