ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
eff.org
eff.org
It feels like private companies are de facto writing the laws about what's allowed online and in society right now, and that it's almost become a loophole for censoring free speech on a whim.
And while the site in question here is ethically bankrupt in basically every way, it doesn't seem too far fetched to assume the same thing could (and potentially will) happen for sites many more people agree with because someone/some group at an ISP doesn't like them or think they should be accessible.
>It feels like private companies are de facto writing the laws about what's allowed online and in society right now, and that it's almost become a loophole for censoring free speech on a whim.
"Feels like"? This is clearly embraced as a necessary step to preserve democracy by a small-but-powerful segment of population.
In fact, the reason the First Amendment limits the government, exclusively, is that the ability to abridge free speech (to choose which forms of speech you support, spread, or disassociate from) is implicitly a part of individual liberty, held by the people. Free speech has never guaranteed anyone a platform.
That's not a bug, it's a feature. Yes, it can be messy. Yes, it can be abused. Yes, it means social media companies are allowed to ban you for any reason they like, just as restaurants are allowed to refuse you service. Yes it means ISPs don't have to do business with nazis and assholes.
The alternative is that the government - that controls the monopoly on violence - controls all speech, at all levels, and any business that engages in any form of speech. That it forces you to publish speech against your will, against your interests, even against your safety.
The great thing about ISPs being private is that you can always find another ISP. Kiwifarms did. Being banned from social media isn't the end of the world. But I can't as easily find another government if mine reads my social media posts and decides I'm too "woke" to live.
Yes I am. If Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door I am perfectly within my rights to tell them to go away. I don't have to go to church if I don't want to. I'm perfectly allowed not to associate with racists and homophobes.
Businesses are not allowed to discriminate against protected classes, true, but being an asshole is not a protected class, and every bar and restaurant still has a sign saying they can refuse service to anyone.
>Not saying sites can't have a TOS, but an ISP should have a really good business reason for blocking you(illegal activity, spam).
I'd be willing to agree if I didn't remember the last few months of vociferous support for repealing Section 230, having the government take over social media platforms and make TOS's and most forms of moderation illegal. Even make "algorithms" illegal.
On the one hand, I get the free speech argument, but on the other hand, there is a right-wing accelerationist agenda using that argument to push the Overton window of acceptable regulations far enough that it becomes illegal, de facto or de jure, for any site to engage in any form of moderation. I don't believe for a second that people are going to be satisfied with simply regulating ISPs, even if I'm far more sympathetic to the argument that they should be considered infrastructure than websites themselves.
For the time being, the market seems to be working. Conservative and right-wing alternatives are rising to take advantage of sites being pushed out of the mainstream, and I think that's acceptable.
> Businesses are not allowed to discriminate against protected classes, true, but being an asshole is not a protected class, and every bar and restaurant still has a sign saying they can refuse service to anyone.
Clearly I'm not talking about interpersonal association. We're talking about your freedom when conducting business, which is normal to regulate in the U.S in this way.
> I'd be willing to agree if I didn't remember the last few months of vociferous support for repealing Section 230, having the government take over social media platforms and make TOS's and most forms of moderation illegal. Even make "algorithms" illegal.
Do you think I support repealing section 230 when I said "Not saying sites can't have a TOS"?
> On the one hand, I get the free speech argument
Nothing I said has anything to do with free speech. As stated above, I think it's fine for sites to moderate themselves in a partisan manner.
> but on the other hand, there is a right-wing accelerationist agenda using that argument to push the Overton window of acceptable regulations far enough that it becomes illegal, de facto or de jure, for any site to engage in any form of moderation. I don't believe for a second that people are going to be satisfied with simply regulating ISPs, even if I'm far more sympathetic to the argument that they should be considered infrastructure than websites themselves.
There are other threats besides right wing extremism, like the centralization of power. Even if the power is wielded by some collective consciousness, I have interests that are not shared by the collective, so I don't want them having the ability to dictate my life. I think many people would also share this concern, so the government is a good way to solve that.
> For the time being, the market seems to be working. Conservative and right-wing alternatives are rising to take advantage of sites being pushed out of the mainstream, and I think that's acceptable.
That seems to be the exact opposite of what you want, doesn't it?Extremism is very popular and profitable.
I'm not? There are certain exceptions, such as certain police interactions, or a court order, or protected classes when I'm doing business stuff, but I don't think that's correct in general.
Can they ban someone for being black or gay? Do you think they should have this right, since they are private corporations?
Political belief does not, and absolutely should not, constitute a protected class.
The deciding factor is if your business revolves around facilitating speech. The law has some way to go to catch up with the current state of affairs, but right now the government is enjoying the power of censoring that speech so it may not be an easy path.
But the authorities and the justice system seem unwilling to do so, and - in the face of their refusal to act - you can't expect people to just give up and not defend themselves, not when they can exert other forms of pressure.
To me sounds like a conspiracy theory. If their crimes are so unquestionable and clear, it should be pretty easy and straightforward to prove it in a court of law. The other alternative being, of course, that there is no crime happening here, at least under the US law, and their actions, as tasteless and despicable as they might be, are covered under the american law and KF opponents are using corporations to censor legally protected speech.
I would like you to pay attention to the word "seem", which describe how their action - or lack thereof - appear to a third party, especially one which has been subject - and continues to be subject - to said "tasteless and despicable" actions, and to avoid jumping to conclusions.
> The other alternative being, of course, that there is no crime happening here [...]
That hardly sounds like the only other alternative. Even without assuming the malice of some hypothetical "conspiracy", it might be the case that
(1) the crime isn't happening here, on US soil, and thus the relevant authorities lack the power to pursue it (see also: spam call centers located in foreign countries);
(2) whoever is tasked with pursuing said crime has other, higher-priority crimes to deal with, and decided that the potential pay-off was not worth the cost of prosecution (see also: the whole US justice system);
(3) the prosecution is waiting to build a stronger case;
(4) it is not clear who should prosecute who (see also: diffusion of responsibility);
(5) the file was lost;
(6) the file got eaten by a grue;
(7) any other reason for why a large and complex machine might turn out to not be effective in dealing, in a timely manner, with a loose group of people who gather on servers hosted on foreign soil, which are not "KF opponents [...] using corporations to censor legally protected [sic] speech";
There even was a thread on that forum where the admin asked for advice about alternate hosting locations and could not find any.
The USA is the only country with speech laws permissive enough and data privacy laws weak enough for that site to be legal there.
Newspapers/tv/radio were, and no one was giving nazi's equal time on every issue.
Newspapers only ever published what they wanted to, censoring any viewpoint they felt like censoring.
The truth is that before the internet, there wasn't really any genuine public discourse. If you wanted any reach at all, you had to go through a gatekeeper of some sort.
IMO public discourse is less controlled by private corporations/organizations now than at basically any other point in our history, with the possible exception of like, 10 years ago.
There was never previously any realistic method for a private citizen to gain a platform to meaningfully influence discourse. Traditional media _literally_ defined the narratives in play. I’d argue that a whole lot of the ideological carnage and polarization going on is directly a result of the “democratization” of public discourse.
While there was some oversight, the reality is that news media still had basically total control over whatever narrative they were interested in pushing.
In fact, I’d argue that a lot of the ideological chaos and subsequent censorship we have seen recently is precisely a result of private corporations losing control of public discourse.
In the US, related to this specific situation, the laws are called "Net Neutrality" and "Common Carrier" laws.
Such laws are well established and uncontroversial. Pretty much everyone agrees that it is a good thing that the power company can't shut off your electricity just because you said something that it didn't like.
In this case, the government forced privately owned malls to allow political protests. So yes the government has forced public squares to be open to the public and prevents private companies from censoring political speech in those public squares.
> or a mass communication system though
Common carriers quite literally are mass communication systems. What do you think common carriers "carry"? The answer is that many of them carry communication.
Things like the phone system are for mass communication.
So yes, we have laws that effect both the public square and mass communication systems.
ISPs are also communication systems and laws called "net neutrality" laws force them to do certain things.
In fact, this article itself is about how the ISP is acting illegally and is breaking existing laws about what the ISPs can censor.
You could always go yell at people in the street like a crazy person. You still can.
Our democracy is on the verge of collapsing because liars and frauds have grabbed their newly available megaphone and convinced a very significant portion of the population that any election they lose is rigged.
If our democracy even survives this, which is questionable right now, we really need to rein in social media if we don't want to live under a despot.
This is why monopoly power is dangerous as without it you could just move to a more tolerant competitor and be on with your business. The courts almost never consider the "secondary markets" that exist around these behemoths, and how all of our interests and independence are significantly damaged by allowing these monopolies to merge into existence.
Of course, even this feels like the conversation they would _like_ you to have, because the other side I never see considered is what does it take to buy an "indulgence" from these companies? Is it easy? Is it often done? How often are these "scions of social justice" actually just "turning a blind eye?"
oh no how _terrible_
'Inclusive' is also incredibly easy to abuse.
How? Seems to me that, like with corporate accountability, you're either doing it and it's good or you're not doing it but lying and saying you are.
Comcast has an all-women Open Source Program Office, which sounds like a way to include females in engineering. But they define women as "females and males who want to be seen as female" which doesn't help women actually get jobs.
The Scottish National Party has sex-quotas to achieve more-equal representation by men and women, but they let men who claim to be women take these seats.
Are either actually inclusive? Are they inclusive of women? If you have a daughter, do either of those measures better her life.
And yet both actions meet the 'Social' criteria of ESG scores, and serve to boost a company's rankings and thus lower its interest rate on sustainability linked loans.
What should happen is across the board equality of opportunity. While making sure the opportunity is truly fair, focus on stamping out prejudice and 'isms. You can't force immediate changes, but you can remove the barriers to equality to let the changes happen.
- Universal suffrage
- Proportional representation
- Voting for women
- Minimum wage
- Eight-hour workday
...
So you support them?
> play moral police at the moment
Moral fashion police
Apart from the obvious 1a violation.
Market forces and competition should help keep speech free because if a private company doesn't allow x group to use their platform, it is likely a competitor will spring up to capture the orphaned market. We see this play out in reality.
This doesn't really apply in the same way in social media. Social media platforms organically turn into monopolies.
X and Facebook and Reddit and Hackernews and Whatsapp are all social media, sure, but they are not in direct competition. One does not start or stop using Instagram because they use Reddit. Same with Hackernews and X, etc etc. The product is different.
When you ban an ideology or a group from a piece of social media, they do run to competitors, but "competitors" which can never penetrate the market because they don't have the userbase, which is the main incentive of social media.
So far-right people get banned from Twitter and they run to Gab, but Gab and Twitter aren't really competitors because Twitter can't ever penetrate into Gab's market (they banned that market to begin with) and Gab can't penetrate Twitter's market (because Twitter is the more attractive platform to begin with, having more users)
The better product is better because of its userbase. There is no real competition, and as such, no upholding of freedom of speech due to it.
If the private sector is more susceptible to moral policing than the public sector, then (all things being equal) if public services are transferred to the public sector(ie: smaller government) then the attack area increases.
There are two conditions, and one conclusion. If you don't agree that the premises apply, then the argument doesn't really matter and also doesn't apply.
>That’s what must happen here. The cops and the courts should be working to protect the victims of KF and go after the perpetrators with every legal tool at their disposal. We should be giving them the resources and societal mandate to do so. Solid enforcement of existing laws is something that has been sorely lacking for harassment and abuse online, and it’s one of the reasons people turn to censorship strategies. Finally, we should enact strong data privacy laws that target, among others, the data brokers whose services help enable doxxing.
Eh, maybe, but don't most of these laws mostly fail to work across international borders anyway?
I mean, I haven't seen many cryptolocker authors appearing before US courts. And wikileaks remains online despite the best efforts of US authorities.
Surely anything that could shut down or block kiwifarms could do the same to wikileaks and pirate bay and sci-hub?
Pirate bay and sci-hub get affected by copyright law more than anything else and, to the best of my knowledge, kiwifarms is protected by section 230 in that respect and has always complied with legitimate takedown requests.
Then why do people who issue takedown requests get plastered all over the site and harassed?
I would describe them as operating with a paper thin layer of "plausible" deniability. Officially you aren't allowed to harass or interact with the targets. But posting their home address, stolen passwords, phone numbers, and information about relatives is all allowed. Obviously, if they didn't want their targets harassed, they wouldn't post that. Kiwifarms, now banned, official twitter page said their goal was “exploitation of the mentally handicapped for amusement purposes”. ( Source: https://archive.is/jYp5p ).
But even the rule against interacting with "lolcows" (called "cowtipping") is haphazardly enforced. For example, one user had sex with a "lolcow" and posted photos. The admin explicitly said they would allow the content to remain up: https://archive.is/zYnpK#35%
I could probably post many other examples. Null is entirely willing to host revenge porn on his website. He's also willing to host nudes that he knows were stolen by hackers.
People probably aren't going to want to send takedown requests, when that requires revealing their identity to a site that is known for doxing and harassing people.
And requiring service providers to monitor private communications for organisation of harassment seems Orwellian to me. (Intuition pump: imagine the postal service opening every letter to check to see if someone's organising a letter writing campaign sending abuse to George Washington)
As does prohibiting people saying unpleasant things about semi-public figures in public.
You should read up on what actually happened, one a unbiased source. Which si not Wikipedia.
The sources that are allowed/disallowed and their respective biases (e.g. what they publish or don't say) are a big factor.
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36807942
[2]https://destinygg.substack.com/p/keffals-a-case-study-on-int...
[3]https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-world-should-not-ne...
The first link is from Destiny, a well-known (albeit controversial) online figure. It seems to be a factual timeline of events with citations for every claim made, which is far from an opinion piece.
Completely dismissing the content because you believe it must be biased is somewhat ironic.
Would you at least then concede that the Wikipedia article is also unreliable and biased?
> One is bordering on an attack piece.
Which one? If you're referring to the piece published by Destiny, what constitutes an "attack piece" if all the claims made are rigorously cited? Would being an attack piece invalidate the claims even if they're demonstrably true?
[1]https://destinygg.substack.com/p/keffals-a-case-study-on-int...
Moreover, if it's about the situation mentioned earlier this year on HN, it's problematic because of its complexity and gravity. Even with just facts and only facts, the change of the narrative (ie. the order you present the facts in) is enough for the same reasonable person to come to opposite conclusions. And that's before accounting for rhetorical devices that aim to manipulate the reader while still not crossing the line and sticking to facts - happily employed by both sides of the discussion in staggering quantities. (Then, of course, there's the other 90% of sources full of lies and fabrications, but let's leave those alone on HN at least...)
In short - it's not worth the hassle unless you're invested in the matter enough to care a lot, and once you are, odds are you won't post an unbiased source anyway. You'll need to do your own research, wade through a metric crapton of some of the worst humanity has to offer, and form your own opinion based on that. I don't think there's a shortcut here.
Come on, that is the literal fucking purpose of infrastructure. Water/sewage doesn't get to refuse to flush my toilet because the content of my stool doesn't meet their nutritional expectations.
> I'd never believed that sending someone a pizza would qualify as an act of violence
It doesn't unless you interpret every instance of adversity as an attempt on your life.
Nobody trying to kill anybody sends a pizza, unless the intent is to induce poisoning or choking.
> [Wikipedia] Users also leaked sexually explicit photos of her
"Leaked" sounds so much worse than the truth of the photos being found on a 2257-compliant commercial porn site, which Keffals willingly worked as a onetime model for under a 4-letter pseudonym. To say they were "leaked" is being intentionally dishonest. They were available for sale, by the studio that took them. Users shared the preview images that were publicly posted, because nobody involved felt they were worth paying for.
Don't take my word for it; anyone can see for themselves-- they're helpfully posted in her KF thread, if the site is even up anymore.
Just on this specific point: this is not a particularly weird scenario at all. There are very strong rules about what you can and cannot send in the mail, and these rules are enforced. The most obvious example is the Comstock laws, which regulate "obscene and immoral materials" sent through the mail (including things like information about birth control). They're from the 1800s, but several are still on the books. It's not a strange concept at all in American law to regulate what can and cannot be sent through the mail.
I imagine the moderators giving the same "No, please, don't do this" with the exact same level of authority as Willy Wonka telling people "no don't":
It's a bullshit, paper-thin "policy" that exists only for KF to cover their own asses.
Let's make one thing clear, the only purpose for publishing someone's home address, place of employment, phone number, etc. (aka, "doxxing") is to condone harassment of that individual. Any claims otherwise are completely bad faith and bullshit. Nobody believes you. Stop claiming "Oh, but this information is publicly available!"
If KF truly discouraged harassment, they'd do what every other sane site does and immediately delete the post and ban the user that posted it.
Chris Chan has been a notorious and divisive figure online long before the existence of the Kiwi Farms. They are arguably one of the most well-known Internet personalities.
Merely referring to them as "a trans woman" throws away a massive amount of context why Kiwi Farms (and many other sites) seems so obsessed.
Also, what does labeling the person as trans (or anything else) have to do with harassment?
These threads exist. They're easy to find. I've seen them before and they're absolutely abhorrent.
Another commenter said they checked themselves
> Edit: I have now accessed the site and confirm a culture of doxxing, with 3 of the 10 opening posts proudly having "doxx" sections.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37327204
> Edit: I went through the hassle of figuring out how to get on that website. I can confirm 2 or the five pages I checked had doxx info on them and agree that kiwifarms does not seem to have a policy against doxxing and in fact has a culture that promotes it. This is bad.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37327642
Anyone who claims that KiwiFarms is not a site for harassing and doxxing people has done zero research and is trusting some lying "news" source that tells them something else. I really wish I could understand the mentality of thinking otherwise. Are you really so hung up on "thinking for yourself" that you automatically assume anything said by the mainstream media is a lie? Skepticism is great and I highly encourage it, but automatic knee-jerk rejection is not skepticism, it's basically setting you up for falling for reverse psychology. Just because the mainstream media says one thing while fringe reporters say something else does not automatically mean the mainstream is lying.
Two notes:
1. Kiwifarms, by volume, based on the sampling of posts I've read today, is first and foremost a site for talking about, insulting and mocking people. The harassing and doxxing do not seem to have focus and it would require a relatively minor change (banning and removing doxxing) in order for it to claim innocence of harassment and doxxing.
