Comment by KirinDave | Hacker News Reader

Comment by KirinDave | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Don't try to market yourself as critical Internet infrastructure if you're going to throw your principals away because someone made you feel icky.

When the internet is no longer privatized and is guaranteed as a public service by law, then this argument will have a leg to stand on.

We've taken it for granted for a long time that the folks at the top of the data food chain are benevolent despots. This is a belief that is ultimately not rational.

Maintaining an internet made of actors who are ultimately private corporations providing a service enables these decisions.

The thing is, I suspect if we made the internet a public service in each country, then its speech laws would actually be substantially more restrictive than what CF, Google and others are doing.

Case in point:

> The Pirate Bay and DDOS gangs are okay, but this was the line? The worlds gone sideways.

Yeah. Although sideways? Let's not forget that an horrific act of fatal violence branded as domestic terrorism that was specifically targeted at suppressing free speech to further a regime of racially motivated violence and hate. Daily Stormer put up 2 distinct articles arguing this was okay. They then defamed a private organization by claiming they too supported that vile sentiment.

I mean, don't get me wrong. DDoS gangs are extortionists. But at the end of the day money is just money. Human rights are fundamental.

I'm cringing at the cognitive dissonance. Every major silicon valley tech company helps China oppress it citizens on an unparalleled scale to allow them to continue to operate in the country, but one "terrorist attack" (unplanned murder with a vehicle, a hate crime) occurs in a state in the US and suddenly the gloves are off.

Edit: This country isn't getting fixed without empathy, understanding, and compromise on a national scale. Without that, we're all just yelling how lovely the moral high ground is when we're all wallowing in the mud.

I'm sorry, is it empathy to agree with folks that, "yes" it is okay to kill? Should we not call that act of violence and act of violence?

This seems to me like a category error that you're making here.

It's possible to be upset about treatment of citizens in China but also strongly disagree with racially motivated violence in the United States. People walking around with torches chanting blood and soil art literal, not figurative, Nazis. They have a very clear agenda. That agenda claimed a life and injured many others. Daily Stormer then supported it. This doesn't seem like a very grey zone to me.

I'm also not entirely sure that I agree with your characterization of the Chinese government has a fascist government. There are degrees of Badness in the world.

> I'm sorry, is it empathy to agree with folks that

I may not be able to understand where White Supremists are coming from, but I fully appreciate their right to free speech. I also don't understand people who prioritize limiting speech, but respect their opinion. That's the empathy I refer to.

> I may not be able to understand where White Supremists are coming from, but I fully appreciate their right to free speech.

These two facts are connected. Another example would be not being fully sure what bleach exactly is, but being all for drinking it.

Bluntly, people have a right to hate, as long as they're not committing assault and battery.

I'll take the world where that exists before I live in a world with thought police.

If people have a right to hate, then your ethos demands private companies can mute anyone they want.

It seems difficult to have it both ways.

Edit: it seems my debate partner deleted a telling comment. Too bad.

I didn't think we're debating? I'm just expressing my views within the HN bubble.

Anyway, I agree with you that the current legal framework allows private companies to discriminate. Ideally, government regulation will fix this; otherwise, as soon as the pendulum swings, I'm sure you'd be displeased with progressive websites being dumped off of internet infrastructure by corporations run or owned by those with conservative leanings.

Maybe, but there is a clear difference in magnitude between the celebration of murder to quash speech and the historical debate about the direction of this country.

Very few folks are confused when they see a group of white men fly Nazi flags, then murder and maim, then cheer it on as an act of heroism.

Which is probably why your "Free speech actually means freedom from any and all consequences" is going over here like a lead balloon.

> I'm just expressing my views within the HN bubble.

And for the most part being treated civily, even though you seem to be trying your best to defend the cause of literal fascists and their literal endorsement of spontaneous and fatal violence.

I'm surprised an advocate of "free" speech devoid of consequence can tolerate and support those who engage in violence against that very principle.

Ignoring the issue about calls for violence which are not always protected, how has their right to free speech been affected? CloudFlare is not the government and the first amendment doesn't generally obligate a private company to provide service. They're still free to speak all they want, run their own servers, etc.

You yourself have called it a position of hatred and spontaneous and fatal violence. A spontaneous violence that is unrepentant upon it's exposure, that claims it has to kill to make it's point and that those who stand against it deserve killing.

And not even the cold, calculated murder of widespread cultural warfare which you yourself demand we awknowledged uniquely. It's the unstable and white hot murder of people so indignant at the existence of opposition that one spontaneously murdered one and injured over a dozen more as his fellows cheered him on.

This is all what you've agreed they are. And it sums up to a picture of danger. I think you understand them quite well.

> but one "terrorist attack" (unplanned murder with a vehicle) occurs in a state in the US and suddenly the gloves are off.

> According to the Government Accountability Office of the United States, 73% of violent extremist incidents that resulted in deaths since September 12, 2001 were caused by right wing extremists groups.[41][42]

It seems hugely disingenuous to leave sept 11 from that.

9/11 was a foreign in origin. The GAO and the FBI / DHS risk assessments are domestic extremism.

73% of incidents?

This is pure sleight of hand meant to deceive.

When incident can be defined arbitrarily and possibly include both a gun massacre and a spray painted swastika as equal events, this stat is incredibly deceptive.

What's the ratio when you count deaths? I'm on mobile but iirc it's about 90% killed by Islamic terrorists.

> What's the ratio when you count deaths? I'm on mobile but iirc it's about 90% killed by Islamic terrorists.

53% Islamist, 47% (other, as Islamist actually fit this description too) far-right, 0% other. (So the ratio is closer to 1:1 than the 9:1 you suggest)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/16/...

