Hacker News Reader

Comment by Pfhreak | Hacker News Reader

The takeaway from this for me is not, "Don't get rid of Nazis", but rather, "Have a clear criteria and process for when you will remove content. Follow that process."

Great, 100% agreed with that. Be clear and up front about terms of service, and be clear and open when they are violated.

That said, I'm not 100% agreed that "Whatever you use against Neo-Nazis will be used 'against the ones you love'." That's a slippery slope argument that I personally don't believe. Neo-nazis are such a different class of evil, that it's hard for me to see the same practices being used against someone who is not them.

View on HN

And that's fine. You get to draw that line in the sand, but you have to do two things: 1) Don't say you are for freedom of expression. you aren't. 2) Be consistent. ISIS propaganda websites must be wholly refused to be hosted. Many (not as fringe as you'd like to think) websites in the Middle East, Eastern Bloc and Russia must also be taken down when discussing the Jews, as well. Any website that blatantly talks about the overthrow of the US government because it is run by the "white patriarchy" (yes, you can be racist against whites too). The lists go on. Denying that a lot of people were killed needlessly in the advancement of a Stalinist ideal, etc. etc.

You get to have that opinion. You get to think that the slippery slope argument is bullshit. That is your right. People told me that I was using a slippery slope argument when I said using the wartime powers act against "terrorism" was a quick sink to unjust presidential powers. I stand by my argument then and I stand by my slippery slope argument now.

There's a lot to unpack in your comment. I do want to address a few things:

> People told me that I was using a slippery slope argument when I said using the wartime powers act against "terrorism" was a quick sink to unjust presidential powers.

Is it different to you that the actions here were taken by companies, not by the government? To the best of my knowledge, there was no mandate to take these sites down.

> Be consistent

Sure, this is my original takeaway from the article -- establish clear boundaries, openly follow those rules when someone violates those boundaries. It causes confusion and uncertainty when you don't follow your published rules.

On your consistency point I agree. On your point about whether its different if the government or companies take the action I pose another question. Is there a difference between the results of the two when companies take more and more power every day? If a company can remove you from interacting with a majority of the internet, is that any different from the FCC or some other agency removing you?

The difference is companies have the power given to them by consumers. The government has power by way of being the government.

Apparently the term "neo-nazi" doesn't really carry the same meaning it used to, going by the number of people who are being accused of being neo-nazis in the last week.

Are you so sure the same tactics will not be used against non-literal nazis? Or that non-nazis won't be named as such in order to then use the same practices on them "justifiably"?

If there's one thing we know with absolute confidence, is that if it's "just to protect the children" or "just to use against the nazis", it's really just that the technique/technology is still in beta test, and GA release is coming soon.

I'm not 100% agreed that "Whatever you use against Neo-Nazis will be used 'against the ones you love'." That's a slippery slope argument that I personally don't believe. Neo-nazis are such a different class of evil, that it's hard for me to see the same practices being used against someone who is not them.

You could say the same about digital surveillance of potential terrorists.

And that's a reasonable argument to make, I think. Someone using that argument could possibly convince me that there's enough to suggest these two cases are the same. This, and a few other comments are giving me some food for thought.

Neo-nazis are such a different class of evil, that it's hard for me to see the same practices being used against someone who is not them.

Do you remember how Communists were treated during the McCarthy era?

Do you know what a false equivalency is? They banned a site that no one, even the site runners, would argue isn't explicitly about white nationalism. If anyone bans the likes of Breitbart or InfoWars, then maybe we can start this slippery slope conversation, but until then it's completely disingenuous.

The problem is that whatever group is considered evil can change day to day. Right now 99% of people, myself included, can agree that supremacists or neo nazis are bad people and output evil ideas. However, it wasn't too long ago that the majority of people were against gays getting married, or even different races getting married. When we set up precedent or infrastructure to harm a group outside of the rule of law just because they are assholes, we leave the opportunity open for those in power to remove other groups they don't agree with even when those other groups are not as clear cut evil

Fairly certain that anyone that advocates and supports death camps for Jews is evil. There's no justification IN ANY ERA for this.

That's not the point. Yes they are evil, I'd go as far as to argue that anyone who calls for the death of a group of people based on something they were born into are evil. The point is that when the precedent or ability is created to do these sort of extrajudicial actions to evil people, the ability still remains for it to be used on non evil people. If you let powerful people silence others based on how much you disagree with them, you will quickly find out that there are groups you think are ok that others also think should be silenced

Well, didn't the Nazis themselves prevent people from voicing concerns for the Jews? I guess I don't see how that's not the same thing, except that it was the bad guys who did it?

The implicit assertion you've made is that Google, Cloudflare, and Godaddy are acting as a moral equivalent to the Nazis?

No, the compliant populace when the Nazi's were taking over, I think was the comparison.

> Neo-nazis are such a different class of evil, that it's hard for me to see the same practices being used against someone who is not them.

My point is that they used the same tactics (obviously different times/technology/etc) themselves to prevent people from supporting the Jews. So "the same practices being used against someone who is not them" is something that has already happened.

NOTE: My knowledge of history is not great. Let me know if I am incorrect.

Ok then, lets give Trump, the DOJ and Jeff Sessions the impetus to start drafting legislation to fight 'internet hate speech' and see what they come up with.

edit: > That's a slippery slope argument

Its not. These discussions will be taken over by the political establishment and the courts very quickly with very real consequences.

This seems like a false equivalence to me, given that Google (et al) are not the government nor acting due to pressure from the government. I do understand and value the concern around legislating free speech, but I think different rules apply for governments and corporations.

It only takes one lawsuit that goes to the supreme court to turn this whole debate into a federal legislative debate about civil rights or some other expansive constitutional issue.

When your in a situation where domain registrars and other core infrastructure are making judgements about what political speech they will allow on the internet then I would imagine your very close to a whole host of issues that cut the core of fundamental rights. That's why CloudFlare is so skittish, they know where this could go.

Eventually this rough shot approach is going to hit someone with the resources to fight back. Lets imagine Breitbart gets nuked what then? It's only a matter of time before there is an incident like that. And when it happens its already to late to turn back.

The guy in Denver who refused to bake a gay wedding cake has his case before the Supreme Court this term.

This is already happening.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/24/safe-spaces-un...

Your comment is fairly sparse, but I'm reading that you feel 'safe spaces' are equivalent to Google/GoDaddy/etc. shutting down neo-nazi websites that actively encourage violence against a class of people?

I'm reading that you feel like constructing and attacking a straw-man version of my position ;)

The thrust of the Guardian article was that freedom of speech is no longer valued at Universities in the UK, or at least, to no-where near the level it was value in the past.

Specifically, the practices that people are advocating to use against Neo-NAZIs are, right now, being used in Universities in the UK and elsewhere to shut down political dissent.

That's what I meant by 'this is already happening'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com