2. "Does more than zero research" is a very high bar that few meet. The number of people I've found on the internet who cite primary sources, government stats/papers and scientific papers is less than 0% to the nearest tenth of a percent. While its true that sometimes research can take half an hour or more, so often it takes five minutes (like checking out stats on the uk gov website regarding criminal convictions of British Pakistanis for having sex with under 16 year olds to settle the myth of Pakistani child rape).
Ideally everyone would do research and cite real sources, in practice less than one in a thousand do.
That' not going to happen with its current owner.
It's been suggested that doxxing be banned before. But the owner of the site, Joshua Moon (aka null) does NOT want to do that: https://kiwifarms.st/threads/why-host-dox.130254/
(I only mention his real name because he's public about his identity, and he's sometimes referred to in the news by either name).
Here is another ocassion, the admin of the site, outright said he was ok with users posting stolen financial information, such as Social Security Numbers and Credit cards. Source: https://archive.is/0fOcS .
There are many examples of private financial information being posted on the site.
That's only your opinion. What OP says about KF is still correct.
No, it really isn't.
> Let's make one thing clear, the only purpose for [doxxing] is to condone harassment of that individual. Any claims otherwise are completely bad faith and bullshit. Nobody believes you. Stop claiming "Oh, but this information is publicly available!"
Yes, I acknowledge it's all public, but that doesn't explain why you would want to aggregate that information and post it in a public forum and make it easier to acquire. What purpose does it achieve?
I do not recall seeing those in the threads I looked at (which all have an opening post collecting information about the individual).
Can you confirm what proportion, if any, of main posts had that info? Can you also confirm that KF does not have a policy of removing that info?
I can't access kiwifarms at the moment to check, but I strongly suspect that information is in obscure posts by individuals and their "community" as a whole does not condone it and it is removed where obvious.
Edit: I have now accessed the site and confirm a culture of doxxing, with 3 of the 10 opening posts proudly having "doxx" sections.
Edit: I went through the hassle of figuring out how to get on that website. I can confirm 2 or the five pages I checked had doxx info on them and agree that kiwifarms does not seem to have a policy against doxxing and in fact has a culture that promotes it. This is bad.
Primary sources analysed either a good methodology are by far the best way to learn about a subject.
> Just because there’s a serious problem doesn’t mean that every response is a good one
Problem: a forum full of misanthropes dedicated to saying the worst things allowed under the first amendment.
Bad solution: erode 1A at the case law level
Bad solution: censor the internet at the backbone level
Freedom isn't free. We're lucky to live in country with robust speech protections. The tradeoff is that there will always be some people who get a kick out of going right to edge of what they can get away. My view is that our civil liberties are worth it.
Not exactly. While there are certainly people who espouse anti-free-speech views in the big tech, I'm pretty sure the companies themselves are pressured/threatened with increased regulatory scrutiny, anti-thrust action and anything else that is at congress/government's disposal. These congress/senate hearings about misinformation are exactly that.
I 100% disagree with this, the engineering level of silicon valley left the old "libertarian" hacker ethos behind a long time ago, at the engineering layer there is idea about using technology to build a "better society" where "better society" is ensuring people with "wrong opinions" isolated so they can not "harm" others with their "violence" and violence is now words on the internet.
In fact recent activism coming from the engineer levels at Big Tech (google, Amazon, FB, etc) has me believe that that administrative layer is not really in control, and the policy changes are a reflection coming from the activism in the engineering layer
We also see this through out Open Source with the raise of the CoC to implement systemic changes with in open source to ensure only those with "correct opinions" are allowed to contribute moving from just caring about code, to then caring about code and conduct with in a project and project related events, to now even more expansive monitoring of developers entire lives, and activities completely removed and unrelated to any development activities.
For shame. But, things go in cycles. What was once great becomes a ruin, and then rises again. We are now in the heading steadily towards the ruin phase.
Implementation is the guys holding the shovels, not the guys saying where to dig.
And thank fuck for that.
> at the engineering layer there is idea about using technology to build a "better society" where "better society" is ensuring people with "wrong opinions" isolated so they can not "harm" others with their "violence" and violence is now words on the internet.
People are so glib about this and it's such a catastrophic failure to engage in empathy and respect for other human beings that it simply blows my mind that people can say things like this and think they're in the moral correct. "Being bullied to death by the Internet" isn't even that uncommon anymore. Especially for people who will have a hard time finding community in the real spaces in which they live, Internet communities of like-people become a literal lifeline. Entire relationships both communal and intimate are carried out through the lens of online communication. "Words on the internet" indeed.
And if said words can be a lifeline of communication and community to like-minded people and alleviate suffering, you can be damn well assured that works the other way too. Having personally known and helped people through being the subject of online alt-right hate mobs, I assure you, "words on the internet" can absolutely kill people. I have watched in happen in real time and pulled people back from the precipice.
> We also see this through out Open Source with the raise of the CoC to implement systemic changes with in open source to ensure only those with "correct opinions" are allowed to contribute moving from just caring about code, to then caring about code and conduct with in a project and project related events, to now even more expansive monitoring of developers entire lives, and activities completely removed and unrelated to any development activities.
Yeah I don't particularly want to use software, especially pay to use software, made by people who want to exterminate people I call friends and family. If a developer comes out on their social media and broadcasts about how my friends are some combination of insane/dangerous for being who they are, no, I'm not using their product ever again and I will spread word about it to people I know who feel similarly. This is just how social networks (in the sociology sense, not the technological sense) work and always have.
I guess what I'm saying is if you want maximum capture on your product, tell your team to park their opinions on which groups of people deserve to die on personal, anonymous accounts. I don't think this is a massive ask, personally, but I also don't want anyone dead so I can't really comment on it.
Which one is it? Does your speech have a real world impact? If yes, then you have to acknowledge that it can cause real damage and that private companies have no obligation to accommodate that. If its just meaningless words, then why does it matter that companies ban anyone for any speech?
This is the oddly standard wording used in defense of these newly-fashionable 'everything you've ever done ever can be used against you' contributor codes of conduct and I have to find it very disingenuous.
By and large nobody wants to exterminate anybody. People have legitimate differences of opinion and when they attempt to express them they're being told that even _thinking_ that opinion is tantamount to violence.
If you can't see it as anything other than a transparent attempt to restrict discourse I don't know what to tell you. It isn't like this is the first time this strategy has been used.
Please provide me an example of a code of conduct you find objectionable on these grounds. I have yet to see one that fits the language used both in this and the parent comment I originally replied to of being "orwellian."
Is that hyperbole or do you really believe it?
The concepts of pluralism, tolerance, and peaceful coexistence with people whom we disagree is replaced with forced acceptance, mono-culturalism, speech controls and a rank intolerance of opposing views often supplanted with a rather obtuse perversion of the "paradox of tolerance" where by intolerant people of both political sides justify their actions actions as morally and ethically correct, as being on the "correct side of history" or other such platitudes
Ergo: if you treat everyone around you with the respect and recognition of their personhood, you in turn are 100% entitled to that same respect and recognition. If however you make statements or act in such a way as to diminish the personhood of others, you are no longer entitled to that respect.
I think it's a nice little system and resolves the paradox quite nicely. To promote a tolerant society means being intolerant of intolerance.
The right is most seen on this in the modern era Womens Rights, Schools, Gay Marriage, etc
The left is most seen on this with Speech Codes around "Hate Speech" and Pronouns, in Employment Regulations, in Equity Regulation (enforced by law not market) ,etc
You seem to believe that because 2 cultures exist it is "multicultural" but that is not the reality, "multicultural" would be accepting the other culture as equally as valid as your own, tolerating their existence in a legal and market framework (i.e willing to do business with them, and not use government power to make their culture illegal)
What we have today is 2 cultures attempt each attempting to banish the other both using markets, and using governments.
It isn't an "appeal to emotion," it is emotion. Emotion is not this ephemeral second-class citizen in your mind. It's you. It's the part of you that cares about things. A response being largely emotional does not make it inherently less valid, and not everyone is required to discard half of the human experience in order to be taken seriously.
> How many people have had their characters assassinated, ostracized and fired, sometimes commiting suicide as a result, just because they said the wrong thing now or in the past according to the current moral fashion police.
I would say far too many, but also I would caveat that by pointing to the other pile of corpses from people who did the same thing for just being themselves in the wrong place. Or worse still, had the violence inflicted upon them by another's hand.
So clearly, at the very least, we can agree that it's not just "words on the internet?" They clearly have dire consequences for all parties involved.
> How many are self censoring and falsifying preferences to appease the authoritarians.
"Everyone agrees with me but they're too afraid to say it" is a convenient excuse to hold reprehensible beliefs that you don't want to take responsibility for. If everyone is afraid to say something, maybe that's because it's disgusting? And given what people are happily not only saying, but being paid to say, (usually while whining about how censored they are but I digress) I'm frankly incredibly skeptical of this position.
> They say it's about kindness and respect, inbetween destroying the next individual's life. Authoritarian bullies cloaking themselves in a veneer of kindness is not new.
Again though, while there I am certain are some examples of people being bullied to that point, I have a hard time seeing it. I personally have carried friends through that mess and to that, I can testify first party. However on the opposite side, all I really see is people complaining about how censored they are, on public platforms, to a wide audience, and usually in some way monetizing it: book sales, shows, public speaking engagements, all the while moaning about how they can't speak their minds... while speaking their minds. Repeatedly. For profit.
------------------ I'm rewriting this because the comment above changed substantially since it was originally posted. Below is the original thing I wrote which I'm leaving up because I'm proud of it:
This notion that "well what's objectionable is subjective and therefore having any standard is having an agenda" is frankly, bullhockety. Yes, it does vary from person to person. Different people will have different tolerances to different things, and part of community building is all of those people coming together and, through trial and error, through difficult conversations, through awkward moments, etc. slowly constructing a line in the sand where upon one side is beyond tolerance, and the other side is not, and that line in itself being subject to change based upon new cultural events, new people joining the community, other people being removed from the community for infraction, etc. etc.
We have been doing this since roughly the taming of fire. The only thing that's changed is the mode of enforcement. Now instead of chucking people out of our tribes and telling them to piss off, we block them on social media and revoke their access rights. Same exact thing. If you want to participate in a community, that participation has always, always been conditional upon agreeing to a mutually agreed upon set of rules, that yes, change over time and that can mean you by virtue of being an imperfect human can stumble over them without meaning harm. The differentiator from that point is how you handle that situation and if your reflex is to post on your own social media about how everyone involved in the community you have transgressed against is censoring you and you have a right to say XYZ, then that community in all likelihood is going to reject you in a more permanent fashion. If your individual liberty to say XYZ is more important to you than membership in that community, then that's the choice you make. I don't judge you inherently for that. I have joined and left many communities over the years as my and those communities' values shifted around. This is just how social organizations work and have always worked.
And you in turn are free to demand access to whatever space but that entitlement needs to be articulated, and I am inherently suspicious of this almost reflexive "well I guess I just had the WRONG OPINIONS" response, which almost universally is presented without the opinions attached. (Including in this comment.) What were the opinions? Why were they "wrong?"
And I will grant: in the digital age, the enforcement of being rejected is much easier with a much lower emotional energy gate than it was previously. Now you don't need to confront people, to have conversations, if you don't want to and that makes a certain kind of person perhaps itchier on the trigger finger than is ideal. And that's unfortunate. But on the flip side of that, sometimes the transgression involved is too extreme. Sometimes the transgression makes the people who would confront an individual feel unsafe to do so. Sometimes there is no path to resolution and there's nothing to do but block and move on.
Regardless, it's not an argument. Your emotion has no direct weight on the correctness of an outcome you're arguing for, and trying to appeal to other's emotions in an attempt to sway them is attempting to bypass their critical analysis.
Argue the facts and let emotions happen. They "are you" but should not drive you.
> "Everyone agrees with me but they're too afraid to say it" is a convenient excuse to hold reprehensible beliefs that you don't want to take responsibility for. If everyone is afraid to say something, maybe that's because it's disgusting?
No, likely outcomes and consequences for discussing something are rarely aligned. You're discussing hounding people out of work/home/politics because of your emotional take on what they're saying, without any actual analysis of it or how actionable it is.
In my mind, that's incredibly dangerous (and thus, if I chose to use emotional language - disgusting) but I'm not advocating taking away your right to say it.
> Again though, while there I am certain are some examples of people being bullied to that point, I have a hard time seeing it.
James Damore is a great example. He didn't broadcast his views - he responded privately to questions in a hiring review panel at Google, discussing how the company could improve its hiring of women by understanding the roles it was offering in the light of modern psychological analysis using the "Big Five" traits model.
Specifically, he did not say that women were worse engineers in any way, either holistically or in individual skills, OR less suited to engineering than males. He argued that Google's roles were less suitable for "traditionally female" interests. Again, this was privately, in the context of a panel trying to evaluate why Google wasn't great at hiring women engineers.
His communications were leaked, with the context stripped, in an edited form without any references to gawker-style media who were prompted with the lead 'white guy says - "Don't hire women"' to prompt them into the "right" emotional headspace to write an attack piece.
To tie this back to emotion, obviously someone read his words and let their emotion at those words (I myself don't like psychobabble) override their analysis of what was said. Their emotions are "valid lived experience" but the attacks they called for, and lies used to do so, are not helpful or justified.
Preference falsification from engineers, which was normalized after James Damore had his character publicly assassinated. Throwing rotten tomatoes at him and screaming "shame shame" before chopping off his head was a warning to everyone else to keep quiet or echo the correct opinions.
There's a lot of tribal signaling and "don't hurt me I'm one of you".
Then there's a new brand of engineer, and some old gen converts, who are true believers in the new religion and programming is just a lucrative way to participate in late stage capitalism as a wage slave. Many among them are aggressive bullies and codify their beliefs into CoCs and concern themselves with purity testing.
You might not like it, but that’s kind of the point, either let the market decide or take the market out of it.
Only, that's not how it works in our (and pretty much any) society. We, as a society, choose what we think is acceptable. And then we make laws to enforce that people behave in a way consistent with that. A company is not free to deny service to someone that is gay, or black, or married; just because that is their chosen business model.
I’m quite discouraged by this thread not being taken down despite the very obvious brigade of alt-right Nazi sympathizers pretending that being gay is the same as yelling for the genocide of gay people.
I don’t think your problem is with Democrats, or social media companies, really, it’s with objective reality.
And I didn’t say they were traitors, you did.
Maybe don’t have racist genocidal stances then?
Trump wasn’t banned for being a republican. He was banned, ultimately, for Jan 6.
In reality, Trump broke all those platforms rules on several occasions and was given a free pass till he tried to steal an election. He’s actually the poster boy for the fact that republicans get MORE leeway on social platforms, not less.
Sounds like you want special treatment for Republicans, yet are paranoid that others might do the same thing.
Infrastructure providers should not be able to refuse customers engaging in lawful activity. Your phone company can't shut you off because you say, "I wish $POLITICIAN were dead." You don't have to like or agree with everything everyone says, but it's a very dangerous slippery slope.
Personal liberty should be maximalized so as not to infringe on the rights of others. You do not have the right to live a life without risk of being offended.
Such a laughable statement given that Silicon Valley was from the beginning a military project, with social control as an explicit aim. Milquetoast lamentations about a lost libertarian dream are no different than old cries about the closing of the Western frontier or Jeffersonian myths about a pastoralist capitalism corrupted by industry.
Like, no. Certificate Authorities exist because the web fucking sucks. Not because they want to be gate keepers.
Let's Encrypt has a post about phishing websites: https://letsencrypt.org/2015/10/29/phishing-and-malware.html
We can certainly discuss whether these services should be publicly or privately owned. I'm a pretty liberal guy, and wouldn't mind seeing publically-owned versions of Twitter, ChatGPT, or Google, as a guard against corporations dominating the information age.
But calling for more government regulation of privately-owned services? Forcing private companies to do what you want them to do, even when they would prefer not to? The whole point of private property is that it carves out a space of freedom for you, the owner of the private property, to use it as you wish!!!
I really wonder how I became the radical conservative here......
https://www.aclu.org/report/1978-aclu-pamphlet-why-american-...
We already have many laws that effect companies.
For example, power companies cannot just turn off your electricity because they don't like what you say.
These are called common carrier laws and they are completely uncontroversial.
We live in a society, and it is perfectly OK for us to put limits on what major monopoly type companies can do.
I am not sure if you were aware, but this article is about ISPs and we currently have laws that already regulate them and make the behavior described in the article as illegal.
So yes we do regulate them. And these laws are called common carrier laws. And those have have existed for decades and uncontroversial, and yes they work.
> Are there any regulations which both sides could be happy with
Both sides are indeed already happy with our existing common carrier laws that apply to ISPs, yes. Common carrier laws are not controversial.
What's not so clear to me is whether (A) the allegations against the ISP have any merit (the article itself states it has no confirmation), or (B) even if they were true that they would run afoul of the common carrier laws. As far as I understand, these regulations do not prohibit the carriers from selectively promoting (and, ipso facto, selectively suppressing) the content they carry.
Indeed, how could it be otherwise? The capacity of the carrier is always going to be finite, therefore, tough choices are always going to have to be made as to who gets priority access.
Common carrier legislation can happily co-exist with a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign on the shop door.
That's exactly the argument that bigots who owned businesses used to refuse service to PoC and oppressed people before the civil rights legislations of the '50s and '60s were passed. Funny to hear old discredited arguments used by far-right conservatives decades ago coming out of the mouths of the left these days. It's almost enough to make one start taking the horseshoe theory seriously.
Running a whites-only business overlaps but is different from being racist.
In this scenario, it would be weird to force your business to associate with whites-only businesses. But those are illegal, so you're not forced to do that. You're only forced to work with racists that don't run whites-only businesses.
My overall point here is that it does not make much sense to object to the freedom of association arguments being made in this thread on the grounds that similar arguments were used to support discrimination against Black Americans prior to the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act recognized racism as a unique evil that required special legal remedy; it did not recognize racists as requiring special legal protection. So, yes, freedom of association permits you to avoid associating with racists but does not (in all cases) permit you to avoid associating with people of a particular ethnicity.
chuckle I certainly have been lost in wonder that now I'm the one defending corporate power :-)
But, what would a solution to the problem look like, on your view? Would we really be better off having, say, Elon must having to get his decision to remove blocking approved by some media czar in the Ministry of Truth? Would that really stop people from thinking that their views are not being systematically suppressed?
