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

Internet Censorship Bill Could Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 82 posts

Re: Internet Censorship Bill Could Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation

#41

Post by woofyman »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #14

Unfortunately, in the desire to show that they do not support Nazis, the tech companies have already ceded the high moral ground on free speech. They have also given up the argument that they are just a neutral platform or dumb pipe. One thing that can get broad agreement from both sides of the political aisle is that actual human sex traffickers( especially if they traffic children) are more evil than neo-Nazis who…

>more evil than neo-Nazis who go around marching and chanting hateful slogans

They also are known for killing and brutalizing people.

Re: Internet Censorship Bill Could Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation

#42

Post by pmontra »

Probably good for the incumbent social networks. They have the resources to patrol their territory and no small startups will raise to threaten their status. The extra work is a premium they pay to be safe.

Probably bad for everybody else living on comments. Disqus, but also for the mid sized blog platforms that want people to post comments and talk each other, example: Medium. And how about Slack?

If that part of the internet shrinks, all the products and services ecosystem will shrink too.

Re: Internet Censorship Bill Could Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation

#43

Post by snsr »

kazinator wrote: post #6

> The two choices facing platforms would seem to be to put extremely restrictive measures in place compromising their users’ free speech and privacy, or to do nothing at all. So where is the problem again? "Do nothing at all" sounds good to me. Be the dumb pipe or host you're supposed to be.

> So where is the problem again?

Third-party liability for content hosts is a problem for all online platforms. Platforms are not dumb pipes in the way that an ISP should be.

Re: Internet Censorship Bill Could Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation

#44

Post by uxp »

limeblack wrote: post #19

I'm not a lawyer but what does this mean for apps like Signal?

I'm not a lawyer either, but it would seem Signal would have less culpability operating a network of users knowing that they do not have any access to the contents of the messages and thus have an implicit impetus to do nothing. Then again, they could be held in contempt of court (maybe?) because sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting La La La isn't really a good defense for ignorance of a fact, if they were to be given evidence that illegal pornography was being transmitted through their servers.

Basically, it seems like it probably would have less effect on them than say Tumblr, which does in fact host a lot of pornographic material in the clear, but they could still be thrown into the mix depending on circumstances.

Re: Internet Censorship Bill Could Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation

#45

Post by mjevans »

notgood wrote: post #16

Do the same Republicans did with ACA, give it another name (Obamacare) to lessen it in the eyes of the people, I suggest "Internet Censorship Act" or "Destroy Internet Act"

Kryptonite Internet Legislation Lowlifes

It's another KILL bill.

Re: Internet Censorship Bill Could Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation

#46

Post by rayiner »

woofyman wrote: post #41
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #14

Unfortunately, in the desire to show that they do not support Nazis, the tech companies have already ceded the high moral ground on free speech. They have also given up the argument that they are just a neutral platform or dumb pipe. One thing that can get broad agreement from both sides of the political aisle is that actual human sex traffickers( especially if they traffic children) are more evil than neo-Nazis who…

>more evil than neo-Nazis who go around marching and chanting hateful slogans They also are known for killing and brutalizing people.

I don’t think you can use a website to kill people, but I’m not up with the latest W3C proposals.

Re: Internet Censorship Bill Could Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation

#47

Post by zeep »

Bartweiss wrote: post #4
CurtMonash wrote: post #2

Oh crap -- not again! Holding the line against censorship is very, very nerve-wracking.

I've got a certain painful sympathy for Lovecraft characters these days. There's nothing quite like the feeling of having to win every battle ad infinitum, against an opponent whose every gain will be permanent.

it's only permanent until it goes too far, and then the cycle starts over...

Re: Internet Censorship Bill Could Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation

#48

Post by [deleted] »

bilbo0s wrote: post #23
rayiner wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As noted below, this bill would be an absolute (much deserved?) disaster for websites that police content. Such websites can't hope to avoid the "knowing" prong.

It's more serious than that. Legally speaking, if the cops show up and tell you that a user is using your site for X, or Y, or Z, then from that point on... you know that your site can be used for X, or Y, or Z. How that knowledge impacts your liability in the event there are others using your service for similar ends, is not at all clear to me given the wording of the Act in question. It's kind of a "Notice, Knowled…

[deleted]

Re: Internet Censorship Bill Could Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation

#49

Post by mikeash »

rayiner wrote: post #46
woofyman wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>more evil than neo-Nazis who go around marching and chanting hateful slogans They also are known for killing and brutalizing people.

I don’t think you can use a website to kill people, but I’m not up with the latest W3C proposals.

You can't use a web site to traffic people either.

Re: Internet Censorship Bill Could Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation

#50

Post by amagaeru »

mikeash wrote: post #49
rayiner wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think you can use a website to kill people, but I’m not up with the latest W3C proposals.

You can't use a web site to traffic people either.

You don't have to shove a human into the internet tube to use the internet tube to help move the human.

Or do we want to ignore all of the sites facilitating prostitution, human trafficking's BFF?

Post reply on HN