Hacker News Reader

Comment by 8b16380d | Hacker News Reader

Stallman is right again…

> Hosting providers MUST be forced to provide a platform for everyone and anyone against the will of the provider. It SHALL NOT matter how many people their customers brag about driving to suicide. Nor should the hosting provider take into consideration harassment campaigns orchestrated by users of their platforms.

-- Stallman, probably?

/endsarcasm

I want content-neutral infrastructure. KF are scum and much of what they do should be illegal, but I want those decisions made in a court of law where they can defend themselves, not by whoever got in the ear of the right tech CEO. Platforms aren't people and shouldn't have rights.

And yet the courts are inadequate about protecting small-scale, individual rights. KF does targeted harassment, not large-scale terrorism, so agencies don't have much incentive to dedicate a disproportionate amount of resources on taking them offline.

Isn't it common in the US to sue for damages and shut down illegal behavior that way, e.g. Bollea v. Gawker?

Following due process? That's unheard of.

Forcing professors investing all their life into advancement of human civilization out of universities because they said a funny word? The should lose all their possessions, it's completely harmless and right, trust me!

Calling someone names and pointing out things that are glaring OPSEC mistakes? Immediately drop and do everything to attack them!

p.s.: it's very sad to see enthusiasts and prominent engineers like Marcan getting corrupted by the plague of our times.

If only the folks saying this stuff showed up in force to defend people other than nightmare bigots.

Most of my outrage is aimed at censorship of left-wing and antiwar content. Much of which is already banned from most of reddit and deranked from google - I don't want to see the whole internet go down that road via DDoS protection, and fear KF, who I hate, was a first step and not a last one.

Tech giants started justifying their abuses through "nazis bad" and now pointing out US support for Azov gets your website hidden.

Freedom of association is enshrined in many constitutions and laws across the globe as a fundamental right. Why do you want to force people to associate with those they do not want to?

I am member of a badminton club, we have a code-of-conduct. It contains things like:

- Don't harass other players

- Don't harass or be an ass towards refs

- Don't litter it the gym, keep it tidy

- Don't take performance-enhancing drugs

- and a few other such rules.

Why do we have to ask a judge in a court of law to be able to stop associating with a team-mate that keeps shouting sexual expletives at referees, keeps littering in the locker rooms, and generally makes the situation unpleasant? Why can't we just use our first amendment (or equivalent elsewhere) rights and stop associating?

and if people think your code of conduct is too harshly enforced they can and will go elsewhere, there are thousands of badminton clubs in the world. Different strokes for different folks. Trying to kick someone off the internet entirely is a completely different matter.

Nobody is kicking anybody off the internet here. Kiwi Farms are free to associate with anyone willing to associate with them, or host their own content. There are thousands of hosts. Different strokes for different folks. Why should anybody be forced to give up their free speech/association rights because you say so?

Actually yes, probably something close to this.

Many such cases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com