Progressives (like Americans generally) are skeptical of all power, pubic and private, and (like Americans generally) don't want government interference in society unless it might have some hope of actually solving the problem.
But I haven't seen any concrete proposals at all, let alone anything which I would have any confidence that would actually solve the problem. Quite the contrary; no matter what regulations are imposed, surely there will always be those who feel they are being systematically suppressed--and come to think of it, they would be correct in thinking that way.
The contrast with regulating the media companies couldn't be greater. What, exactly, should these regulations be? I haven't heard anything but the most vague notions--which are so undercooked that they do not rise to the level of any kind of concrete proposal.
In point of fact, no matter what regulations are adopted, there will be media winners and media losers, and the losers will always feel the system is against them. Our media will become even more hyper-politicized than it is now, because its fate would be determined by politicians who can't even agree that it's probably a good idea to pay our debt.
E.g. You are sitting on a bus, and a venerable person comes aboard and launches into paean to Bolshevism, urging the present company to rise up and seize the means of production. Certainly protected speech. You might find it entertaining. You might even feel a pang of nostalgia for a lost world and its simpler problems.
But after a few hours of this, would you really feel like a free speech abuse had happened if the bus driver asks our comrade to give it a rest; or, if he feels honor-bound to continue, would he please go do it on somebody else's bus?
But you asked how I thought they were different, and I do think they are very different, because human attention is limited in a different way than the number of busses, or ISPs are. If you can't fit one more person on a bus without kicking another one off, you can just buy more busses.
Human attention is not like that. No matter how many clones of twitter there are, I can't doom scroll for more than 24 hours a day. If some content is promoted on my feed, that means other content is inevitably excluded from my feed. And isn't this really what people are unhappy about? Not just that their views are not stored in some database somewhere. No, they want people to pay attention to what they are saying.
Can that problem be solved by additional regulations? I really don't think so. No matter what regulations we put on carriers, there will be media winners and media losers. And the losers will always feel like the system is systematically excluding them. And no wonder they feel that way--they are right. They can even go beyond vague complaints of corporate collusion and point to specific line items community standards, or--if we do adopt regulations--to specific regulations which are having the effect of suppressing their speech, perhaps even unconstitutionally suppressing their speech. But the conundrum is that this would be true for any set of regulations. The regulations can change who gets attention and who gets ignored. And they can make a bus ride or a social network more pleasant or less pleasant. But I have a hard time seeing how it can actually solve the problem of people being ignored.
Yes! That's what it's going to take. If you want checks and balances, this is how you get them. Ultimately capitalism is supposed to benefit society as a whole and when it doesn't it needs a kick in the ass.
> The whole point of private property is that it carves out a space of freedom for you, the owner of the private property, to use it as you wish!!!
That's correct but as soon as you're "open to the public" the rules, necessarily, change.
E.g. contrast with, say, regulation of pharmaceuticals by the FDA. Certainly a curb on private property rights, but, its also pretty clear what the regulations should do: allow companies to sell only drugs which have been proven to be both safe and effective.
Is there such a very clear idea of how these proposed regulations should be written? Where do we draw the line? Does anybody really have a very clear idea let all what the solution would look like?
I don't know what the regulations should be but that doesn't mean regulations shouldn't exist. Businesses are under perhaps thousands of regulations and I can only name a few. How many can you name? What problems do those regulations solve? Do you think they shouldn't exist as well?
But suppose we actually did have a concrete proposal, something we could legislate. No matter what the legislation was, there would still be media winners and media losers. And the media losers would still feel they are being systematically excluded.
Here's the kicker--they would be absolutely right!! Moreover, they wouldn't have to appeal to vague dissatisfactions about "corporate abuses"--they could point to specific line items of regulations which had the effect of suppressing their speech. There would be endless, highly politicized fights about what the regulations should be, but no matter what they were, the regulations would inevitably have the effect of promoting some points of view and suppressing others.
I.E. I really don't how regulations could provide any sort of solution to this problem.
Be careful here not to conflate personal property and lucrative property. The first (like a home) is what you say. The second (like a factory) is a way to tell others what to do on your turf, for your benefit rather than theirs.
Private companies are of the second kind: more freedom for shareholders, fewer freedoms for employees… and if they’re big and inevitable enough (like YouTube), that’s fewer freedoms for users as well.
Even if we didn’t distinguish the two kinds of property, I could easily twist your sentence into meaning that the whole point of property is to make sure rich owners have more freedom than the poor. Which is probably not the point you were trying to make.
Freedom is a tricky thing to balance.
Having employment contracts with people gives you that right.
Here's a way to cut the Gordian knot: publicly-owned services and utilities. E.g. NPR as a way to check distortions which privately-owned news organizations would otherwise be subject to. We could have a national public twitter, a national public chatGTP, etc.
So those of you who are now thinking of all the drawbacks typically associated with publicly-owned companies (real or imagined), well, the more you let the government regulate the private companies, the more the private companies will behave like public companies anyways.
Instead of getting the best of both worlds, you'll get the worst of both worlds: heavily-regulated, inefficient companies which still control the public discourse, which deliver profits not to the public but to private interests.
This is one of the positives of capitalism. The only color that matters is green. More competition please.
It's hard when it's your line people are using to put their brand of ugliness "online".
Cloudflare comes up so regularly because so many legally problematic websites use their free service to evade even judicial blocks that ISPs are ordered to implement at national level. CF are used as a free proxy that's very hard to block unless Cloudflare takes a stand.
When they don't take a stand, when they try to stay impartial, they're attacked for enabling terrorism, child abuse, human trafficking, etc, etc, etc. So they do something, and they're attacked for being moral arbiters.
They're here to do business, not please everyone. Perhaps letting them pick isn't so bad. You can decide whether or not you want to do business with them then based on their actions and everybody can not use them if they're that much of a moral problem for them. I think many people would benefit from knowing they don't always get their way.
"Oh but I have no choice of ISPs" is absolutely a problem, but it's not this problem. Your ISP having a monopoly can be fixed separately.
Imo the problem lies here. On the idea that servicing someone implies support for their actions or ideology. For all the talk about acceptance and tolerance it would seem a good deal of society is ok with the idea that those doing reprehensible stuff ought to be completely ostracized from society, laws be damned.
If you let authoritarians kafka trap you or you peers into thought terminating cliches left and right, and you don’t call the BS, this is the society you end up in.
What you're seeing is how government is born. Corporatoctacy is just another form of authoritarianism and the more government pulls up stakes, they get replaced.
The global strain of far right ethno isolationist politics is creating the public void these corporations are filling.
For example, banks don't typically want to service car dealerships simply because they are a prime target for money laundering. Same for legal cannabis firms due to being unbanked previously or because the whole industry isn't traceable.
Frankly, while I understand the historical reasons for having a "big brother" watch financial transactions, it's way to convoluted to satisfy and represents a big cost in the economy.
My understanding is that banks are federally chartered and thus cannot provide services to weed firms as it remains illegal federally.
HE is within their rights to say no, we will not host or route to KF, to stop us would violate our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression. They would then point to a litany of issues surrounding KF, how it would impact their business, and then win their case with ease.
I'm kind of shocked EFF went to bat for KF If I'm being honest. When your speech is unaliving people, or responsible for wide scale harassment of minors, guess what, I'm not interested in doing business with you, and that's perfectly fine. The fact that they use such a weak argument like utilities, and mail service as a comparison to commercial internet service is wild.
Plenty of rights are conferred by merely being within the borders of a country, regardless of citizenship status. You can be a tourist or even an illegal immigrant in the US and have the right to habeas corpus or the right of non-self-incrimination, for example.
Talking about elevating corporations to be on par with citizens is a fascist idea, which is absolutely adjacent to corporatism.
A key tenet of fascism is protecting corporate interest and power... but okay.
I have nothing whatsoever to do with the US, my Google account is based in a jurisdiction where I'm well past the legal age for adults and where hearing such words (and "worse") is quite normal at 14.
And yet I can't get this multinational behemoth to stop nannying me.
We filed a complaint with the Washington state AG over their actions. HE's response was more or less technically obtuse garbage and, "You're not our direct customer" (paraphrasing, of course).
So what they did, was take it upon themselves to prevent access to an entire /36 subnet of IPv6 that our customer had announced downstream of us. Not once did an abuse report get sent to us, or our upstream from HE. Nor did we receive any credible abuse reports sent to us directly from those upset that the site exists. Meanwhile, this actually has no direct impact on the website in question's existence as their opposition has learned by now, it's never been truly offline. Just temporarily blocked from certain ISPs.
From an ISP point of view, it's worrying that a transit provider like HE can arbitrarily cancel a customer of yours, or a customer of a customer (, etc) over legal, protected speech. So, from a business standpoint, what does HE have to gain? The people complaining about the site aren't their target market, they're mostly Twitch streamers, Twitter personalities and folks who have a following on popular platforms that already exist. They're not the types to be self-hosting a streaming service who'll need rackspace and transit. So, what is there to gain by bending the knee to them? The safest business decision would be to remain neutral, respond to law enforcement requests if presented with one, and otherwise do the job you're paid to do. The worst business decision is moderating the content of downstream customers, which is what we're seeing now.
Have you considered that it might not be about money? What if the decision-makers and operators of Hurricane Electric just have certain people they just want to censor, and use their position to do it at the expense of money. Money is just a means to the end, and if they're getting to that end by foregoing money in business rather than spending it, that seems logical enough to me.
And if the government is ideologically aligned with the operators of the company, you won't find any protection from them. And in many cases it's just the government and large companies working hand-in-glove to get to their ends. Some political outsiders threatening your political monopoly? Pull some strings and have their social media accounts removed and banking taken away; but there's no recourse since "muh private company" even though they're getting direct orders from government officials.
So a good reason to be on the side of "free political speech" is that we don't want the people with the most money controlling what we can and can't say, and we don't want the government to have free reign to shut down criticism or challenges.
Look up "net neutrality" and "common carrier".
Until then, saying their actions are "free speech" isn't too different from the days before water and electricity were owned by private corporations. I strongly believe primary ISP tubes should be a public service instead of owned by private corporate interests.
Let’s say you were the governor of a very large state. You have a ton of influence if not sold discredtion on how your state’s $500 billion pension fund is invested. You are an ideologue puppet put in place by people desperately trying to reset the world in their image.
Now… let’s the banks and companies don’t care about your cause - but you have disproportionate sway over them. It can be about money if that is your leverage.
We filed a complaint with the Washington state AG over their actions.
The TLDR version is: We filed it as a violation of HB2282, Washignton State's Net Neutrality / Open Internet laws, the AG thought it was an appropriate complaint and forwarded it to HE. This gives them 21 days to respond. They (HE) responded relatively quickly, basically saying, "Nah, no we didn't and no we don't block access to it". At this point it'd be up to us to fight it further. We're not their direct customer, nor will we ever be (now). With that said, they very much WERE blocking access to the subnet as seen here ( https://images2.imgbox.com/b2/ed/Nc8NLQl2_o.png ) and here ( https://images2.imgbox.com/58/e1/1ZIn3YbZ_o.png ).
Edit: It's odd to see this downvoted. I don't care about Kiwifarms or all the other random crazy crap being discussed in this comment thread. But I do feel that companies should be honest in their communications. I'm surprised people here disagree.
The AG is about consumer protections. This is absolutely not that.
[1] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/obstruction-of-justice-it-...
I went looking for this out of curiosity. It seems to be a thread from 2022 with only 10 pages, and only about 10 total replies this year. Is this really your basis for claiming that "a lot" of people are coming from Kiwi Farms?
How did you even find that thread anyway?
There are a few links to reviews, but the Crunchbits website seems to have scrubbed from Bing.
We have our ASN and IPs announced on their network.
FTFY
But yes, it's inevitable due to the global and gargantuan nature of the internet that enforcing consequences against hate speech and harassment for any single govy. is extremely hard, even for countries that unequivocally outlaw it.
I hate to say it, but I could easily imagine something like the ACLU opposing the EFF on this.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210608004853/https://www.nytim...
> the organization finds itself riven with internal tensions over whether it has stepped away from a founding principle — unwavering devotion to the First Amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union...
> Beginning in 2017, some individuals claimed the ACLU was reducing its support of unpopular free speech (specifically by declining to defend speech made by conservatives) in favor of identity politics, political correctness, and progressivism.
If only America could export their constitution like they do their weapons
and the Chinese constitution: http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/...
It's not about the constitution.
It exists to varying degrees in various places. It's not absolute in the US, as much as people like to pretend it is - incitement to violence, the old "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" canard, criminal conspiracy, defamation etc etc. There is a line drawn, it's a fuzzy one that people pretend does not exist, but it's there just as it is in other nations.
For more information on how freedom of speech is codified in Europe, for instance, see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#E...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
"Ultimately, whether it is legal in the United States to falsely shout fire in a theater depends on the circumstances in which it is done and the consequences of doing it. The act of shouting fire when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise. However, if it causes a stampede and someone is killed as a result, then the act could amount to a crime, such as involuntary manslaughter..."
I was not trying to make the point that it is always illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, that such an act is by itself subject to prohibition, but that it is one of several circumstances in which an act of speech may not be 100% protected by the first amendment in the USA.
I even called it a "canard" because it's something of a cliche and not 100% true as commonly understood.
The point, if anything, is reinforced by this - there is a fuzzy edge to freedom of speech in the USA, even where it is portrayed as absolute.
Another example of illegal speech would be perjury.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...
But just because governments have recognized the right does not mean that they are complying with this recognition.
This is par for the course though. The 1st amendment was ratified in 1791 and the Alien and Sedition Acts which violated the constitution in the most blatant way were passed 8 years later.
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedit...
Governments never give freedom. People take it.
Indeed, they haven't.
> The memo listed several factors to consider, including "the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values."
i.e. Consider whether we'd be arguing against our own goals.
How anyone reasonable could consider this a bad thing, I don't know.
https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-w...
They've defended people and organizations I oppose, but their reasoning has always been sound.
That the ACLU debates and reflects is admirable.
Because it's completely unproven. Their theory is that 'free speech advances the goals of [others whose views are contrary to our values]' but that's not proven, that's just their theory.
It's held for ages that free speech works as it allows for the 'disinfectant of sunlight' i.e. that ideas stand and fall on their merits with all relevant parties allowed to discuss freely.
They _posit_ that this theory no longer holds true but they never seem to actually explain how they came to that conclusion. You, similarly, just say that is 'is right' but... how did you get there? What's your proof of concept? Do you have examples?
It seems very much to me like they've just turned around and said 'yeah actually free speech is bad because it helps the bad guys more than the good guys, trust us, it's no good' and left it at that.
> reasoning has always been sound
They've done a complete 180 on this position. By definition either their reasoning before was unsound or their reasoning today is unsound. Pick one.
Also not proven ?
As a result, going to bat for the Unite the Right rally in 2017 was a massive misstep and resulted in them losing a large amount of donors and professionals working for them. Naturally they would've needed to change or else they collapse and don't function at all.
Good principles remain good regardless of exceptional circumstances.
> needed to change or else they collapse and don't function at all
Yeah, they changed _and_ they don't function at all. Now they just protect the causes their donors agree with while retaining the prestige of the name.
Personally I think a total collapse would have been preferable.
The ACLU didn't get anyone killed, violent right-wing individuals did. The right to have a political protest rally is enshrined in the Constitution.
Consider the looting and rioting that took place following the George Floyd protests. It would be absurd to suggest that because violence and crime was happening at some of these events, the political speech they represented might not be worth protecting.
So, just to be clear, you are saying it's unreasonable for the ACLU to consider whether a case would directly harm their mission.
Your words say that rather than consider the harm their case will do to their mission, instead, they must blindly defend the case. The result of which could hurt their free speech advocacy.
You might not agree with this interpretation, but that's what you are arguing against here based on your quotes and what I said. If you disagree with my interpretation, you need to rethink what you read because you are clearly misguided.
> It seems very much to me like they've just turned around and said 'yeah actually free speech is bad because it helps the bad guys more than the good guys, trust us, it's no good' and left it at that.
No. You are wrong.
"Free speech is good even when it helps bad people (as proven my our track record), but we will not defend those who attack free speech."
That's what they are saying.
tl;dr: You are wrong and arguing against free speech.
This itself is the bad bit, IMO. My expectation of the ACLU is that they will always defend the rights of individuals, regardless of the goals of those exercising those rights.
When the ACLU defended Nazis marching in Skokie, they weren't defending the goals of Nazis to strip ethnic minorities of rights; they were solely defending first amendment rights.
The logic here seems so fragile that I don't see how one could see it as anything other than a bad thing if they value the ACLU as a bastion for defending rights.
For instance, if a criminal is actively going around and killing people from one political bent or ethnic background, they are clearly not respecting the rights of others.
Should we decide that it's okay to not grant them a speedy trial, since giving a jury the right to free them would definitely get in the way of theother rights we care about?
They've gone so far down the rabbithole, they've come up the other end saying the government needs to take a more active role policing speech.
It does think companies should act on illegal speech; those "companies" are the people/orgs who run websites, like KF. "We should enact strong data privacy laws that target, among others, the data brokers whose services help enable doxxing". The EFF doesn't think other companies (network carriers, etc.) should act on illegal speech.
The government ought to take a more active role! Would you prefer the courts to affirm your legal rights, or for an oligopoly of private companies to brazenly deny you them, with no recourse?
There are multiple causes: even though it is not the ACLU's fault for the murder at the Charlottesville rally, its public image took a beating. Combine that with the massive influx of new supporters and new money in 2017, in support of the ACLU directly challenging Trump, it now has a lot more partisan supporters than it used to. Donations have tripled. Even if all previous supporters were right-partisan (which would be unlikely), the sudden addition of a bloc of left-partisan supporters, double the size of your previous supporter base, could sway your organisation.
From the NY Times article:
> But in interviews, several younger lawyers suggested a toll taken. Their generational cohort, they said, placed less value on free speech, making it uncomfortable for them to express views internally that diverged from progressive orthodoxy.
> “A dogmatism descends sometimes” inside the A.C.L.U., noted Alejandro Agustin Ortiz, a lawyer with the racial justice project. “You hesitate before you question a belief that is ascendant among your peer group.”
> Some argued for carefully vetting hires. “I never do a job interview without raising Skokie/Charlottesville and asking if they are comfortable with that history,” said a lawyer who asked not to be named because of the fear of inflaming colleagues. “Not many colleagues agree. It’s about the cause.”
