Terminating Service for 8Chan • Hacker News Board

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#921

Post by LegitShady » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 4:18 PM UTC

root_axis wrote: post #911

partiallypro wrote: post #878

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those communities will just be driven underground, more than likely, to Tor sites and be much harder to track. At least once 4Chan and 8Chan are pushed out.

> Those communities will just be driven underground So what? Those communities existed underground for decades and have only recently been pushed back into the mainstream. Being underground means it has less visibility to the mainstream and is thus less likely to influence people.

Theyre being pushed into the mainstream with an agenda to censor and shut them down. The goal isn't to give them less visibility, its to target and attack them. You have a 180 on the cause-effect here.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#922

Post by LegitShady » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 4:20 PM UTC

roywiggins wrote: post #134

losvedir wrote: post #72

Does this start to open CloudFlare up to legal issues for all the sites they host? I was under the impression they were more of an infrastructure/utility type service, and weren't liable for what took place, the same way gun manufacturers aren't liable for shootings or gas stations for car crashes. But if now they're manually deciding who goes on their network and who doesn't, it seems like they're more responsible f…

You may be thinking of the "CDA 230" nonsense that will not die, where people claim that companies can't moderate their customers because they'd be liable for what they post. The opposite is true. CDA 230 makes it clear that companies can moderate their content without becoming responsible for it. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190507/16484342160/one-t...

I've never heard anyone claim that companies can't moderate content without becoming responsible for it. I've heard people say that if publishers show themselves to be capable of censoring, then the legal protections should be rescinded and they should decide if they are a platform or a publisher.

Are you sure you heard the argument correctly?

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#923

Post by gurkendoktor » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 4:40 PM UTC

yardie wrote: post #648

zimpenfish wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They choose not to apply this approach to white supremacy. "[...] the measures taken against ISIS were so extreme that, if applied to white supremacy, there would certainly be backlash, because algorithms would obviously flag content that has been tweeted by prominent Republicans—or, at the very least, their supporters." https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xgq5/why-wont-twitter-t...

Honestly, they should have done exactly that. Flag their content and ban them. Then go to the capitol. And when some politician asks, "why was I banned?" Tell them honestly, your statements were determined to be extremist by the same algorithm that bans Al Qaeda and ISIS from posting. Then sit back and watch the real fireworks go off. Just because they have a political title does not mean we have to respect anything…

One problem with giving up our principles to own the is that these plans can backfire pretty badly:

https://twitter.com/auerbachkeller/status/900376181458911232

https://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/241981/googles-new-hate-spe...

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#924

Post by roywiggins » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 4:47 PM UTC

LegitShady wrote: post #922

roywiggins wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be thinking of the "CDA 230" nonsense that will not die, where people claim that companies can't moderate their customers because they'd be liable for what they post. The opposite is true. CDA 230 makes it clear that companies can moderate their content without becoming responsible for it. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190507/16484342160/one-t...

I've never heard anyone claim that companies can't moderate content without becoming responsible for it. I've heard people say that if publishers show themselves to be capable of censoring, then the legal protections should be rescinded and they should decide if they are a platform or a publisher. Are you sure you heard the argument correctly?

The techdirt article I linked cites examples of people doing exactly this.

> If Facebook were to start creating or editing content on its platform, it would risk losing that immunity

and

> If Facebook is going to behave like a media provider, picking and choosing what viewpoints to represent, then it’s hard to argue that the company should still have immunity from the legal constraints that old-media organizations live with.

This is all nonsense. Old-media organizations are protected by CDA 230 just like everyone else: they can host third party content like user comments without being liable for it.

Publishers being able to "censor" is the whole value proposition for having a publisher. You're paying for the NYT because it picks who to publish. Facebook has no special "platform" protections that anyone else doesn't get.

