Live data from Hacker News

Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

eff.org

91–100 of 204 posts

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#91
post #87

There are many good quotes on freedom of speech to ponder.[1] I think my favourite is Mencken's. > The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. A close second is Wilde's: > “I may not agree with you, but I will defe…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#93

"[W]e strongly believe that what GoDaddy, Google, and Cloudflare did here was dangerous. That’s because, even when the facts are the most vile, we must remain vigilant when platforms exercise these rights. Because Internet intermediaries, especially those with few competitors, control so much online speech, the consequences of their decisions have far-reaching impacts on speech around the world." Well said. I'm glad…

It was dangerous, but also their right to do. The CEO of Cloudflare called out his own action as capricious and not good practice, but he still did it. Because hey, they're literally nazis. And anyways, one of Cloudflare's major services is filtering out spam, noise, and malicious traffic...

The situation was called out clearly for what it was. It was his right to do it, and it was understandable that he did it, and he should be able to do it.

The problem is that the centralization of these services gives them so much power that it's problematic for free speech that they do it.

The latter is the problem.

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#94

I really don't understand the resistance here. I have heard no arguments against no-platforming isis propaganda. Youtube, twitter, facebook all have a policy of removing such content. I don't really have a problem with white supremacists also being no-platformed. These are private entities, deciding for themselves that they refuse to be party to such content. Let the dipshits buy their own damn servers. Now, the minu…

The point that's being made is that, indeed, as private entities they have the right to ban this content from their sites.

But due to the SIZE of these operations, their actions practically amount to censorship.

Saying that the right of free speech only protects you against the government does not mean much in practice, in these circumstances.

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#95
post #92

Uneducated people should be protected from ideas that are proven to be bad. Looks like America just can't learn lessons like Sandy Hook or this one.

Uneducated people should be protected from ideas that are proven to be bad.

Like capitalism?

Or free Negroes?

Western Culture?

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#96

I understand the argument that they're making, but the EFF also offers a browser extension to block adware (privacy badger). Is hate speech somehow more justifiable than adware?

You're free not to install it, and the EFF has no overwhelming market power that makes it impossible to avoid their extension.

Google, Cloudflare, etc, not so much.

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#97
post #94

I really don't understand the resistance here. I have heard no arguments against no-platforming isis propaganda. Youtube, twitter, facebook all have a policy of removing such content. I don't really have a problem with white supremacists also being no-platformed. These are private entities, deciding for themselves that they refuse to be party to such content. Let the dipshits buy their own damn servers. Now, the minu…

The point that's being made is that, indeed, as private entities they have the right to ban this content from their sites. But due to the SIZE of these operations, their actions practically amount to censorship. Saying that the right of free speech only protects you against the government does not mean much in practice, in these circumstances.

It means all the difference in the world. It means that they won't be arrested for their speech. They won't be jailed. They won't be executed for speaking out against the government. Which is, ironically, very different from the historical treatment of dissidents by governments who adopt their politics.

It also means that, for example, they have the freedom to pool funds and buy their own server, and host it in a datacenter that is willing to do business with them, or they can host their shit on ipfs.

It's not like someone like Level 2 is stepping in and saying "We are going to deep inspect all traffic going across our pipe and filter nazi traffic"

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#98
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did. I also read up on the use of racial slavery and genocide of native Americans as the basis of Americas rise to power. Unlike you though I am able to understand that one of them(Nazism) has racial superiority and oppression as a core feature of their ideology while the others do not. Again, there is no "Godwins Law" for Marxism/American Capitalism. I wonder why that is???

They probably do in places which suffered from it (Ukraine). America was not the first or last European colony. Mexico was a colony, Brazil was a colony with even worse racism -bad things happened and continue to happen everywhere. Slave trade continues in the middle east. Today. Read up on what Latin American colonies did to the native populations. It's not different. They didn't have confederates. I don't see how a…

You are right about the countries that suffered from Communism. East European countries, or Poland at least treat Nazism and communism as equally evil. There even is a passage in Polish Constitution (Article 13) that makes both Nazism and Communism exceptions from the free speech rule.

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#99
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point that's being made is that, indeed, as private entities they have the right to ban this content from their sites. But due to the SIZE of these operations, their actions practically amount to censorship. Saying that the right of free speech only protects you against the government does not mean much in practice, in these circumstances.

It means all the difference in the world. It means that they won't be arrested for their speech. They won't be jailed. They won't be executed for speaking out against the government. Which is, ironically, very different from the historical treatment of dissidents by governments who adopt their politics. It also means that, for example, they have the freedom to pool funds and buy their own server, and host it in a dat…

It also means that, for example, they have the freedom to pool funds and buy their own server, and host it in a datacenter that is willing to do business with them, or they can host their shit on ipfs.

It's not going to help them much if they can't get a domain registrar, or effective DDoS protection (rather relevant given their situation).

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#100

"[W]e strongly believe that what GoDaddy, Google, and Cloudflare did here was dangerous. That’s because, even when the facts are the most vile, we must remain vigilant when platforms exercise these rights. Because Internet intermediaries, especially those with few competitors, control so much online speech, the consequences of their decisions have far-reaching impacts on speech around the world." Well said. I'm glad…

It can't be phrased clearer while still distancing themselves from the cause clearly and coherently... unlike other people.

On that same note: Good riddance. Policy and processes are probably in no case ever too slow to take effect. Thanks to Google and GoDaddy for Pavlov'ing me towards reasonable human understanding, and thanks for EFF for making me aware that that there's a problem with "learning" things that way.

Post reply on HN