It seems there is both an "old guard" and "new guard" within the ACLU, only time will tell if they retain full commitment to defending free speech.
Why is a belief in the common carrier model ridiculous?
And make no mistake, that's 99% of what KiwiFarms does, the last time this came up on hackernews I browsed through hundreds of posts in a bunch of threads to see if there was anything other than that going on, so if its there it's in the DMs (and policing person-to-person communication is utterly insane) or very rare.
It's not so much about the particular site.
Start by banning racists and bigoted users, then slowly start discriminating against other groups while offering new "private connection" for only $9.99/mo extra.
The only reason that those are despicable nowadays is precisely because minorities and their supporters, which were considered despicable at the time, exercised their freedom of speech.
The EFF is so detached from humanity it doesn't mind innocent people dying for it's radical free speech cause. And that's really pretty sad.
Instead on censoring speech why not provide tools that lead to better speech? This is perfectly possible from a tech stand point but companies would rather have the power that comes from censorship.
1. Get rid of anonymity/pseudonymity. Free speech is a right. Anonymity is not. If people had to post everything in their real name you would get rid of all of the fake b.s. and people would be much more civilized in their speech.
2. Provide content filtering tools based on user voting with a public record of user votes and the option for people to turn off the filters so that they can see what is filtered.
With these 2 mechanisms you can create a public square with absolute free speech where hate speech is filtered and suppressed, if people choose that, but the records are clear and people who want to audit the filtering can do so as they please.
The internet has saved many people by opening up questions you wouldn't ask your doctor.
the most popular services (facebook/instagram, twitter) are the ones that have the most real people posting stuff under their real names.
those companies continue to allow fake users for a variety of financial reasons but the fake users are actively degrading the experience.
twitter is working on KYC now, but it is a cheap AI version that is easily exploitable, so it won't make much of a difference (as i understand it so far).
Are you actually fine with this? I can't help but notice you're not posting under your real name...
If they can pick and choose whatever message they like with absolute discretion, then that's effectively the corporation's speech and should be treated as such, with full responsibility over it.
If they don't want to bear the responsibility for what they publish, then it's easy, don't pretend to have the legitimacy to choose.
That the same social media platform can have as big of a change in views as Twitter/X did is insane to me. That's not "the public changing opinion". That's a corporation exercising speech. Full stop.
There is no functional world where no one is allowed to moderate abuse, because in that world the Internet ceases to function. You don't have to like the results, but someone has to do it.
The EFF very much promotes progressive values, more consistently so than the ACLU which has supported "free speech" cases by undesirable folks before and which seems to have led to this supposed "betrayal" when it turned out not to go out of its way to do so in every case.
The problem with "free speech" absolutist organizations is the same as with "free speech" absolutist social media platforms: if your distinguishing feature is to allow everyone to say almost anything, you'll primarily attract those people who want to say things they can't say elsewhere. And this inevitably means you get an overrepresentation of open white supremacists, CSAM enjoyers, teenage edgelords and trolls. And most people don't want to be associated with these kinds of people, so having enough of them around drives out everyone else.
It's the Nazi Bar problem: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar Either you put in effort to make your organization unattractive to nazis, or you become a nazi organization.
most of the internet was not like this 10-15 years ago. forums and even large social media platforms were moderated lightly, if at all. you would commonly see edgelords dropping slurs, but it did not dominate the discussion. I don't think the entire internet would turn into kiwifarms if everyone just decided to relax a bit.
Either you're thinking of a time much further back than 10-15 years (that is, 2008-2013), or you're wrong. Or - could be you were just in the Nazi bars at the time, also. My experience in a variety of online places at that time was that "edgelords" got told off or kicked out in most. A few places didn't, and they were already or became the Nazi bars. Alternately, the Nazis would be herded into a smaller subset of the platform, which became the Nazi bar.
Major social networks don't do this, but they do actively boost things that create engagement, which is something right-wingers are very good at manufacturing. They use sockpuppet accounts to do that. This means that the underlying amount of toxicity on the Internet is not fixed - i.e. these forums not toxic purely because everyone else kicked them out and concentrated the toxicity, and we can't just disperse the toxicity. Dispersing the toxicity creates more toxicity.
Also, the forums you remember from decades ago were likely way more moderated than you remember, and probably run by people powertripping as hard as Elon Musk or Spez. The difference was that you could just leave without consequence and never come back. You don't have that luxury with Facebook or Twitter.
To be clear, sites like Twitter actively went out of their way NOT to ban people for espousing far right talking points. Infamously there's the story about how auto-moderation would have resulted in the ban of a number of major profiles including GOP politicians and they had to give special treatment to Donald Trump while he was in office because he blatantly violated the terms of service all the time. Arguably more leftist accounts were banned than right-wing (if you exclude bans for active harassment like calling people slurs) but this is because leftists are generally outside the political spectrum so far right accounts tend to not be compared to leftists but to liberals, who of course tend to be more within the bounds of the terms of service.
The Nazi Bar is easily observable in real time with Elon Musk's Xitter. Elon Musk unbanned a number of far right accounts while actively engaging with a number of far right influencers. Additionally bans for slurs and targeted harassment have gone down. In Germany the only way to report an account is via a special flow that tries to implement the requirements of the NetzDG law (with malicious compliance in my opinion) and it's an open secret that ever since the layoffs any NetzDG reports sent via this system now get rejected by default whereas any sent by physical mail get approved by default. A German research project has also demonstrated that German-speaking left-leaning and far left "bubbles" have dwindled since the takeover whereas far right bubbles have gone into overdrive.
All German-speaking tweets (xeets?) I've seen from leftist or moderately popular left-leaning accounts are now flooded with replies from right-wing trolls (or worse) with blue checkmarks, often posting things that are clearly illegal speech under German law (e.g. glorifying criminal violence or directly insulting people to a criminal degree) but are not taken down even when reported. To be clear: this is illegal behavior on the part of X and will eventually result in them being fined. Musk just doesn't seem to care as presumably the fine won't be any more ruinous than what the company already owes.
You can however leave Twitter without consequence. Major influences, brands and others have already done so any many "normies" have stopped going because they experience the same toxicity and look elsewhere. Twitter hasn't been that large to begin with, certainly not on par with Facebook. Twitter's success came from it being the place where celebrities and journalists and influencers can be interacted with directly and you'd get a glimpse into the mind of your favorite famous person or be able to see witness reports of major tragedies first-hand (which of course became increasingly attractive for people trying to spread misinformation for fun or profit).
Why do you assume this very consistent pattern of 'new forum overrun by [the material you've mentioned]' is anything other than a transparent attack on free discourse?
I mean, it's very consistent, isn't it? Everyone knows it happens, and it's a good way to scare people off even thinking about visiting those forums if they think that any day they could go there and have their browser history full of ick.
This is not a problem for free speech organizations, though, since they have the ability to choose which cases they represent.
They can (and do, I'm sure) often weigh the perception of bias in which cases they take on next.
1. We ban people we don't like. They aren't actually Nazis, but we don't like them so we pretend they are.
2. They go to some other place where we don't yet dominate.
3. Now we assert that everyone in that other place is also a Nazi, because they aren't doing the same thing we're doing.
If the Nazi Bar was really a real concept then every left wing political party in the world would be a Bar and therefore everyone voting for them would be a Nazi. Because, recall, they were the National Socialists, and every left wing party has a whole lot of committed socialists.
Luckily for political harmony, other people don't use this type of reasoning to eliminate their enemies so left and right parties can compete fairly for votes. Which is why it needs to be stamped out amongst those who do use it.
The Nazi bar problem is not even hard in concept. If someone is not a Nazi, let them in. If someone is edgy, let them in. If someone is a Nazi, kick them out. Not rocket science. Nazis will not accumulate if done this way.
But people get looser and looser about their definition of Nazis, which ends up being “people I don’t like or who have different politics agendas than me” and pre emptively kick out tons of people in the name of keeping themselves safe
It's the physical analouge to how Twitter can still be the most used social media website despite also having years of accusations about every kind of bad content under the sun. So if a group is large enough, I wouldn't be worried about that kind of inflitration.
I find this attitude very odd. Surely some disagreements indicate a violation of their principles. What would the principles be worth otherwise? Surely this is the paradox of tolerance in a different package. Why not instead model communication as a bilateral contract?
If it was justifiable for speech infrastructure to ban the speech of any ideology based on if its implementation societally would probabilistically/historically lead to mass speech suppression and/or other atrocities, then a massive array of political and religious speech would technically qualify for a ban. Including Marxist-Leninist writing, or religious proselytizing to name a few.
Starlink is also an option, and soon there will be Starlink competitors too.
Starlink is the last place you would be safe from being silenced.
https://theintercept.com/2022/11/22/elon-musk-twitter-censor...
https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/twitter-approving-far-...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-...
http://techrights.org/2021/11/05/not-the-frontier-anymore/
https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/25/john_gilmore_removed_...
Are you suggesting that, because of his work writing and promoting open source software, that EFF should never be allowed to criticize RMS? Is that what makes them "total hypocrites"?
RMS never defended Epstein -- not even once. His only crime was being a pedantic aspie. If the EFF considers that to be good enough reason to cancel him, then yes, I think that EFF are total hypocrites. FWIW, EFF's official blog post only linked Selam G.'s hitpiece that has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere [3].
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-...
[2] https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix...
If you actually read the article by Selam G., you'll immediately see that this is false.
"When I was a teen freshman, I went to a buffet lunch at an Indian restaurant in Central Square with a graduate student friend and others from the AI lab. I don’t know if he and I were the last two left, but at a table with only the two of us, Richard Stallman told me of his misery and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him."
This is clearly a case of sexual coercion. If, due to autism, RMS was totally unable to avoid sexually harassing women he had power over, then clearly he should never have had a position of power in FSF or anywhere else.
"Many, many years ago, women in the AI and CS labs met to deal with the problematic atmosphere for women in the labs. We met as a group, discussed the issues, complied examples, presented them to the labs, then wrote a report. In the early 80’s, it was a pretty big deal but it would seem it did not have lasting effects."
RMS clearly harmed many women over many years. It's telling that people like you never acknowledge the accounts of women who have specific, individual complaints against him. Even the Stallman Support page you link to has a bunch of pedantic corrections over whether RMS "really" defended Epstein, in addition to generic articles about cancel culture that say nothing about RMS harassing women grad students at MIT.
EFF was correct in criticizing RMS. He shouldn't have been on the board of FSF or any other organization.
https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix...
See, it's fine to dislike RMS (for whatever reason). But the question was whether the EFF -- an organization that claims to support free speech on the Internet -- should've joined the dogpile on RMS based on ludicrous claims written by an outrage addict.
Tier 1 ISP censoring internet has worse long term consequences than this website existing.
Drop routes from spammers: Spamhaus DROP list. Drop routes from DDoS sources? All the time.
Even Google wasn't reachable from Cogent over IPv6 for years because of a business dispute. For all we know someone working at HE was targeted by KF and this is a security response (also generally allowed even if you are a regulated provider).
*1: Cogent & HE thread the needle around being a common carrier (they don't sell voice or TDM service) or a broadband provider, which is why KF's WA state complaint will fail (WA's law only applies to mass-market retail providers, which HE is not).
*2: Tier 1 does not mean "best carrier" it means "carrier that doesn't pay another carrier for routes." DFZ literally means default-free zone as in they don't have a default route to another provider.
As this is the first time I hear of this, I'm curious. Do you have any examples?
Defending a company's AUP/ToS is reasonable when the company is reasonably sized, but HE is clearly over that limit. When a company gets too big to fail (banking also comes to mind) due to providing crucial societal function, there should be very strict restrictions on what they're allowed to moderate. This also applies to big industry conglomerates (oil, pharmaceuticals).
Another part of the problem seem to be various lazy officials not prosecuting these sites on the basis of obvious crimes involved in their operation.
I really appreciate EFF defending the obviously neutral approach here.
This brings us back to the real question: should extreme unpopularity alone be enough for deplatforming in a free society? Or should actual laws need to be broken?
Likewise, death threats and that kind of harassment isn't protected by 1st amendment rights. I don't think sites should be sued by consumers over user submitted posts, but they should be held accountable for at the bare minimum removing that harassment in a timely matter when asked. If it doesn't happen often enough, fine them.
I don't know much about kiwifarms, never visited it, but given the claims in this post (that it's "uniquely awful," that the site itself is victimizing people) I think it would be helpful if the authors would link to some context/evidence. Maybe it's all true in this case, but I've been on the internet long enough to know that believing grave accusations without evidence is a very bad rookie mistake.
0: https://www.heterodorx.com/podcast/episode-107-how-the-inter...
The fact that the EFF is writing about this case and that they're forced to use KF as their one example (clearly they find this distasteful & would prefer to use any other example if they could) indicates that something is unique or at least peculiar about this case.
The other difference is the site owner actively encourages harassment and bans any discussion to the contrary
And yet, that site is still up.
0: remnants of some archived posts https://www.google.com/search?q=%22sequoia+mcdowell%22+site%...
EDIT: nevermind what I said about the doxxing & whatnot happening years ago, apparently they're still at it as recently as January! https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/text/sequoia%20mcdowel...
Not against limits to free speech online, but I think ISPs are the wrong layer for them. Governments can go after specific sites carrying out illegal activities, online communities can moderate themselves to avoid devolving into 4chan, but ISPs shouldn’t make censorship decisions, it’s just too broad a reach/impact for a private company.
Spammers do this trick all the time to buy some plausible deniability.
Can you provide examples of shell companies they've used? As far as I'm aware, Kiwi Farms only had a single LLC which is based in the US.
I am a free speech absolutist though, I tend to like the term too because I believe its intended derisiveness is mostly impotent. Overall I believe trying to enforce hate speech laws is fundamentally flawed. I think people should be free to express acceptance as they should be able to express rejections.
I grew up with unrestricted access to internet as a child, browsed a lot of forums, and most of them were always heavily moderated as well. The thing is, the majority of audience (read-only people) don’t want to see extremely stupid content (subjective). Thus the mods, host and etc. have to play the balancing game. HN is one of those places, and they’re doing a terrific job, in my opinion.
I’m not sure how to put it into words, but Internet is not the same as public free speech. Anonymity, physical distance, not seeing others’ faces contribute to the way people talk. I completely support the former kind, but not the latter. It just becomes a breeding ground for a lot of naive people who start thinking that’s tolerable to act that way in real world too (can’t cite any sources, just observations from my nephews and others kids I know). We like to tout how everyone forms their own opinions, but I’m a heavy believer of the “nurture” side of the debate. If you get sucked into one corner of the Internet, you will start hating the other corner, and that’s basically your nurturing. I guess, the major question is, should we keep fostering this behaviour or not? And I don’t know the answer, as there isn’t “one right corner” most of the time. The best I can do is to support the crackdown on extremely obvious shitty behaviour knowing that’s against the free speech ethos.
The thought experiment is always; if this person behaved the same way but had a different viewpoint - would they still be banned/flagged/arrested? Mostly I think it's a yes here, which is a good thing.
The problem with a lot of internet posters is they refuse to accept a distinction between conduct and opinion. If you're abusive to everyone and then get banned, it's not because they couldn't handle your radical opinions, it's because you were being a dick.
This is provably false.
If I write a very formal and polite message asking for some horrible thing to be done to group X, the message will be removed as soon as HN mods see it.
Also, trusting the government is silly. It has a lot of opportunities to call any speech harmful to state policies as 'hate speech', 'misinformation', etc. - and before long you could find your country turned into a authoritarian failed state like Russia.
Censorship is when you take down content because you don't want the recipient to see it, regardless of how the recipient feels about it.
If people think censorship is sometimes justified, they should argue that, and not muddle the picture with moderation.
> Tier 1 ISPs don’t have the ability or the incentive to build content evaluation teams that are even as effective as those of the giant platforms who know far more about their end users and yet still engage in harmful censorship.
HE should not do the "moderation" not because those sites are okay, but because HE can't do the effective moderation. The current title doesn't suggest that the subject ("ISPs") is very important.
I agree with this, but you need to understand what you agree to. It's not just the content you want to see - it's also the content you don't want to see. It's the freedom of the most extreme content imaginable - CP, snuff, murder, doxxing, drugs, etc, etc.
People will experience severe issues as a result, but there are other things that can be done:
1. Individuals can do more to protect themselves. We have AI now that can quite accurately detect what is in an image or video, it's entirely feasible to do live content filtering.
2. We need to protect the most vulnerable in our societies. We don't give whiskey to a 5 year old, and we shouldn't give unfiltered internet to a 5 year old. This also extends to vulnerable adults. If you receive government assistance (money/drugs) for a mental disability, a filtered version of the internet should be available to you.
3. The punishment for filtering without permission should be severe enough that it's not just a tax. People really need to be held accountable, otherwise they will just pay the toll and be done with it.
Not every mental disability makes people stupid enough to make them need a filtered internet.
As someone in that category, but still able to think, if people like you nerf my internet, the amount of rage and anger that I will unleash upon society is going to be endless.
It's not about being stupid, it's about being vulnerable. Also it may not be appropriate in every case. I am also weary of removing the ability to access the internet from otherwise functioning adults. I've not quite happy to have a solid stance on it just yet.
As I said: "[..] a filtered version of the internet should be available to you." - That's to say that they can choose to use it. It's not ideal, but it would be opt-in at least for example on a doctor's recommendation.
> [..] people like you [..]
I'm making the case for an unfiltered internet, and I want as many people as reasonable to be able to access it. My suggestion was a compromise.
> As someone in that category, but still able to think, if people like you nerf my internet, the amount of rage and anger that I will unleash upon society is going to be endless.
I don't know your your specific scenario, but despite your fundamental rights, it may for example be prudent not to give you access to a gun, despite your want for one, or claims of rage and anger unleashed upon society.
Also we haven't really discussed (for good reason) what such filtering would look like, or who would control it. That's a difficult situation in itself. There's not really a person or group I would trust with such power.
Edit: Spelling/grammar.
I’m not an idiot and I don’t need guns to dedicate all my time to ruining society and destroying infrastructure.
I can't talk about "people like you", I don't know you. Your immediate jump towards the destruction of society upon discussion on an opt-in filtering of your internet is concerning.
> I’m not an idiot and I don’t need guns to dedicate all my time to ruining society and destroying infrastructure.