Many, many people seem to think that CDA 230 itself makes a distinction between "platforms" and "publishers". I even replied to someone here in this comment section:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20610778

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#925

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 4:48 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #473

Iv wrote: post #79

Tor's onion service will always there to provide hosting to the less popular ideas. The censorship-resistant network is there. Make sure to give it some love. Last time I checked, people were discussing how to murder, exchanging nazi manifestos and conspiracy theories. I was looking for anarchist discussions but I actually ended up having these on reddit. Don't get fooled by the current positioning of IT firms, it on…

The shooters in Poway, Christchurch and El Paso didn't post their screeds via Tor, and weren't radicalized on onion sites. They went to 8chan, because that was more easily understood, widely accessed, and had a larger community. It's the community that matters here, not the technology. The issue isn't whether or not it's possible for two nutjobs to converse in some way, obviously they can. It's whether or not there i…

[deleted]

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#926

Post by manfredo » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 4:48 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #574

DATACOMMANDER wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speech cannot be violent. To the downvoters: speech cannot be violent, by definition . Using your own private definition of a word—in this case, violence —without making an explicit disclaimer is inherently deceitful.

Buy a dictionary. Volence doesn't have to use physical force.

Violence does refer to direct physical harm. There's a subset of people, predominantly in the social sciences, that is trying to redefine violence to include things like "economic violence" and "social violence" (e.g. breaking up with an SO you don't like, or not being friends with someone anymore). This is not the average person's understanding of the word, and personally I feel that it drastically washes down the meaning of violence.

If these things constitute violence then lots of violence is completely legal. In fact, you commit violence probably every day when you decide who to be friends with and who not to be friends with, who gets hired, etc.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#927

Post by cpr » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 4:49 PM UTC

And no one finds it suspicious that these shooters were all posting on 8chan and happened to blow up at once?

Folks, you're witnessing false flags designed specifically to censor sites like 8chan, where the deep state can't control the message.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#928

Post by LegitShady » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 4:56 PM UTC

roywiggins wrote: post #924

LegitShady wrote: post #922

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard anyone claim that companies can't moderate content without becoming responsible for it. I've heard people say that if publishers show themselves to be capable of censoring, then the legal protections should be rescinded and they should decide if they are a platform or a publisher. Are you sure you heard the argument correctly?

The techdirt article I linked cites examples of people doing exactly this. > If Facebook were to start creating or editing content on its platform, it would risk losing that immunity and > If Facebook is going to behave like a media provider, picking and choosing what viewpoints to represent, then it’s hard to argue that the company should still have immunity from the legal constraints that old-media organizations li…

The first one is fair - Vox got it wrong. That vox got it wrong should surprise no one, vox is lowest common denominator agenda driven garbage. \

The second one is asking "should they" - its asking a question not positing a fact.

Should they get immunity for what posted if its clear they have the capacity to censor at will? Why should they and not anyone else on the internet?

CDA makes a distinction between publisher and platform and the talk about this whole issue is that many people are saying that these companies can clearly police their content, and should be liable for it and not specially protected.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#929

Post by root_axis » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 5:03 PM UTC

collyw wrote: post #886

ViViDboarder wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If reported, Reddit (the company) will usually moderate or shut down subs like those. Recent example being what they just did with /r/T_D.

I get the impression that Reddit only shuts down right wing leaning Reddits. I hear that there is plenty of calls for violence on left leaning ones such as late stage capitalism.

Some famously banned subreddits:

/r/incels

/r/fatpeoplehate

/r/jailbait

/r/pizzagate

/r/beatingwomen

/r/watchpeopledie

/r/thefappening

/r/ni----s

How many of those would you consider right wing?

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#930

Post by LinuxBender » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 5:04 PM UTC

Iv wrote: post #79

Tor's onion service will always there to provide hosting to the less popular ideas. The censorship-resistant network is there. Make sure to give it some love. Last time I checked, people were discussing how to murder, exchanging nazi manifestos and conspiracy theories. I was looking for anarchist discussions but I actually ended up having these on reddit. Don't get fooled by the current positioning of IT firms, it on…

What's missing is the v3 version of tor2web. Currently only v2 is supported. If v3 was supported, people on the clear internet would see more of those sites as well.