961–970 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Certain speech that are known to cause violent result/response from its audience should be dealt with carefully. Which speech is that, exactly? Do you have a list of all the problem topics we need to ban?
- inciting violence and/or hatred feel free to add more
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People of color, and LGBT are demographics. White supremacy is an ideology (a reprehensible one at that). People choose their ideology, not their race, or sexuality. They are not the same thing. Third party businesses should not feel any obligation to do business with "dudes who blabber" about the murdering and hate of others.
I think this is shaky ground. Plenty of people think LGBT "choose" their sexuality (though I do not). White supremacists, religious people etc think their beliefs reflect objective reality, which is clearly not something they can choose. I think making "you chose this" a valid reason to censor/attack/etc. something opens the door to some pretty dangerous things, since it's not difficult to accuse things of being a ch…
Right. Even this assumption is loaded with ideology both ways. I.e. either they choose or do not choose. Neither is correct.
Quick question for everyone who's on board with this. Do we actually KNOW that banning "hate speech" results in less hateful actions in the short and long term as well? I'll wait.
Actually yes, it has been shown effective: http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf >We find that the ban worked for Reddit. More accounts than expected discontinued using the site; those that stayed drastically decreased their hate speech usage—by at least 80%. Though many subreddits saw an influx of r/fatpeoplehate andr/CoonTown “migrants,” those subreddits saw no significant changes in hate speec…
I guess if you ban hate speech on reddit you will be successful on reddit. Do we think people who are banned take up religion and become good samaritans?
On the one hand, I like the idea of a free, open, and distributed internet, where no one company or government has the power to control what is distributed or discussed. As the great John Gilmore said, more aspirationally than accurately even then: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." On the other hand, we don't live in that world, and I don't know how well it would work in practice if we d…
So you're willing to give unchecked control of online discourse to a private corporation?
You clearly are okay with it because you are posting on a forum with unchecked, active moderation.
What kind of free speech are we exactly advocating here? The freedom to spread cheap hate, fake news and bigotry against minorities? I'm sorry but moderating such offenses isn't a limitation to free speech. For the same reason why, if you start shouting nig or monkey to black people in a shopping mall, the police is likely to intervene and take you away - and I don't think that any sane person would argue that they'r…
That's an incredibly offensive and hateful comment. Fortunately for you, in America the first amendment protects your right to say it. Maybe you can see where allowing the government to decide what is and isn't acceptable speech might be problematic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How? They're being deplatformed.
That is not what CF or any CDN does, and that's not what "deplatformed" means. If you toss it around like that, it won't be clear that it has a precise meaning and people will think it's a phrase that is thrown around to coerce people to unwillingly associate with people and organizations they don't want to associate with.
So much hypocrisy. When war mongering governments like US, Russia use Cloudflare for war propaganda websites that enable their wars and killings of lots and lots of people it doesn't bother Matthew Prince. Or when websites behind Cloudflare promote and sell lethal weapons that are the actual reason behind mass shootings even being possible, still doesn't bother him. But no, a dissident free speech activist website is…
> When war mongering governments like US, Russia use Cloudflare for war propaganda websites that enable their wars and killings of lots and lots of people Do you have a source for that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
White supremacist terrorism cannot be directly ideologically challenged by our present political system in America because it is the founding ideology of the country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_Destroyer
Please do not take HN threads further into nationalistic flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Free Speech has absolutely been impinged by this decision." No, it hasn't. No one has a moral, legal, or ethical responsibility to pay for someone else's speech. The government must tread lightly, but private individuals are under no compulsion to listen to others. 8chan is NOT having their speech rights infringed, they are simply having a business agreement terminated. They are still 100% free to create a website s…
The problem with that argument is that there's no such thing as a "public square" on the internet. Everything on the internet is controlled by a private company in some manner or another. Whether you're talking about DNS, cloud hosting, ISPs, CDNs, or CAs there are always going to be some number of privately controlled intermediaries with the means to censor your speech. For some of these entities, such as CDNs with…
A CDN isn't necessary. It's a convenience for end users. You don't need a CDN to prevent DDoS. In fact having a CDN is probably the most expensive way to handle DDoS.
Who is going to deplatform Facebook and Twitter? After all plenty of shooters have used them too. Before the usual: " But 8chan is a cesspool of bla bla" Probably it is, but, either the users are doing something ilegal in the site and you close it if the owners refuse to comply with a legal request, or they are not doing anything illegal so they have to be left alone. For the "Free Speech is freedom from government p…