I'm not calling you an idiot. The guns were just an example of a right that can removed if a person is mentally unwell. Again, I am still completely undecided how it would be offered in such a way that cannot be politically weaponized. I would default to the null position, which is not to offer it unless such issues could first be addressed.
As for your disillusions of grandeur regarding the 'ruining society and destroying infrastructure' - I think your years of smoking weed to treat your depression are catching up with you. I won't reply further as I don't want to fuel whatever it is you're going through, but please reach out to those around you for help.
My extreme reaction to the idea of your totalitarian control isn’t going to be rare, I just don’t have anything to lose by publicly expressing it.
I come from the era of an open internet where it’s viewed as a human right.
A simple and very very old example is email. Even back in the 1990s days of the Internet, we had spam on email and if your reputable isp caught you spamming you’d be in trouble. Same with shitposting on usenet.
Sure there are nuances to consider as to what providers should do and what they should not, but like a lot of things this is a hard problem. The ‘simple’ solutions presented here and in other places will not solve it.
edit: Apparently not satire. Quite sorry to hear, that was me giving the benefit of the doubt. That leaves either stupidity (not realizing the consequences), malice (not caring) or me overlooking something.
So, how do checks and balances for mob justice look like? Other then just meaning well and being the good guys? Pretty sure somebody could elaborate if it was really just me overlooking something.
In this case there is no spam or resource exhaustion going on in this case. People are visiting a forum, posting things, and viewing text / images / video files posted by other users.
What makes things unusable is when you want to follow links on the web you need to use VPNs in order to route your traffic through the correct ISPs that will properly route your traffic. There could be a future where different T1 ISPs block different sites so there is no way to browse the entire internet using a single ISP, but instead you have to cleverly pick a different ISP for each destination IP to get it properly routed.
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1567292900312064000
>But the worst is watching people whose job title in corporate HR Departments is "journalist" take the lead in agitating for censorship. They exploit the platforms of corporate giants to pioneer increasingly dangerous means of banning dissenters. These are the authoritarians.
Its especially despicable if it happens consciously as a means to an end. Signaling towards a common enemy is highly profitable in a tribalism ridden society. Doing this despite an understanding of the risk it entails can hardly be described as anything but malice.
I can only think of imploring people to read Meerloos "Rape of the mind" about the existential risk totalitarian systems pose. And even if someone already went full Stalinist thinking the ends justify the means, its worth mentioning that its a self destructive delusion. It cant work and the revolution eats its children reliably. Be it the SA or the red guard, they always end as the victims of the monster they created. Unfortunately the rest of society is then stuck in the dystopian nightmare these delusional maniacs created.
edit: On this note, Arte recently had a documentary about the Chinese gulag system https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/106702-001-A/china-s-concentra...
edit1: The only one saving you from this fate is yourself. So maybe dont put it off till you are in prison.
>In the same text, Martsinkevich said he’d finally read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's “The Gulag Archipelago” for the first time. “If I’d read ‘Gulag Archipelago’ before I sat down to write ‘Restrukt,’ I wouldn’t have even started it!” he confessed.
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2020/09/17/in-the-end-it-doesn-...
I like this analogy it hits it home.
It really should take a court order to block sites based on a legal reason, and you probably don’t need to get the backbone to do it, it could be done by the ISP then escalate up if needed.
When you remove content because you think the recipient shouldn't see it, regardless of what they might want, that's censorship.
Whether it's a good idea to use T1-ISPs to moderate your inbox is another question.
There are many domains of modern society that serve specific service roles, that should never have been given over-reaching power to also monitor and judge outside of a court order, but they do.
Finance used to have secrecy but no anymore, tax is now open book. Transportation and mobility is checked and prechecked. Free speech is being eroded both by snowflakes and copyright trolls. The slippery slope has no boundary and rolls into an avalanche.
Speaking of abusing systems, censors end up being the worst bad guys who imagine themselves as the good guys protecting you from the bad guys.
EFF understands the long history of this issue.
a) should online speech be policed
b) if so, who should do it?
We don't let phone companies police the content of phone calls, and we don't let delivery services police the content of letters/packages, so why would we let ISPs police the content of network packets?
Exceptions exist: you can't send most live animals by mail, packages are subject to inspection at customs borders, etc. But any sort of monitoring of content would need either clear evidence of danger, signs of abusing the network, or court involvement.
If this content is so terrible that it deserves to be removed from the internet by any means necessary, shouldn't the process be that a court of competent jurisdiction should be able to issue an order requiring the site to be taken down. If the proprietors of the site bring it up through another ISP, not a party to the original order, a new order could be issued as well as holding the proprietors in contempt, presumably.
Jurisdiction issues on content are hairy, but jurisdiction issues on ISP connections are easy, the connections happen in specific locations, and you can order the connection severed at either end of the connection (as well as in between the ends).
the same people who decry this will also decry the government taking charge of internet moderation at the ISP level, probably even louder.
This entire discussion is bizarre and academic. The site in question has engaged in doxxing and other activities that has led to real world harm, including suicides, and content on there is already probably illegal. If I run a business, and I know a customer is doing something like that, I have an ethical obligation to not facilitate it. I don't start some ideological discussion about whether some hypothetical court can prevent it given that nobody apparently can be bothered to actually make that a reality.
Imagine I have an axe shop and a known axe murderer walks through the door, and instead of not selling him an axe I propose we have a year long debate about the proper formal process of axe murder prevention supported by the Axe Rights Foundation. Granted this is how America actually (does not) deal with gun violence so I'm not surprised we are now in the pro-doxxer rights debate
Probably, yes. Which is why I mentioned the first part of the issue. Otoh, when the government does a takedown with court orders, there's always people yelling about it, but it's not as loud as when the government does a takedown without at least the appearance of due process or when a business does it without any due process.
> content on there is already probably illegal.
If the issue is illegal content, there should be indictments and court orders. Or at least, search warrants and seized equipment.
> If I run a business, and I know a customer is doing something like that, I have an ethical obligation to not facilitate it.
Depends on the circumstances of the business. IMHO, common carriers and businesses that are an awful lot like common carriers have an ethical standard to deliver all messages and parcels that are not unduly burdensome to the delivery of other messages and parcels.
This standard allows for blocking network abuse, probably spam, ddos, explosive packages, packages that emit noxious fumes or odors, etc. But not delivering letters because of their content isn't ethical for a letter delivery service, in my mind.
"A site that provides a forum for gamifying abuse and doxxing, whose users have celebrated on its pages the IRL deaths of the targets of their harassment campaigns[...]"
If you knowingly facilitate a website which itself takes ownership of deaths they have caused proudly, you are abandoning your civic duty. And we can go farther, not only has any ISP obligation to stop this, any hacker who can should take that site down, and anyone who has some resources left over should aid. Not a single inch should be given to these people, not just by the law but by everyone else.
Do you understand how cynical it is to hide behind neutrality or free speech to let people terrorize others to death and laugh about it?
1. I think the postal service does. Can you find me guidelines to the contrary?
2. Most connections to the IP block are not doing harm. This is more like refusing to deliver any mail to a mafia boss, and maybe also the entire neighborhood.
How about instead, you show us a postal service guideline that says they have to deliver mail that they know to be harmful. There is no such guideline. That's insane.
This sets the basic expectation that mail will be delivered, and intentionally not delivering mail is a crime, although it allows for lawful exceptions, and therefore, if you wish to assert that the postal service has discretion to purposefully not deliver mail, you have the burden to cite the law or regulation allowing them to do so.
I've looked at several laws recognizing particular items as unmailable, but I don't see anything that fits your assertion that they have to deliver mail they know is harmful to the recipient or someone else who isn't the sender or the recipient.
18 U.S. Code § 1716 - Injurious articles as nonmailable [1] has a list of items that are injurious and so can't be mailed, but these are things like poisonous animals, long bladed knifes and such, not harassment or suggestions to harass others with contact details.
18 U.S. Code § 1717 - Letters and writings as nonmailable [2] has a list of things you can't mail letters in relation to, which are mostly about forging government papers, defense secrecy stuff, but also 18 U.S. Code § 956 - Conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure persons or damage property in a foreign country [3]. But it seems that letters regarding a conspiracy to injure persons within the united states are mailable.
There's also some very limited restrictions on mailing sexually oriented advertisements.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1716 [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1717 [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/956
I’ve seen both ends of the spectrum - I remember Usenet, that had no moderation at all, and having to wade through a sea of spam, wishing somebody would get rid of it. But then I saw what reddit moderation turned into… I’ll take the spam, thanks. The spammers are bad actors, but moderators actually become evil actors.
People like the harp on how bad reddit moderation is but I personally haven't seen it. Maybe I'm just in smaller communities or I choose the subreddits I follow more carefully, but I haven't seen cases of moderator abuse and if I ever do (usually as an outside observer to some drama in a different community) then I take a mental note to not follow that subreddit in the future.
Ultimately, the best way to use Reddit is the way you do - keep it to small subs specifically devoted to a genuine interest, unsub from the defaults, and only browse it from the Home (your subs) page.
LA actually did this during covid to shut off water for homes being accused of holding parties during covid.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/06/us/los-angeles-shuts-off-powe...
I don't agree with it, but just showing that some people have decided the ends justify the means essentially.
I’m convinced they never truly cared about the ends.
It’s the more basic rule that power corrupts. Those actions were all for show and it wasn’t to protect anybody. It was purely to showcase power.
Anyhow, the point. Check out this [1] snippet, which was published as part of said campaign. More important than the snippet is who it's written by. A young exceptionally popular congressman from Illinois by the name of Donald Rumsfeld, who was also critical about the senseless US involvement in Vietnam. His is a name, which if happens to be before your time, would later come to be synonymous with the Iraq War, US ABC agencies torturing people, and of course the complete fabrication of evidence to justify the invasion Iraq.
And he's not especially unique. I think it all comes down to a simple problem. Imagine you happen to be pro-choice. If I paid you $10,000,000 would you become an advocate for pro-life? For the overwhelming majority of people, the answer there is going to be yes. But of course you and I are relatively irrelevant, so nobody's ever going to really try to change our values. But if you or I gained power, such hypotheticals suddenly become entirely real. For a man to be surrounded by such possibilities, yet remain true to his own values - he's going to need to be rich enough that people can't afford to bribe him, or some once in a millennium Aurelius like man of true character.
[1] - https://acsc.lib.udel.edu/files/original/edbab7cd2d0e82f8e19...
Not really. The easiest way to be rich enough that you don't need to take bribes to betray your core values is to take a bunch of bribes over issues you don't really care about.
Access to water and medical attention are human rights, no matter how awful the humans may be according to the acting officers.
Say, instead of be denied of water, you'll get to face justice without your life being at risk nor you being deprived of essential rights.
Just imagine drinking water is like carrying guns ;)
truly sickening what politicians will do.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/oct/11/donald-tru...
Weird choice to fire the guy slow-walking the investigation if you want to cover up illegal activities.
> [Archer] has also said, including under oath, that he was told Burisma’s allies in Washington didn’t want Shokin fired. “No, we were told that it was bad, and we don’t want a new prosecutor, and Shokin was taken care of,” Archer recently told former Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
Anyway, I guess the EU, IMF, World Bank, Germany, France, and the Ukrainian Parliament were all also colluding to save this guy's son from scrutiny back in 2015.
The more modern view I was referring to, is that third world countries are lesser, developing countries where things that are given elsewhere, like water, food, electricity, education, healthcare or internet access are a luxury. I guess a more accurate term is "a developing country"
...and it's long past time they were told in no uncertain terms that the proletariat has had enough of this bourgeoisie nonsense. Laws exists for a reason. No one should be subject to the whims of bourgeoisie overlords. Just because some imbecile believes they have a great idea and thinks it should be forced upon others does not make it so. This is such an important point that there are entire religions built around it.
I didn't think I'd live to see it, but I'm proud, delighted, and amused to see that people are finally starting to wake up to the notion that maybe the rule of law is a good idea and should apply to everybody.
My web server constantly receives malicious probes and invalid requests from Hurricane owned IPs.
How does a malicious actor get direct access to a Tier 1 address? The only way I can see is by being inside their facilities.
They also offer dedicated servers and colocation services: http://he.net/colocation.html
They are not only a transit provider, in fact they wouldn't need to own IPs at all if they were.
Inconvenient fact: Layer 3 routers use IP addresses for each of their network interfaces. This is actually how they provide transit.
The transit provider needs to own some IP space to assign addresses to router interfaces. This is how internetwork routing works. It goes from one network to another, and the router must be a member of the source and destination network in order to participate in each hop.
A transit provider doesn't need many IP addresses in total; if all they're running is core routers then they need sparse allocations: a point-to-point link only needs a /30 or /31 to function correctly. They'll still need to own a variety of netblocks, though, because if they offer transit and backbone services then these will be geographically disparate, and they will necessarily transit a large amount of logical address space.
They might have put the wrong RFC number there. Maybe they meant RFC 6890?
Kiwifarms generated complaints.
Am I not understanding something here
Banning someone from your private establishment is within your rights. If they want to run their own business they can elsewhere.
Banning someone via an ISP is different because ISPs have so much infrastructure they can in some sense be considered a "public utility". Nothing would stop someone from advertising ritualistic kitten killing in a public park (except maybe indecency laws but those vary). Likening an ISP to a public park is more accurate. If someone posted a sign saying "no one convicted of smoking weed can walk through this area" you'd rightfully be accused of some civil rights violation in your park. Similarly, ISPs are a conduit no different than a park path.
Everyone chooses KF or whatever as an example of "bad people that should be stopped". That's great. No one disagrees. Anyone with more than a room temperature IQ sees where it goes though. Suddenly you won't be able to access things that don't conform to the government issued public opinion. Don't believe me? The Great Firewall is exactly the same technology.
It is legitimately not my problem, nor the ISPs, who is doing what on the big internet. We have existing laws. Use those to prosecute people posting kitten killing videos or whatever. We do not need to have ISPs using AI and shit as precognitiion to censor what they deem to be "unsafe speech" or whatever.
And this already happens all the time.
Maybe.
I don't think it's a problem if companies with extreme amounts of power have to give up some freedom of banning.
On a sliding scale though, you don't literally become a utility one day.
(And when it comes to "only commercial storefront space in a large area", I expect that to be very rare.)
This is actually very common in rural parts of the us fwiw. There places where the only grocery store is Walmart, and the only other place to shop is dollar general.
In this case there is likely a limit to what a private business can grow into before it wades into the territory of public utility. A tenuous but related situation can be seen in trademarks where Kleenex has actually run entire ad campaigns to make people call generic tissue "tissues".
There's a larger philosophical argument here. Theoretically speaking there should be no limits to private corporations. However, when your corporation becomes a stable of modern life and the conduit of major utilities of society all of the sudden things start to turn into shades of grey.
If you care about there being genuinely independent news media then funding these guys is something you can do right now.
Censorship-resistant payments are an essential prerequisite to a free society, something I have been asserting in public for a dozen+ years.
Unfortunately as of late they have been vilified. If I were a paranoid man, I might point out that this happened right around the time they became known to the mainstream.
https://wannabewonk.com/gab-and-free-speech-on-the-internet/
The crux being what EFF is saying now. ISPs and DNS and CAs are too fundamental to free speech for blockage at that layer to occur without legal cause.
Reposting publically available information should never be illegal.
ok buddy
The claim that Kiwi Farms is a forum "dedicated to driving people to suicide" is patently false. It is rhetoric created by people campaigning to get it removed without due process by painting its owner and users as cartoonish villains.
Kiwi Farms has thousands of threads discussing people from all ends of the spectrum, including apolitical figures. You can go there yourself and see how diverse the users and their interests are.
You're half right, though I'd disagree with literally stalking — at the very least, there's variety and nuance. There's such a large variety of people discussed on the forum that I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.
Is watching every video or stream from a content creator and posting in a forum mocking them "stalking"? Is digging through someone's old Twitter posts stalking? Is noticing that a person used the same username on multiple websites (some potentially embarrassing) stalking? Kiwi Farms defense is that it's all publicly available information, often published by the people they're mocking.
That's not to say that I agree with or cosign their behaviour. All I'm saying is that there's a large chasm between what people think Kiwi Farms is and what it actually is.
You cannot be seriously asking this.
From https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/stalking:
> broadly : a crime of engaging in a course of conduct directed at a person that serves no legitimate purpose and seriously alarms, annoys, or intimidates that person
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking:
> Stalking is unwanted and/or repeated surveillance by an individual or group toward another person.[1] Stalking behaviors are interrelated to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking:
> Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization.[1][2] It may include false accusations, defamation, slander and libel. It may also include monitoring, identity theft, threats, vandalism, solicitation for sex, doxing, or blackmail.
> there's a large chasm between what people think Kiwi Farms is and what it actually is.
There's a large chasm between what you think the word stalking means and what it actually means.
I am. The fact you refused to answer any of the questions and threw generic definitions at me kinda proves my point.
Is any unwanted attention stalking? Is a journalist stalking someone if they go through their trash? What about when the paparazzi do it? Did that kid stalk Elon Musk?
Uh, yes. If someone is going through my bins to find information about me, that is most definitely stalking. What some paparazzi do is definitively stalking.
> Did that kid stalk Elon Musk?
I don't know enough about that to comment, but quite possibly yes.
Its patently obvious you agree with their behavior but lack the fortitude to admit it.
How would anyone on the internet know about this if you don't post about it?
People should be able to live their lives without a morass of deranged lunatics tracking them everywhere.
Come off it, debate is debate, you're trying to come to a conclusion, but for that to happen your mind needs to be open to the possibility that you are wrong, can you do that? If not, then yes, debating is not worth the effort.
'Essential internet infrastructure should be content-neutral':
[0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/12/we-need-talk-about-inf...
Content neutrality is a higher bar than you think it is. Content-neutral means the rules cannot take content into account at all.
If the content is millions of ssh login requests on thousands of servers with ec2-user and the top 10000 most used passwords, the infrastructure should be able to block that.
Content-neutrality would probably make it illegal to prevent DDoS attacks. At some levels of infrastructure, sure, but broadly speaking, content-neutrality seems like a bad requirement.
Viewpoint-neutral, however, is a better goal.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/o...
Your examples are people forcing packets to a network node, content neutrality is about receiving what you wish from a server whose operator has chosen to serve that content.
