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

91–100 of 398 posts

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

#91

Post by jawbone3 »

mantas wrote: post #23
salimmadjd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed! The initial intent of 1st Amendment was to protect the public against tyranny of the government. However, when entities like Google, Apple, FB have such impact on the population and spread of information, they can become the "great firewall". This is very dangerous and google should not be in the position to become the thought police.

It's even more frustrating when people supposedly loving freedom say that freedom of speech was only meant to protect from government and private companies can discriminate as they wish. I'm 99.99% certain if freedom of speech was formulated today, it would include private companies as well.

You could just update the law you know... it doesn't have to be the slave to old ideas.

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

#92

Post by bloobloobloo »

gggdvnkhmbgjvbn wrote: post #34

I find it odd that websites seem to either harbor a slowly growing extreme right wing, or choose to seek and destroy it. It seems like the extreme rights' method of gaining control is to be provocative while the extreme left lobbies admins to remove the provocateurs (see: reddit, youtube). This ends with the tech companies complying with the left. Why isnt it the other way around? Edit: apparently today okcupid banne…

Because the right has all the facts in its corner.

I'm not talking "preponderance of evidence." I'm talking people who come over to the right shaking their heads, like someone awaking from a dream and saying, bewildered, "How did I never see all this, right in front of my eyes?"

Every molecule of oxygen in the debate arena belongs to us. We own the realm of reasoned discourse. That's why the left must break so many of its own rules to continue the fight.

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

#94

Post by discombobulate »

bedhead wrote: post #2

It's increasingly uncomfortable to realize that a handful of tech companies are in many ways more powerful than the government. I don't like the direction anything is headed in.

Which is why crypto tech is important. The foundations of a decentralised internet are being built[0].

[0] https://ipfs.io/

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

#95

Post by icebraining »

jawbone3 wrote: post #66
corobo wrote: post #13

While I definitely don't support the people they're booting off I do have to agree with the EFF here. For example, "And music streaming services offered by Google, Deezer and Spotify have said they would remove music that incites violence, hatred or racism." Now these services have put it out there as policy someone has to define what's violent, hateful or racist in music. Racism? Ok nobody's really going to bat an e…

Facilitating the organisation of neo nazis is likewise dangerous, to the point that people die regularly. That is the other, just as real danger, that you are trading the dangers of censoring eminem with. There is also the fact that all these companies already have arbitrary censorship in place, so this isn't an argument about the principles: that one is long lost. This is an argument about the existing excemption ra…

Yeah, I'm sure that if they can't use Spotify, Neo-Nazis will have no place to organize. /s

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

#97

Post by vixen99 »

Numberwang wrote: post #38
corobo wrote: post #13

While I definitely don't support the people they're booting off I do have to agree with the EFF here. For example, "And music streaming services offered by Google, Deezer and Spotify have said they would remove music that incites violence, hatred or racism." Now these services have put it out there as policy someone has to define what's violent, hateful or racist in music. Racism? Ok nobody's really going to bat an e…

Even 'racist' music can be tricky business. There are lot's of Swedish and Polish metal bands that would call themselves 'nationalist' but have a great 'nazi' following for example. I enjoy some of these bands and would not want them censored. Just as I would not want Shakespeare plays to be censored either. Keep downloading your music and your movies. You will never be able to trust your streaming services.

Yes! Richard Wagner was an anti-semite - no argument! He's been described as 'one of the most virulent anti-Semites in modern history as well as being Adolf Hitler’s most revered cultural role-model'. He also happened to be a musical genius. Do we bann performances of the Ring Cycle or Tristan & Isolde?

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

#98

Post by kazagistar »

Bjartr wrote: post #64
mantas wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's even more frustrating when people supposedly loving freedom say that freedom of speech was only meant to protect from government and private companies can discriminate as they wish. I'm 99.99% certain if freedom of speech was formulated today, it would include private companies as well.

Would enforcing freedom of speech on companies that people communicate over mean any kind of moderation would be in violation of that?

It would at least mean any kind of moderarion without due process might be questionable.

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

#99

Post by melling »

celticninja wrote: post #74
melling wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the 1970's all over again... https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-sp... We seem to keep forgetting what "Freedom of Speech" means. [Update: Added Chomsky quote] "If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky

But that was the state stopping Nazis from marching, this is a private company refusing to do business with someone. Free speech is a right guaranteed by the state, so you won't go to prison for stating your beliefs. But no one should be obliged to help you air those beliefs against their will.

I think the article sums up the problem quite well:

"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."

Can I refused to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage? You can always go somewhere else.

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

#100

Post by tyingq »

Numberwang wrote: post #38
corobo wrote: post #13

While I definitely don't support the people they're booting off I do have to agree with the EFF here. For example, "And music streaming services offered by Google, Deezer and Spotify have said they would remove music that incites violence, hatred or racism." Now these services have put it out there as policy someone has to define what's violent, hateful or racist in music. Racism? Ok nobody's really going to bat an e…

Even 'racist' music can be tricky business. There are lot's of Swedish and Polish metal bands that would call themselves 'nationalist' but have a great 'nazi' following for example. I enjoy some of these bands and would not want them censored. Just as I would not want Shakespeare plays to be censored either. Keep downloading your music and your movies. You will never be able to trust your streaming services.

Intent is difficult to judge as well. The lyrics for the Rolling Stones' Brown Sugar are pretty clearly racist (among other things). It's not clear, however, if it's meant to promote racism.

Similar for incenting violence and "Pumped up kicks".

Edit: They could also add misogyny to the list and wipe out large swaths of entire music genres :)

Post reply on HN