I've yet to see any proposals from the latter camp whereas I've seen dozens of pieces of legislation successfully passed and attempt to pass from the former.
There is, evidently, a fairly powerful and far-reaching population of left-leaning people who believe and are willing to act on the idea that the internet should be politically controlled. I've never heard of this being done successfully against, say, a communist website.
[1]https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/18/cloudflare_ceo_rubb...
Also: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/12/german-police-...
Took me 2 seconds to find that. Your lack of knowledge isn't proof of something not existing.
Where Antifa discharging firearms at peaceful protesters? Or was that the neo-nazis?
I have nothing more to say to you.
I'm also not defending Antifa, I'm commenting on your equivalence between the two groups. Sure, in the broadest of strokes they are the same, but so are all criminals. But one would not say a shoplifter is the same as a murderer.
> I seriously don't get how you can ham on the murderers but defend shoplifters, they're both fringe groups that shit over society's rules.
Yes, there has been some violence from the anti-fascist side, such as Eric Clanton being hit with a bicycle lock. But you are overlooking the fact that fight-wing activists have initiated more and more deadly violence in similar contexts: a stabbing at a rally in Sacramento last year; a shooting Washington state earlier this year; and of course the deliberate driving of a car into a crowd at Charlotteville a couple of weeks ago. Screenshots from Discord suggest that particular tactic was discussed in advance by RW activists.
I don't want to go on a Gish gallop or we'd be here all day, but I'd also encourage you to reflect on the fact that while Antifa supporters endorse the idea of punching nazis, popular figures with a public following on the far right have publicly and formally expressed the desire for civil war and even genocide. It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion without addressing that dichotomy.
Wikileaks has been immorally persecuted in many ways, but direct censorship is not one of them.
I get my only news about US politics from HN, so I genuinely have no idea.
It wasn't the GOVERNMENT that did this. That's the only thing that freedom of speech laws give you freedom from.
And, those sites weren't suppressed because they impacted politics; they were suppressed because they impacted profitability.
It's almost like the right needs some sort of "neutrality" laws that guarantee that internet websites and internet traffic they need can't be restricted.
I'm pretty far left in my politics, and I find the idea that these websites got kicked off quite worrying. However, I also find the centralization of internet services quite worrying.
I'm still old school enough that I run my own servers for exactly this reason.
I agree censorship of political content on private infrastructure is (and should be) legal; I also believe it's plainly immoral and should alarm people. I also believe that, given that the public DNS is government-controlled, it nominally belongs to the public and private entities like cloudflare should not be gatekeepers to it.
Of course, the best solution is for everyone to switch to some sort of crypto-based truly public DNS system like Namecoin, but that's not happening for a while.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/07/21/richard-...
When something happens, the media gives right-wing fascists the benefit of the doubt; "we don't know who he is", "he doesn't represent the movement", "he was scared", "he was attacked", "he's crazy", and once the proof is out they tend to draw false equivalencies with left.
That doesn't happen as much on the left - it's stigmatized full stop, no excuses. CNN's clickbait news will drag it out
Does it though? Because I found the majority of the media except niche-oriented ones like FOX and Breibart do not fit that profile.
CNN had no problems attacking with everything they knew, but they avoided excess speculation and treated the Charlottesville attacker the same as Hodgkinson... which was my point.