Stopping people who are actively committing crimes is not preventing free movement on a right of way. Or rather, it is in layman's terms, but free movement does not include the commission of crimes. In the same way stopping brute force attempts is not the same as inhibiting net neutrality.
Anyway, I think the details are in intent and the nature of the communication. Service providers shouldn't actively block communications where the only intent of the communication is consensual exchange of information between two or more parties (such as visiting a website) regardless of the content of the exchanged information.
SPAM would qualify as non-consensual from one party, so it would be exempt.
The intent of DDoS isn't to exchange information, so it would also be exempt.
I'm sure that it would need pages legalese to make this work, like ironing out the circumstances when ISPs can assume intent or consent. SPAM block lists should be reasonable.
A civil might have a higher chance of succeeding, but I suspect this will also be very hard. "People say mean things" is neither illegal nor harassment, and outright organisation of harassment doesn't really happen on KiwiFarms, at least not in public. Trying to get damages from doxing (in a civil suit, because in most jurisdictions it's not illegal AFAIK) might be the best shot, especially for people who are otherwise non-public figures, but I'm not sure what chance that will have.
There's no way I would even be allowed to talk to a human at these companies, much less convince them to change their politics.
This is demonstrably false. Kiwi Farms has thousands of threads on people ranging from Elon Musk to random Internet streamers. At least one of the most popular threads seems to be about a lawyer (Nick Rekeita).
There's also the problem that their mode of operation may make it difficult to hold any single person liable. They basically engage in crowdsourced stalking, so there's many small contributions of different people whose connections would be hard to prove. As a collective, they obviously know what they're doing, but many individuals have plausible deniability. You can't try them with conspiracy. And that's if you can even track down who your pseudonymous stalkers are.
One has to remember Americans have a unique perspective on speech which isn’t shared around the world. “Sue them so they shut up” works here in Canada, it doesn’t necessarily work in the States.
Too much of the population of the world wants rid and it doesn't matter much that they disagree on precisely which opinions are unacceptable.
I do get baffled by the absolutionist statements about the freedom of speech. Speech is a side-channel into violence.
My country has a censor's office, for example. Some 'speech' is literally illegal to possess. Government ministers aren't free to speak state secrets in public. It's not legal to disclose the names of persons with judicial name suppression. Even parliament representatives can't speak just anything into the parliamentary record.
I live in New Zealand. It's not that bad to have limits and structures that enable the majority of real freedoms for people.
The Alien and Sedition Act was passed in 1798 which made it illegal to critique the government. Eugene Debs went to prison for advocating for draft dodging in World War 1.
Part of is a lot of folks either can't or wont see the difference between "free speech" and "consequences for your actions".
As Americans, we've never had more free speech than we have today. Most of our history is filled with censorship from media to actual human beings being arrested for wearing the wrong clothes. Of course, a lot of those free speech absolutist cheer censorship laws when they are targeted at LGBTQ individuals.
You're trying to rewrite this into a Whig history, but we're obviously backsliding when we're prosecuting people under the Espionage Act.
And it's embarrassing. The KiwiFarms exchange with New Zealand after the Brenton Tarrant shooting (are you even allowed to mention his name? Hope I'm not getting you in trouble here) was one of its prouder moments.
And it's going to go the opposite way that people are expecting. For some reason, the Democratic base has been trained to think that it will be possible for them to impose an authoritarian meritocracy of kind middle-class people using a police force and army largely made up of working-class reactionary quasi-theocrats. When the shit goes down, the neocons will forget that they spent a year or two pretending to care about misgendering while liberals helped them build the Stasi's dream. Instead we'll end up with dictatorship run by a mashup of Reagan, Trump, and Thiel.
If you say some garbage bullshit, and a platform deletes your garbage bullshit, that's fine.
It's easy to talk about free-speech that needs to be protected at any cost when it comes to political speech, but if we look at e.g. spam nobody argues that spam and spammers should be blocked. Now is spam less speech, because it is not political?
On a similar note, if I own a large piece of land should I allow a demonstration that I disagree with cross the land because of free-speech? If no, why does a company who carries data, need to provide their "pipes" to the same people?
I understand the argument that restricting speech is a slippery slope, on the other hand I agree with Popper, not restricting all speech and enabling the "intolerant" is also a slippery slope (I say that as a German, we have quite a bit of experience with this).
I'm not sure how to draw easy boundaries, but making this into an argument of "easy it's free-speech that needs to be defended at all costs" seems much too simplistic.
Because the blocking is consensual. You're actively choosing to block out the spam, and if you so choose you can still see the spam. The same can't be said for deplatforming. Even if you want to read kwifarms you can't, because others have presented you from being able to access their site.
No support for the activity of abusers.
it's a really hard problem, and every time someone comes in and treats it as a simple issue they do dangerous and naive stuff.
> The so-called “dark web” has plenty of deserved ill repute, however, so although it is resistant to censorship by Tier 1 ISPs, it is not a meaningful option for many, much less an accessible one.
that’s a way too casual dismissal. consider the type of person who posts on KF for just a minute (go there yourself if you haven’t), and think if they might be way more likely than your average person to know how to use tor, a VPN, or something to obfuscate their traffic before posting to a forum where they themselves might be harassed.
How, exactly?
I add this so people don't have to do extra googling like I did to understand a story.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2018/08/06/net-neutrality-repeal-re...
Then why did these people call for government action against Twitter for "censoring" right wing "voices"?
This is a fantastic line, one that I'm tucking away for future use.
"We fully support criminal and civil liability for those who abuse and harass others."
That's not sufficient. These are extremely slow mechanisms, when they work at all. The harassed individual can suffer for years, and the EFF isn't rushing out to aid them. As their post says, "law enforcement and legislators have failed".
The Internet is different from the physical world. It's much easier for people to cross legal jurisdictions and hide from law enforcement. Law enforcement and legislators haven't merely failed. They will continue to fail for a long time, during which there are real consequences to human beings.
The Internet is going to have to develop its own ways of dealing with people who use it to harm others. The EFF could help lead that. But they haven't yet, and so others are going to take action when they feel it's appropriate. They'll take the EFF's injunction to "resist the temptation to step in" as being worth the paper it's written on.
So far, every "way" that's been developed of dealing with people who harm others has itself been used to harm others in more extreme ways than the harm they were supposed to mitigate.
Has it?
Some of the people Kiwifarms harassed were driven to suicide. Your argument is that having a forum taken offline is a more extreme form of harm than literal death?
Instead it is that this precedent can be used by much more authoritarian groups to target groups that you support.
Now its KF, and after that other countries are telling these tech services to take down gay and lesbian support groups, or even a state in the US could force abortion services offline.
Its a loophole that could be used as an end run around the 1st amendment, to take out groups that you support just as much as it can be used against things that you want taken down.
Are you OK with sacrificing those groups for your cause? What would you tell them? That they are just worthwhile collateral damage?
Those things have and are happening, and kiwifarms is not the reason any of that occur.
Yes they are, and when other websites get taken down this gives leverage to authoritarian groups to target them even more.
It directly increases the amount of requires and pressure that is put on them, even though, yes, pressure is already on these groups.
The pressure increases every time a provider caves to demands.
Malware and phishing are illegal.
Fascist genocidal maniacs want to kill everyone that disagrees with them, including the gays.
Neat slippery slope you’ve crafted, but it doesn’t logically follow.
You also can’t walk in to a crowded space and yell “FIRE”, I guess that means the gubment is coming for your houses heating?
This is repeated often but there's no proof for these claims. There's more evidence that Reddit has a greater kill count than KF.
Who?
If they want to be the Electronic Frontier Foundation, they can take inspiration from the self-organization that occurs on other frontiers. When there are no rules, you get vigilantes. Well managed, the vigilantes establish the rules, by popular consent. Poorly managed, the most violent ones impose their own rules.
The EFF is well positioned to help establish rules. So merely saying "There shouldn't be any rules", they'll simply be brushed aside one way or the other.
This perfectly describes Democracy as well, however.
Are you anti-democratic?
1] doing something, even if it proves to be wrong, is better than doing nothing.
2] asking forgiveness is better than asking permission.
these [1,2] support each other in a circular discourse.
if you do nothing, you hesitate in want for confirmation of the right thing, you are ineffective.
asking permission, you hesitate in lieu of risking the wrong thing, you are ineffective rather than acting, and later apologizing for doing the wrong thing.
"We must do something; this is something; therefore we must do this."
I've seen that thing rephrased so many ways, it's not even funny anymore. People always fall for that bias. I'm sure if you make some loud proclamations that "Global Warming will destroy everything, we must go and kill the wales", you will get followers.
"1. We must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, we must do this."
1. Nothing is going to happen
2. Something maybe is going to happen, but we should do nothing about it
3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do
4. Maybe there's something we could have done, but it's too late now
there's an economic bottom line where advertisers drive a lot of the need as well. users themselves aren't paying for the service.
This is the literal death of the internet if nothing is done to stop it.
It seems ridiculous to me to float this as something that is going to happen.
While it's perfectly reasonable for websites to decide what content is shown, it should also be possible to decide to show ALL content, except very obviously illegal content like CSAM and actual threats (which can be notified by LE and even automated).
I am aware that this line gets blurry very quickly, but we're leaning way too much on the side of censorship. We are just sweeping the ugly under the rug and hoping it goes away, while instead it festers, until it goes viral.
Do you hope that Musk is going to throw some peanuts at you for defending him like a good boy?
I far preferred it when we had a more diversified eco-system and long run I think we will come to regret this monoculture. But it is hard to spell out exactly what could be done to resolve all this without having the various negative side effects as well as a method of dealing with the now entrenched and very powerful players.
We need 500 search engines, not three, and 500 browser manufacturers, not four. And open, well published and not-dominated-by-a-single-entity standards.
I’ve never gelled with this aspect of “tech” (startup?) culture.
Why shouldn’t an ISP or any company be able to limit for any lawful reason?
We are living in Popper's "Paradox of Tolerance". Nazis need to be punched, but de-platforming them is pretty good, too.
This incident changed my life, and I changed my pacifistic views because I cannot stand by and do nothing anymore.
Why is it that people have the right to decide what their standpoint is over this, especially in regards to legal actions...but victims don't even have the right to change their names in order to feel safe again?
I thought long whether or not I should write about this, because honestly, I'm in Europe and I don't give a damn about your shit-smearing American radicalization tactics in political campaigns. But I realized that it's over here nowadays, too, and it's a lot bigger than anyone not involved might assume.
Team Jorge, AIMS, Killnet/Xaknet/Legion's psyops, troll factories with fake education foundations as a cover story, etc. if you want to know more about it. Aleph from the occrp if you want to do more research on the legal structures and how their money flows.
The right-wing ("alt rights") are the fools of modern warfare, and they don't even know who it is that is playing them because they are blind of hatred and despair. And that's what's wrong with our society.
Autocracies on the planet realized that the weakness of democracy is that it tries to find a compromise. "Divide and conquer" is literally what they're doing, and we are too busy discussing our moral stand points over this while they infect our societies with hatred to make it impossible to govern.
I don't exactly understand what you mean by feminism (GC/radfem or the average suffrage feminism).
I think that the dissonance in the feminism movement versus their counterparts is that there's a different level of expectations in the topics that they as a movement want to discuss.
When women (or LGBTQA+) are talking about these issues, they're looking for allies, they're looking for compassion and comfort on their journey; and are not interested in the rational solution in the first place.
The obvious topics that nobody talks about in similar topics like child abuse is ridiculous from their perspective. They see the world as "all men are talking about protecting children, but none of them talk about that they need to protect children from men" and that's something that hits the ego on the other side. Men usually have problems putting their egos aside from the topic, and that's what causes the "defending arguments" game; because they project those accusations on themselves directly.
Hence, incels exist, and why kiwifarms, /pol/ and others have huge overlaps in their communities because of it. They simply cannot differ between personal accusations, and comfort themselves with generalizations out of anger and hate.
And everything that was said in a state of anger wasn't true anyways, because it was either an excessive statement to make a point or some over-stylized hearsay. But that's the blame game that worked in school until the more rational side gave up, and hence why nobody is able to put their egos aside later in life to actually try to find a compromise.
Fascists are responsible for being fascists, not foreigners or queer "degenerates".
Just like that, incels are responsible for being incels, not feminists and (again?) queer people.
I'm happy there are people fighting against the current state of our Self ID reform, where reporting requirements for security agencies might create the next pink list. And I don't give a shit if incels see that as an affront. I wouldn't be able to make them happy anyway - they need to sort that out themselves.
I know a lot of people outside this issue sometimes have problems differentiating the parts that get amplified by the likes of BILD, WELT and NIUS - pink capitalism's most obvious objectionable strands - and other advocacy. There's a lot of classic divide and conquer at play here too, incidentally.
That's exactly what I am talking about. Attributing all feminist campaigning to anything specific is impossible (and therefore an excessive statement to make a point). It's far beyond human knowability by any means anyways. And implying misogynist behavior to the statements that I wrote pretty much is the start of an irrational - but also not an empathic - discussion.
Maybe the whole problem is because our language in physical form relies on intonation, stressing and nuances that the text form cannot represent, I don't know, I'm no linguist.
Most of the shitstorms I've observed in my social bubbles could have been solved easily if there were some form of empathic notations to the text that was written. Even just being able to express the emotional state while writing it (mad/sad/angry/frustrated/calm/etc) could have helped a lot to resolve those issues.
I think emojis tried to fill this gap initially, but it seemingly failed at it due to the differences of our generations online and their associations with them. Let's say boomer, gen-y and gen-z discussing a topic for argument's sake.
Gen-Z kind of evolved on the web, and they've learned to communicate their feelings differently. Other generations basically think that they're spamming emojis all the time, but gen-z kind of realized that it's their way of communicating empathic needs and expressions, which would be otherwise missing.
All I'm trying to say is that there seems to be an empathic/emotional gap in our language which leads to a lot of misinterpretation on the web; which in physical form never exceeds into the same absurdities because people seem to be able to express their empathic needs much easier then. And that's me saying this as an autist with huge problems reading (in both senses of the word) people's implied intonations, which is kind of absurd to begin with.
The issue with the populist journalism that you mentioned is that there's not laws in place to force them to recorrect their statements in the same populistic way they made advertisements for the previous incorrect statements. Usually you find the corrections in font size 8 on the last page - if there is even any correction. They should be forced to publish it in the same way, on the same media channels, as the initial incorrect article about that topic - by default, as an implemented law. This alone would kill a lot of shares of how misinformation, which appeals to angry emotions, works.
But then political campaigns wouldn't work either, so sadly there's no incentive for legislatives to do this.
> When women (or LGBTQA+) are talking about these issues, they're looking for allies, they're looking for compassion and comfort on their journey; and are not interested in the rational solution in the first place.
Criticizing that you are baselessly asserting that women and queer people are irrational, not interested in solutions and instead "looking for compassion and comfort on their journey" and that this assessment might be a product of your prejudice against women is irrational?
Irrefutable logic. Circular even.
> Irrefutable logic. Circular even.
Empathy and Rationality are not mutually exclusive.
I think you also didn't spend enough time among incels, KF or /pol/ to understand them.
KF is a moralist forum, they have more jn common with progressive twitter with the incessant policing of behaviour than incels or /pol/.
Incels resent women because they don't have them, it's a sour grapes situation.
/pol/ is a containment board for politics on 4chan. These people exist before feminism took the internet stage of most important topic, even in the atheist vs religious era. I don't think they're a response to feminists generalizing men (which is irrational, if you disagree please state your reasoning).
I'd hope something came of the criminal complaint you filed regarding the assault, but i'm not holding my breath here.
There have been a couple of investigations that I helped with in the German media though, in case you're interested. They mostly focus on bigger topics though, like the fact that AIMS was used for vote manipulations, or about the troll factories in middle/west Africa etc.
They didn't talk about the hacker groups in detail because I think there's some missing expertise in that sector (also in regards of being able to defend themselves), but everything around those groups on telegram can be dug up pretty quickly. It's not like they care about their secrecy.
[1] https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/team-jorge-israel-des...
[2] https://www.ardmediathek.de/video/wdr-dok/propagandaschlacht...
Without access to a large email provider you won't be able to send to anyone. And, no, you can't just set up an SMTP server. Not if you expect anyone to get your emails.
If you don't have access to messenger apps you basically can't communicate with people outside of the US which is the only country which still uses SMS.
If you don't have access to hosting services and something like cloudflare, you basically can't build a website.
If you don't have access to payment processors, you can't run any form of online business.
The problem would be that people want to avoid seeing some things, and they really want to avoid their kids seeing things.
So what if we define a group of flags that can be set to say "This content does contain X" or "This content does not contain X." If the flag is not set, we don't know. Then web filters can just block content that lacks a flag saying "This content does not contain X."
If I post your real name, address and bank account credentials online, or photos of you in the bathroom, or start a forum to plan acts of genocide against your race or religion, or maybe spread plausible slander about you on every social media platform I can, that's perfectly acceptable under your terms. But it doesn't help you if all you're allowed to do is set a filter flag on it. It's still there, having an effect.
The web isn't just teenage edgelords shitposting at each other for lulz anymore, there are actual real world consequences at play.
[edit] adding here that "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" is a real thing in US law. so, legal remedies do exist.
https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/i...
The ultimate solution if something bothers you online is to locate the power button on the device, press it, then proceed outdoors to hang out with your friends.
I went looking for this out of curiosity. It seems to be a thread from 2022 with only 10 pages, and only about 10 total replies this year. Is this really your basis for claiming that "a lot" of people are coming from Kiwi Farms?
How did you even find that thread anyway?
I don’t know HE’s specific situation with regards to being a common carrier, but I’m surprised there isn’t a conversation about the expectations we have of utility providers who receive privileged operational power over necessary public services.
Source: https://he.net/about_network.html - you see them talk about "negotiating with the top fiber carriers" and even "long haul wavelengths", which means they don't always lease a whole fiber, sometimes just a small slice of the EM spectrum on one.
IP transit is a value-add on top of an underlying physical asset which already has the properties that you want.
In other words, if I have been granted conditional protected exclusive ownership of physical fiber lines and that requires me to be a common carrier, I can launder the common carrier responsibility by leasing guaranteed bandwidth downstream? That does not check out…
Wouldn't that mean that every company that used telephony, railroads, airlines, or shipping would have to be behave like a common carrier?
I'm not sure what the correct balance is but I don't think it makes sense to force common carrier status to propagate in the way you seem to be suggesting.