That GAO report for all intents and purposes counts any murder by a person affiliated with a right wing group as an act of terror, including prison beatings, death of a homeless man etc and lumps them in with legitimate acts of terror.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf

But that standard is consistent across every group, so you can hardly argue it's unfair when it's universally applied.

It is unfair if we're talking about terrorism, because prison murders are not terrorism.

If we're going to talk about murders in a more general sense, you have to start looking at populations and then note that whites in the US are far, far more prevalent than Muslims.

> If we're going to talk about murders in a more general sense, you have to start looking at populations and then note that whites in the US are far, far more prevalent than Muslims.

But it's not murder in a general sense, it's murder by white supremacists.

> It is unfair if we're talking about terrorism, because prison murders are not terrorism.

Sure it is, if it's political, ie about white supremacy.

Terrorism:

> the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

We might agree on a few points but trying to clarify that the murder wasn't a terrorist attack, that it was just "unplanned murder with a vehicle", makes me want to re-examine my opinions on the points where we agree.

The murderer may not have woken up that morning and pulled out a binder full of detailed notes on vehicular murder from under his bed, but he did not accidentally drive into that crowd of people. When he got into the car and plowed into that group, he did so because he stopped regarding them as fellow human beings, because he disagreed with their opinions on some issues, and because he hated them.

It was an act of terrorism, identical in purpose and outcome to other acts of terrorism in the UK.

You make it sound like the facts are known and the arrested has already been convicted. I have every suspicion that the events happened as you describe with murderous intent, but will wait on the criminal court's decision.

EDIT: I struggled to figure out how to include that the horrific events happened in less than a minute.

> This country isn't getting fixed without empathy, understanding, and compromise on a national scale

They are nazis. We do not compromise with nazis. The only understanding necessary is that they are nazis.

> but one "terrorist attack" (unplanned murder with a vehicle, a hate crime) occurs in a state in the US and suddenly the gloves are off.

There's no "unplanned murder". Intent, and (depending on jurisdiction) premeditation are requirements for a murder charge.

Terrorism is defined as "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims".

So we have three requirements:

- "unlawful": Intentionally driving a car into a crowd is obviously unlawful

- "violence": yes, equally obvious

- "in the pursuit of political aims": He was a participant in a white supremacist march, and drove into a group of people opposing his politics.

> There's no "unplanned murder". Intent, and (depending on jurisdiction) premeditation are requirements for a murder charge

Generally, the only real requirement for a charge is an affirmative response by a Grand Jury. Intent is certainly not a requirement before levying a charge, which is why it is so common that charges levied do not merit conviction. The prosecution needs to prove intent in order to get the charge to stick.

You seem to have conflated 'charge' and 'conviction' here, and are then using that conflation to prop up your argument that intent has been proven, when it has not.

I have no personal insight (or any insight really) as to whether or not the driver did have an intent, but being charged with a crime for which intent is a requirement to convict does not mean that they will be able to prove intent, or that any such intent was present at the time.

It might just as easily have been a prosecutor who wanted to send a strong message by imposing strong charges that may or may not stick.

So you're saying it was wrong to assume 9/11 to be a terror attack before 2006?

Because until then, nobody had been convicted, and, by your logic, everyone would have been obligated to act with the assumption that no crime had been committed, right?

> So you're saying it was wrong to assume 9/11 to be a terror attack before 2006?

Osama Bin Laden claimed credit for 9/11, verbally expressing his intent.

> Because until then, nobody had been convicted, and, by your logic, everyone would have been obligated to act with the assumption that no crime had been committed, right?

A crime is something that may be punishable by law. You can know that a crime is committed without knowing who committed it, or what their motivations are.

You appear to be reaching for a way to be right here, but speaking in legal terms, you are plainly wrong. A charge is not proof. An allegation is not proof. You may or may not be right on what his intent was, but the charge doesn't make that case for you, so you can't use it as proof for further arguments.

Paraphrased, your argument is:

* Bobby (a compulsive liar) says that he intended to do it, so we know he intended to do it. * "unlawful": Intentionally driving a car into a crowd is obviously unlawful * "violence": yes, equally obvious * "in the pursuit of political aims": He was a participant in a white supremacist march, and drove into a group of people opposing his politics.

Your second claim fails because intent has not been proven, as it relies on the first claim, which is not provable.

By all accounts, it seems that it indeed was his intent to commit murder by driving into that crowd. I'm not arguing with that. I'm only arguing with the hole in your logic that gets you there, as it is fallacious.

>unplanned murder with a vehicle

Hold up here.

Substantiate your claim, where does it come from, how do you quantify it?

On it's face you seem to be agreeing with the Nazis that he just 'accidentally' gained ramming speed into the demonstrators his group was attacking earlier.

You wouldn't be doing that would you?

How about refusing to take down ISIS? They stuff they say is much worse and much more violent than anything that recently happened in US.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/anonymous-opisis-cloudflare-refuses...

"Individuals have decided that there is content they disagree with but the right way to deal with this is to follow the established law enforcement procedures. There is no society on Earth that tolerates mob rule because the mob is fickle," Prince said.

Evidently the line that was crossed here was defaming Cloudflare itself?

I tend to agree with CF that they're a bad place to invest with censor power, but I also tend to agree that if you defame a company you do business with you shouldn't be surprised if they decline further business with you.

> They then defamed a private organization by claiming they too supported that vile sentiment.

This for me is the only real defense for taking them down.

> When the internet is no longer privatized and is guaranteed as a public service by law, then this argument will have a leg to stand on.

Fine, lets talk about that then.

As I said though, I don't think this ends up getting what a small segment of people want.

Governments these days aren't terribly friendly to fascism as a protected idea set.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com