I think you can pretty clearly mentally separate a derivative service originating from a leased common line and Hallmark accepting internet orders.
OK, I can see how the resale scenario is different from the consume/utilize scenario. Thanks for the clarification.
New accounts are subject to additional restrictions because of past abuse by spammers and trolls. Obviously that comment was legit, but as we don't have software smart enough to distinguish legit comments from bad one, some human intervention is often required to rescue the legit ones. You did this yourself by vouching for the comment, which unkilled it.
I see ISPs blocking "mean speech" to "protect people" as another symptom of the enshittification of the internet. I legitimately cannot understand problems in this arena because you can just...walk away from your computer. Or turn off the website. Or hey, maybe don't TIE YOUR ENTIRE LIFE AND REAL IDENTITY TO THE INTERNET. I suspect the prominent use of pseudonyms 30 years ago prevented most forms of ongoing harassment. Narcissists need the validation and so now big brother needs to step in to protect them.
I think society is getting a little too comfortable with the idea of big brother and it's making me really, really uncomfortable. As an old man yelling at a cloud the internet really was better 20 or 30 years ago.
I take it that (a) your income doesn't depend on your internet presence, and (b) you're reasonably well off. KiwiFarms has done massive damage to people in "the real world", and some people concerned for their safety cannot afford to ignore it. It is a genuine danger.
Violating the principle and right of free speech is nothing more than grabbing and abusing power.
So that makes them easy to target for abuse, eg https://oaklandside.org/2023/08/29/chabot-elementary-evacuat...
An episode like that costs tens of thousands of dollars in lost productive time, police response and investigation etc. And it's increasingly common.
I don't think ISPs can or should proactively try to prevent this (or they'd have to preemptively scan and evaluate every packet request), but I also don't think your dunk on the ACLU has any substance. If an ISP knows that a customer is bad actor because it's brought to their attention in a credible and rigorous way, then it seems quite legitimate to me to cut them off.
Are you trying to say that some opinion posted online that may or may not have been consumed by the offender in this case is somehow directly responsible?
My question to those who support big brother any lawful but awful speech is - do you really think it won’t be used to silence any dissent of the ruling powers?
My question to those that use this line of reasoning is do you really think a ruling power willing to silence dissent would do so whether or not it is supported?
I would argue if we have people in positions of power who would make decisions like that then it is our duty to our progeny to relieve those in question.
The Stasi would be insanely jealous of the new tools for totalitarianism the tech industry is building. We're constructing a digital panopticon around ourselves. If this is allowed to go much further, escape will become incredibly difficult.
Because Mississippi and New York have very different ideas about who are bad actors.
This would invite false-flag attacks to get others kicked off the internet, especially if you run a public-facing service. If you can find any way to attribute something to someone, it doesn't even have to rise to the level of preponderance of evidence.
This changes the venue for addressing allegedly-criminal behavior of owners/operators from courtrooms with established procedures to arbitrary decisions by nameless individuals accountable to nobody. This certainly works to someone's advantage, especially in cases where the allegations have been fabricated or exaggerated. Let's move things to a kangaroo court where a doctored screenshot is sufficient evidence for us to ban someone/something and there is no formal procedure or record for anyone to review. The accused isn't even entitled to an appeal; the accusation is the conviction.
ISPs were really rigorous in their diligence when the RIAA started suing their customers. DMCA takedowns have never been abused either. ISPs have notably not been quick to do anything about the DDoS attacks Kiwi Farms' detractors have brought to bear against them.
For some reason, of all those people "victimized" by Kiwi Farms, not one can muster a defamation suit? Apparently they organize raids or something on a public forum inclusive to all, but no screenshots or archived copies of these pages exist? For all the claims against KF, apparently none can survive scrutiny from either civil or criminal litigation. The one untrained guy that runs it can only be tried in secret tribunals, in absentia, and must not be allowed to have a platform on which to defend himself. This is the cliquish behavior of spoiled children crying to their gullible grandparents as an end-run around their parents-- not a means of justice.
People claim a lot of things about the Kiwis but the one thing nobody ever calls them is liars.
> So that makes them easy to target for abuse, eg https://oaklandside.org/2023/08/29/chabot-elementary-evacuat...
It's unfortunate that a school that went out of its way to host events only for children of color received a bomb threat. That terrorist should go to jail, and by the rules of this New Woke Order someone should send a letter to the school's upstream hosting providers to get that racist school kicked off the internet.
The people pushing for ISP-level policing aren't going to like living under the rules they're creating. It's going to make it completely fucking unusable for everyone. Like the HOA board members who want to run speed traps and install speed bumps to stop all the speeders, they always end up being among the first ones caught speeding. They'll create all these bypasses to make things intolerable, and then start up with "this place sucks now" and try to rally everyone into leaving.
Just say no. Because it worked so well for Nancy Reagan.
Oh, wait...
(For those too young to remember: https://www.history.com/topics/1980s/just-say-no)
It is not merely the case that, faced with something potentially addictive, you just recall "Just Say No" and bada-bing, no addiction happens. Humans aren't robots. Humans get addicted to drugs and other activities, not just in social situations but also as a coping mechanism for life failures they can't fix, or see no way to fix. It can take years of psychological work to break the cycle of dependence, and in some cases it might not even be possible.
If you have time for a moving speech, listen to Craig Ferguson's monologue on his own alcohol addiction, his path to sobriety, and the constant vigilance needed to maintain it, which he gave rather than joke about Britney Spears' public freakout in 2007: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K46P7loICXY
I know there are such people, but they are a small minority. If "addiction" is only talking about them, then the response to the GP is simple: sure, "Just Say No" doesn't work for that small minority, but it can still work for everyone else, and shouldn't be discarded on that account.
My read of the GP is that they were not using "addiction" in this narrow sense, and my response was based on that interpretation. But they're welcome to correct me if I'm wrong about that interpretation.
One recent example of this was the lack of free hospital beds at the height of COVID. In a pandemic, the overoptimization of nixing bed/supply reserves left no slack, leaving hospitals unfit to address the emergency.
That resulted in lots of funding from the anti-Trump crowd. "Trump derangement syndrome" meant previously unimaginable funding.
They needed to do something with the money, so they staffed up, using the new staff to double down on the Trump-fighting.
Before 2016, there were a few claims that the ACLU was biased toward liberals. Afterward, you'll find many articles even from outlets like the Atlantic and the New York Times lambasting the ACLU as openly partisan. Just do a search for them!
So if this is censorship is intended to keep things safe and liberal, people suppose that the ACLU would support the censorship.
https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech-nazi...
> The backlash has already spurred other ACLU chapters to declare that they don’t believe free-speech protections apply to events like the one in Charlottesville, and led the ACLU’s national director, Anthony Romero, to declare the group will no longer defend the right to protest when the protesters want to carry guns.
> “Until now,” lawyer and blogger Scott Greenfield wrote, the ACLU has “never quite come out and announced that they will refuse to defend a constitutional right. This announcement says that when someone seeks to exercise two rights at the same time, the ACLU is outta there.”
And their internal policy document listing out things that might stay their hand in an otherwise vigourous defense of free speech:
https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU....
> Considerations Specific to Speech Cases
> * Whether the speaker seeks to engage in or promote violence
> * Whether the speakers seek to carry weapons
> * The impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression
> * The extent to which we are able to make clear that even as we defend a speaker’s right to say what they want, we reserve our right to condemn the views themselves
> * The extent to which we are able to mitigate any harm to our mission, values, priorities, and/or relationships
I think that the ACLU had a bigger impact with 60m in funding as a nonpartisan organization with a respected reputation than as a soldier in the culture war.
smartphones and modern social media bulldozed over our glorious cyber-libertarian future and brought millions of people, all completely unacclimated to the Web and its social customs, online, together, in the name of social progress or something (but, not-so-secretly, it was just to target advertisements and content to people more efficiently), and this is the sad end result—corporate censorship everywhere, with normal people even going out of their way to espouse gratitude for said censorship, complete with all manner of stock memery to disparage anyone who disagrees ("freeze peach", "only the government can censor—if it's not the government, it's not censorship", etc.).
pour one out for the Internet of Yore if you must, but those days are long since over—there really isn't any way to put the genie back in the bottle anymore.
twenty-five minutes ago, I posted the above comment, then got into my car to drive home from work. on the way home, at an intersection, I checked my phone to see if anyone had responded to my comment, and indeed, you had. I thought about it a bit, then, while waiting in line at drugstore to pick up a prescription, I typed and submitted this reply. this is most certainly not how Things Used To Be. you used to have to jack into the Matrix at a designated jacking-in terminal—you couldn't just wirelessly jack in anywhere, about the town, at any point in your daily life.
only a decade ago, the idea that a politician would use the public-facing Internet to directly attack or insult a political opponent was unthinkable—now, it's completely commonplace, as common as anyone arguing over the Internet, with anyone else about anything else. now, it's been successfully integrated into everyday life, completely. in the past, though, there most certainly was a time in which it was a completely separate thing, with completely different social norms than meatspace. I don't know why some are so eager to erase this in-the-greater-scheme-of-things extremely-recent history, and pretend like the Internet was always some sort of sanitized "safe space." there were "safe spaces", to be sure—but you had to make them yourself(!), or seek them out. communities were ideologically-driven, not advertiser/moral guardian-driven.
You might wish to believe that you free society can exist without any morality but I don't think it can really.
So what is "ok" and what is "not ok" - would you censor the NAZI party in the 1930s or do you think that letting theim air their views fully would convince Germans not to accept them? 10s of millions of lives depend on your choice.
>So what is "ok" and what is "not ok" - would you censor the NAZI party in the 1930s or do you think that letting theim air their views fully would convince Germans not to accept them? 10s of millions of lives depend on your choice.
The rise to power of the NSDAP was aided by being able to frame themselves as the lesser evil in comparison to the KPD representing the totalitarian soviet system. Censoring stuff and combating people creates reactions, once you go down the path of opinion control you end up with the choice between totalitarian systems that are dysfunctional by nature and represent the worst and most extreme versions of a tribalistic conflict. Having a common enemy becomes an end in itself and at that point anyone will do.
This is not an abstract risk, its visible across many western democracies right now. The naive assumption that intention alone will be enough and allows you ignore the consequences, might become the death of the current form of democracies. Its arguably how we got to the point where there are far right parties across Europe in and about to become governments. With at the same time a historic high in population and opinion control measures.
In the end, during the most horrific phases of humanity that were intentionally created there is always a desperate demand for two things. The ability to challenge genocidal narratives (See Romeo Dalaires pleas to just be allowed to broadcast) and having as many rifles as you can get once that fails (See the incredible risk people (including children) took when smuggling weapons into Jewish ghettos. I dont see how attempts to make the first harder, let alone impossible, are anything but evil. Especially with a blatant disregard for the risks this entails. Humanity payed the price for this insight already multiple times over.
Countries have laws againt hate speech and libel because we realise that these are evil forms of "free speech".
We have laws about every action that we can do because those actions can harm other people and speech is another action which can harm others.
Just thinking that you ought to have those kinds of laws doesnt mean applying them wont result in a tragedy.
Edit: Might have misunderstood your reference. The KPD NSDAP dynamic is often referenced as the "verängstigte Bürgertum". It was quite the popular reference during Pegida, but it has been a common explanation since it happened and isnt just a modern take. The coups during Weimar, and the political reactions to them has to be seen in that light as well. Can recommend Heinrich Hannovers "Politische Justiz 1918–1933" on the atmosphere of the time.
Edit1: His "Die Republik vor Gericht 1954-1995" is also something i would recommend reading for a more realistic view of Western Germany. And Ingo Müllers Furchtbare Juristen. Might be worth reminding people that actual nazis got quite the nice treatment till very recently. The current wave of prosecutions against KZ guards is a historical abnormality, unless the allies actually hung you you got away with a slap on the wrist and in good social standing. Because you were needed against the Soviets. A AFD/CDU might get really bad, there were already CDU politicians during the burning refugee housings in the 90s that argued for more compassion for the drunk piss stained mob.
There was this great picture of a piss stained drunk doing a nazi salute during one of the Pogroms that i cant find on google and bing anymore. But luckily i dont have to worry about such things anymore because everyone means well.
Vanity and fear set the current strategy and it really does not help.
And Cloudflare are nearly as well behaved as they could possibly be. The simple fact of them being everywhere makes them a major target of government pressure to censor. This is purely an end run around the constitution, not the desire of companies to control speech.
> It feels like private companies are de facto writing the laws about what's allowed online and in society right now, and that it's almost become a loophole for censoring free speech on a whim.
And I don't think that the companies have any particular desire to censor. Zuckerberg would only censor speech about Facebook and himself personally. Dorsey seemed entirely blindsided by the pressures from the administration, three-letter agencies, and individual Congressmen based on the Twitter Files, and pushed back plenty. The three-letter agencies just placed dozens and dozens of people (who decided to quit the CIA, NSA, and FBI in their 30s for some reason and change careers) in the executive suites of every social network.
It's being done in the open, and they're simply daring us to see corruption there. Hell, they've become conspiracy and foreign propaganda scientists, and they can detect the influence of the evil Russian and Chinese enemies of the state even in people who have no connections to Russians or Chinese people. It's their Russian and Chinese ideas that need to be eradicated, and all good communications channels and payments processors should be happy to help unless they are also secretly Russian.
Wow did they go from coordinating banning Alex Jones to banning the last President in record time. Let's see how long it takes them to get from Kiwi Farms to The Grayzone or Rumble, or any newspaper that contradicts a government press release.
[0] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/obamas-ope...
Where can I find more about this?
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/12/04/six-degrees-from-james...
[1] https://www.mintpressnews.com/twitter-hiring-alarming-number...
[1] https://www.mintpressnews.com/meet-ex-cia-agents-deciding-fa...
Here's another good source about Google's revolving door with government during the Obama administration: https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/googles-rev...
This is not true. There has been at least two high profile cases where Cloudflare dropped their commitment to free speech when under no real legal pressure(kiwifarms and stormfromt). Maybe you think they did the right thing, but it's clear that they are not a neutral party.
So while Cloudflare isn’t a diamond in the rough, you could say they’re a.. topaz in the rough.
There's a clear moral distinction between "I believe trans women do not belong in women's bathrooms" and "Here's their address, do your thing until they are gone!".
That might is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Do you have any evidence that this occurs?
It seems pretty clear they're doing that, no?
See also:
https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/
"Feeling attacked, users of Kiwifarms became even more aggressive. Over the last two weeks, we have proactively reached out to law enforcement in multiple jurisdictions highlighting what we believe are potential criminal acts and imminent threats to human life that were posted to the site."
Seems weird that you can't just google this, I mean it took me 30 seconds to do this.
You claimed people "might" be using the forums to commit crimes, now you're saying "it's pretty clear". Again, what actual evidence do you have to back these claims?
> Seems weird that you can't just google this, I mean it took me 30 seconds to do this.
I aware of this blog post by CloudFlare. However, I am not aware of any actual evidence or examples that substantiate the claims made in it. The operator of Kiwi Farms has publicly stated that he received no notice from either CloudFlare or law enforcement about the alleged threats. CloudFlare has also never provided any specifics publicly. In my opinion, the CEO was overruled and forced to remove KF, and that blog post is a transparent attempt to save face after beating his chest about never backing down.
) However, the rhetoric on the Kiwifarms site and specific, targeted threats have escalated over the last 48 hours to the point that we believe there is an unprecedented emergency and immediate threat to human life unlike we have previously seen from Kiwifarms or any other customer before.
Sorry, I can't edit the original comment anymore. But thanks for pointing that out!
> However, I am not aware of any actual evidence or examples that substantiate the claims made in it.
Fortunately US Code doesn't require violence for cyberbullying to be a crime.
This is conflating two parts of my message. You cited CloudFlare's blog post as an example how it's "pretty clear" that Kiwi Farms breaks the laws. My point is that the blog post is completely vacuous and no evidence or examples have ever been shared with the public or the operator of Kiwi Farms.
I, for one, take CloudFlare at their word here. Do you not?
If he had evidence of something that constituted a threat to life, why didn't they share it with the operator of the Kiwi Farms so that it could be removed? If it was as damning and credible as he claimed, why did none of the authorities follow-up on it?
Would it be possible there's an ongoing investigation, and he was asked by authorities to not detail those posts for fear of letting them vanish in the wind?
My understanding is this is a common tactic used by law enforcement to prevent "spooking" the targets of an investigation.
Only Matthew Prince can shed light on the truth, but if he hasn't by now I doubt he ever will.
That's an interesting legal theory.
> Even the EFF's article says the site is full of crime and called on the cops to prosecute. This also means they won't defend your beloved website in court.
An organization making a claim is not evidence of the claim being true.
Only the claims you like are claims you will accept as true
My personal feelings are irrelevant. I judge claims based on the veracity of their evidence, as should everyone.
I mean, anyone can create a new account on HN and post "I am literally going to kill Joe Biden tonight", and perhaps they actually plan to do that too, and maybe they'll even pull it off, but that doesn't mean HN orchestrated a conspiracy to kill Joe Biden.
The general policy is "look, but don't touch", and while I don't really trust the userbase in general to adhere to that, the people running the site (mostly this Null guy, as near as I can tell) seem fairly dedicated to this.
Personally I think the internet wold be better without the site, but I also think there's a sore lack of nuance here, and people accept certainly dubious claims a little bit too readily (turns out not everything on the internet is the whole story, or even true in the first place).
If they were actually a member of Kiwi Farms, why didn't they post it on the forums? The obvious answer, to me at least, is that they weren't, and they couldn't because KF had closed new user sign ups prior to that.
Go look at the front page of the site. There is a section named "lolcow cults" and 4 major forum sections created by the admins naming specific victims by name. I don't think I can even link to it without getting my HN account banned.
So if the biker bars are distributing child porn, or illegal drugs or guns, or using it as a place for conspiracy terrorism, then yeah, I say yes those corporations serving said bar should have a say. Particularly if the biker bar, e.g., violated the company's Christian morals.
More importantly, this is supported by case law, today.
The decisions of who a business chooses as it's customer is actively being challenged by conservatives in this country. See the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling. In this case the decision was overturned on religious grounds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
I would bet a significant amount that if an electric company didn't want to serve a biker bar on religious grounds (particularly if there was active criminal activity), they probably would get away with it.
The last time I checked the constitution there wasn't a right to internet or electric or phone service. There was a right for religious beliefs, though.
The Supreme Court ruling was not on using religion as an excuse not to serve. Supreme Court ruling was an about the commission violating a rule on religious neutrality. It set no precedent for the substance of the original suit.
> I would bet a significant amount that if an electric company didn't want to serve a biker bar on religious grounds (particularly if there was active criminal activity), they probably would get away with it.
You would be wrong. Electricity is not “creating expression”, which is what the lower courts were ruling on.
For the sake of argument let’s change it from biker bar to a LGBT bar. Say some customers may be doing illegal drugs, and the CEO of the electric company (Known for his stance against illegal drugs) got wind of it. Like the biker bar, they were never afforded due process, and were never ordered to shut down in a court of law. Instead, the CEO orders his company to shut off the power; the reason being, he knows it must be true because a local reporter told him so. Not only that, a friend of his went to the bar and saw people doing drugs.
The bar gets no jury, no trial. A structure without electricity is considered uninhabitable, and the bar is forced to close down. Do you still think this is legal?
The Masterpiece ruling was a 7-2 decision. We can get into if/buts etc.... but the way I see it, common carrier status is a congressional law, not a constitutional one.
Facebook is the mother of all censorship. Nudity, speech, political views just to name the top most. They only want people to post fluffy stuff on their website.
And how are countries like Germany still doing kinda okay despite making it illegal to do Nazi stuff? Isn't it a slippery slope directly from banning Naziism direct to North Korean-style authoritarianism?
A lot of people on the right are talking about the US having a mental health crises when it comes to mass shootings. If that's really true, then yeah, that's how we get natsies.
> Isn't it a slippery slope directly from banning Naziism direct to North Korean-style authoritarianism?
Well I mean if there's a mental health crisis then yeah, people are going to say that. I personally don't think the founding fathers of the US understood the future gullibility of their citizens.
They absolutely did. When only white, male, decently educated property owners could vote, they had decent reassurance that a constitutional republic with state-specific voter management could work.
I think they'd be horrified to see that today we don't even demand a basic proof of civics education. And I hate that Ramaswamy made that suggestion in such an embarrassing, conversation-poisoning way.
The problem of course being that intelligence tests were used in the 60's to deny voting rights. But the founding fathers were okay with slavery, so would they have been okay with that for that purpose?
Originalism has a purpose I think, but, we've changed so much since then...
The founding fathers certainly did assume there were gullible voters even among the select few who could vote.
Protections such as the Constitution itself (that old archaic document!), the Senate, supermajorities, an independent legislative, executive and judicial, etc, etc.
I laugh when people say “Congress is deadlocked! It needs to be fixed!”. No, it’s working exactly as intended.
Are you talking about his "failed Civics 101" gaffe re: historical ordering of Constitution and Revolution?
I have been convinced for a long time that a test of basic civics and current events is a necessary (and possibly a sufficient) condition to fix most of the failings we see in representative democracy, but the Overton window is nowhere near it, and Ramaswamy is hardly the candidate I'd want proposing it.
The whole question and answer bank could even be given out online or in print cosr free - my bar is pretty low.
Currently I would suggest that most of the failings in, e.g., US democracy are coming from the Republican party and I'm pretty sure most of them will have passed a test of basic civics, etc., yet are demonstrably bad at governance.
Only for certain definitions of okay
I guess the people opposing co-governance are not very fond of following contracts, because at least in NZ the founding document/contract the treaty of Waitangi guaranteed a co-governance (and arguably the commonwealth for a long time ignored those obligations).
That's quite a strong statement to just present as an axiom without even any evidence or premises leading to it. Can you justify this statement, or do we have to just accept it as an axiom?
Should you punish the children for what the fathers did wrong? Because whoever wronged the people are dead since long. The people who were wronged are dead since long. Do the children inherit the sins or the victimhood of their ancestors? Some say yes. They say to the youth: "Look how bad these people were treated long before you were born! Now it's your responsibility to settle the score and pay back."
Others say no. They say that nobody can be held responsible for the wrongs that other people have done, even if those people were their ancestors, or are considered their ancestors by modern measurements. The question is if somebody is to be seen as an individual and judged as an individual, or seen as a member of some tribe and judged as a member of that tribe.
It's worth to mention that things are usually seen in another way. What we're seeing right now is the end of christian morality, where a victim is held in high regard. This is not common through history or through the world. Once these kind of victim-revering morals don't exist anymore, the attitude will instead be: "Your ancestors were slaves, therefore you deserve to be a slave" or "My ancestors conquered your ancestors, therefore we have the right to treat you as we wish" and such awful things.
The word "harem" is derived from Arabic/Persian for "forbidden"; it was a place where men were not allowed, and thus a considered a safe space for the women within.
Little Boy turned actual little boys into carbon ash imprints on the concrete where they sat and ate lunch; it probably saved many more children from burning up in a sustained campaign of carpet-bombings.
To create a new power group to balance rights? It's unstable, but it also leads to things like "women, as well as men, get to vote" and "workers can organise their labour via trade unions, just as owners can organise their capital via shareholdings and loans".
I dont want to be part of a society with built in racist laws.
It’s also what was guaranteed in our founding document - depending on how you read it. That dubious piece of legal work managed to botch the key term ‘governance’ such that interpretation is required and it may, or may not guarantee Māori governance of the country.
Comparing NZ to apartheid South Africa is darkly funny. The oppression I face is underwhelming.
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/treaty-faqs#Whatdo...
It literally speaking isn’t based on skin colour. In Australia (I think the situation in NZ is similar?) indigenous status is based on descent, identification, and acceptance by the community. Unlike the “blood quantum laws” which apply for Native Americans in the US, there is no minimum percentage of indigenous ancestry required. So you have people, the majority of whose ancestors are European, and who look physically indistinguishable from other European-descended Australians, but who have some indigenous ancestry, who choose to identify with that ancestry, and whose identification is accepted by a recognised indigenous community - they are legally indigenous. An indigenous person can have any skin colour, and due to trends in intermarriage and indigenous identification (which is optional), the distribution of skin colours is changing over time.
It's all signalling. In Australia there are support and administrative bodies at all level of government interacting with aboriginal communities (often failing for different reasons, mostly budget). A 'Voice' (which is still vaguely defined as having influence but no power) does not magically create harmony between the past and future, it only continues the divide.
We are stuck in a world of trying to simultaneously give back the 'old past' while carrying on as-is otherwise. That is impossible. We must work towards a common, prosperous and respectful future for all inhabitants that recognises and admits the things we can't undo or change. We are trying to have it both ways, and it will leave the divides strongly in place.
Weird how you seem to recognize what culture is, yet in the same sentence it means nothing more than sharing a skin tone
The idea that pale-skinned people can't be Indigenous is mainly one that exists on the political right. In 2011, conservative Murdoch newspaper columnist Andrew Bolt was found (in a civil, not criminal, proceeding) to have violated the Racial Discrimination Act by authoring a newspaper column arguing that pale-skinned people couldn't "really" be indigenous. [0]
By contrast, my local federal member of parliament is Dr Gordon Reid MP [1]. He identifies as Indigenous, but his skin tone is pretty similar to my own, and (as far as I know) my own ancestry is purely European (mostly Irish, with some English and Scottish too). But, Dr Reid belongs to our main centre-left party (Labor), and the Australian Labor Party has zero objection to pale-skinned people identifying as Indigenous
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eatock_v_Bolt
[1] https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?...
If getting political, the ALP has no objection to anyone so long as they support their view... same as the Liberal party.
But this is the whole ludicrous thing; what are they actually identifying as?. Traditional landowners? Cultural martyrs? 'Aussie?' 'Neglected outsiders? It gets really tricky if they start to actually really dig into the problem.
It's like the argument is saying they're disadvantaged because they're not living their 'full modern Western life' while also supposing somehow 'we' will give back the old ways and apologise. Which is it? Hence I've been saying we need to work out what future 'Australian' is and all head towards that, as best we can. I don't even know what Australian culture is now, it's a mess of trying to be all cultures to everyone.
It also potentially results in two groups of Indigenous people – one group with majority Indigenous ancestry, found mostly in remote/regional/rural areas, who experience a great deal of social deprivation; another group with minority (in some cases even only slight) Indigenous ancestry, found mostly in urban/suburban areas, who experience far less social deprivation. With all this talk of "closing the gap", counting both groups as "Indigenous" makes "the gap" seem smaller than it actually is, and if the second group is growing, that growth can create a false sense of progress of the gap being closed, even as little or nothing improves for the first group.
That's not my take on the requirement that one have ancestral DNA
Furthermore, the official definition is not phrased in terms of DNA, only descent. Many Indigenous communities object to the use of DNA testing in determining Indigenous status, and as a result it is mostly not considered in deciding these questions.
The official definition is ambiguous in using the word "descent" – while most commonly that is interpreted as "biological descent", it isn't clear that merely legal descent (as in legal adoption) is actually excluded. If an Indigenous person legally adopts a biologically non-Indigenous child (or has such a child through IVF, surrogacy, sperm/egg/embryo donation, etc), and the child is raised to identify as Indigenous, and their Indigenous community accepts that child as Indigenous – there is an argument they officially are Indigenous, and given the unresolved ambiguity in the official definition, I don't know how one can say that argument is incorrect. In practice, if the elders of their Indigenous community write a letter declaring them to be Indigenous, the government will very likely accept them (and their descendants) as such.
No way this could possibly go wrong.
I'm not necessarily defending these policies–just attempting to describe them accurately–if one is going to criticise something, it is important to accurately describe the thing to be criticised. This is an issue on which I have mixed feelings and can see both sides of the argument.
But to clarify, at least officially speaking, it is based on blood–it is not enough to simplify identify as indigenous and be accepted by a recognised indigenous community as indigenous, you also have to actually be of indigenous descent – a person with zero indigenous descent is officially speaking not indigenous, even if they identify as such, and even if a recognised indigenous community accepts them as such. The difference from American "blood quantum" laws, is there is no requirement for any minimum degree of indigenous descent – officially it doesn't matter if a person's ancestry is 100% indigenous or 1-in-256 indigenous – but officially a person with zero known indigenous ancestry can't be indigenous. In practice, people with extremely remote indigenous ancestry are unlikely to be able to find a recognised indigenous community willing to endorse their indigenous identification, but standards vary from community to community, and also change over time – sometimes it becomes a very political issue, with certain factions within a community advocating for much tougher membership standards than others, and so it can depend on the outcome of the political battle between those different factions.
In practice, Australia doesn't have any central list of "who is indigenous". Every agency makes that decision for itself. For statistical purposes, the government just uses self-identification, and doesn't require any evidence of descent or acceptance by a recognised community. When it comes to "affirmative action" (reserved jobs, admission to educational institutions, scholarships, etc) and voting rights in representative bodies (such as the "land councils" through which indigenous communities own land), agencies usually require more than just self-identification: generally a letter or certificate issued by a recognised indigenous community body (often a land council), although sometimes other forms of evidence can be accepted instead.
> No way this could possibly go wrong.
There is a lot of controversy in the Australian indigenous community over so-called "box-tickers", who identify as indigenous, despite having only very remote indigenous ancestry, or even no such ancestry at all. The requirement for a letter/certificate issued by recognised community can be a big hurdle for such people, although given the political controversies over the standards for issuing such letters/certificates (and even occasional allegations of corruption), we can't rule out the possibility that some people with zero actual indigenous descent have successfully obtained such letters/certificates. Officially speaking, such people aren't actually indigenous, but the system will treat them as if they were. However, there was a case (in NSW) a few years ago where a woman claimed to be of indigenous descent, and had her claim endorsed by her local land council, which then accepted her as one of its members – a competing faction on the land council insisted her indigenous ancestry was bogus, gathered evidence of her genealogy, filed a formal complaint with the state government agency which manages land councils, and successfully convinced that agency to revoke her land council membership.
You wrote an entire essay on a completely irrelevant point. Don't be a pedant. It's obnoxious.
And if by "race" you mean something which is neither ethnicity nor skin colour, then that is a concept with very unclear applicability to contemporary Australia.
Finally, your needlessly hostile attitude is obnoxious.
were having a convo on a internet board, not having an academic debate. People say “skin color” colloquially when they mean the general concept of race/ethnicity. Is it not used like this in Australia?
The hostile attitude is because you decided to focus on a hyper-specific nuance that nobody cares about. And then write an entire essay about a non-point.
Its like if I were to focus in solely on you purposely misspelling “color” using non-American and then steer the convo into an endless quagmire about semantics. Can you see how obnoxious that would be?
I come to this website because it provides an opportunity for a level of discussion which is closer to an "academic debate" than a "convo on an internet board". If you find that obnoxious, maybe there is some other "internet board" out there which is more suitable for you.
> People say “skin color” colloquially when they mean the general concept of race/ethnicity. Is it not used like this in Australia?
You speak as if the "general concept of race/ethnicity" was identical in every country – it isn't. There are significant differences between how "race/ethnicity" is understood in Australia, and how it is understood in the US-to speak of just two countries. Do you understand those differences?
> The hostile attitude is because you decided to focus on a hyper-specific nuance that nobody cares about
Just because you don't care about a nuance doesn't mean nobody else does. Indeed, the comment you are complaining about was upvoted. And, I've posted many other comments just like the one you are complaining about in the 8+ years I've been here, and many of them have been upvoted as well.
> Its like if I were to focus in solely on you purposely misspelling “color” using non-American
There is a big difference between spelling differences between different Anglophone countries – which are trivial – and differences in how "race/ethnicity" is conceptualised in different countries – which are far from trivial.
Are you or are you not the one who misunderstood that distinction when you responded to my post using an American understanding of the phrase "skin color" (note the American spelling)?
> I come to this website because it provides an opportunity for a level of discussion which is closer to an "academic debate" than a "convo on an internet board". If you find that obnoxious, maybe there is some other "internet board" out there which is more suitable for you.
lol mate. An obsessive focus on a netcode assembly doesn't make people experts on political matters.
The political conversations on HN aren't deep. Actually, they're very superficial.
What's the phrase? "Performative erudition". You aren't having anything closer to academic debate than anywhere else. Let's call it "performative academia".
Your comment was talking about Australia. There are significant differences in how Australians and Americans understand issues such as ethnicity, race and skin colour, and trying to apply American understandings of those topics to Australia doesn't make much sense – which is part of what my comment was trying to convey. But, rather than using this as an opportunity to learn about those differences – about which you don't appear to know anything – you just dismissed it as "irrelevant". If you aren't interested in understanding race/ethnicity/etc issues in another country, why are you commenting about them?
Well, to clarify, your comment did not explicitly mention any country. However, in the context of the conversation, it seemed to be primarily talking about institutions such as the proposed Indigenous Voice in Australia, and the Maori electoral roll in New Zealand; I don't think it was primarily talking about the US since "co-governance" is much less on the agenda there (and the existing institution of tribal governments would seem to cover much of the demand for it anyway). As such, you were talking about race/ethnicity issues in other countries, without appearing to have any understanding of the differences between how those issues are understood in those countries as compared to your own.
Look at the NZ approach of taking race into consideration when prioritizing medical care.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-surgeons-must-now-con...
(Similarly, if you think a teacher is being too authoritarian with their students, you won't make your case any more convincing by making comparisons with crazed dictators.)
That sort of equality was more palatable to many.
The argument is “we can right the wrongs of past racism, but being racist in reverse”.
It’s amazing how many people buy into that argument.
Unsurprisingly, we did try this for a decade or two. It was an extensive and expensive failure and is widely researched and written about [1].
A minor boost to Māori in a waiting list point scoring system for list prioritisation has caused a knee jerk dismissal of the scheme as we see here. Absent from the shouting has been a solution to Māori living shorter lives with worse health [2]. The new scheme also reduces the impact of race on list priorities, as noted at the end of this article [3]. Race is a couple of points out of 100, most being clinical.
The point scoring system is a small part of the large changes underway in the system at the moment. The moves are primarily towards more autonomy for Māori within the healthcare system [4]. The background to this is a recognised failure in the system after a successful court action claiming Treaty of Waitangi obligations were not being met. They weren’t and aren’t [5].
With knowledge of the situation and what’s going on, ‘apartheid’ is a pretty radical take. To my knowledge even the dog whistle politicians in an election year haven’t called new the scheme apartheid.
Update: yes, our dog whistle politics have gone there.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795362...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/20/new-zealand-st...
[3] https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2...
[4] https://www.futureofhealth.govt.nz/maori-health-authority/
[5] https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/report-on-stage-one-of...
Consider two hungry kids at lunch. Consider the difference between stealing the fruit from one kid's plate, and giving extra fruit to the other kid. Both are special treatment. Think about what you can see that's different in these two situations that you would call the same thing.
And your analogy is a poor one for what is happening in NZ with regards to healthcare. Healthcare is a limited resource, and what NZ is doing is letting race be a factor when triaged patients in an environment of limited healthcare resources. You could literally be sicker than someone else, but if you're the wrong race, the other person get treatment first.
So for your analogy, it's more like there are two kids. One hasn't eaten in 3 days, the other 2 days, but the one that hasn't eaten in 3 days is a member of an "oppressive race" (without having committed any oppression themselves mind you, just their ancestors), so the other one gets to eat first.
You need to learn about it before you make claims like that. This isn’t the case, as the links provided describe and as I stated.
Race already is a factor in healthcare - the system is biased against Māori and this is an attempt to even it up.
Patients are triaged for medical care, it's always been that way - it's based on medical need, with the sickest treated first, and those who are less sick wait.
The new system now prioritized people based on race. You could be sicker than someone else, but if you're the wrong race, you wait.
This doesn't "even up" anything. It penalizes people for being the wrong race.
You don't solve racism, by being racist. It's an absurd idea.
Clinical need comes first.
My above links may help you.
“Capital & Coast and Hutt Valley DHBs are prioritising Māori and Pacific in our surgical scheduling processes. The patients’ ethnicity is taken into account along with their level of clinical urgency and the number of days they have been on the waiting list within a given clinical priority band. It is unlikely that any other patients will be significantly affected as a result of this work.” - media statement, May 2020
The last statement "it is unlikely any other patient will be significantly affected" is laughable.
The goal is to affect patients - prioritize a specific ethnic group, so either the change does nothing (then why do it at all?), or it prioritizes certain patients (and if it does it must deprioritize others).
So someone is scored 70 out of 100 in clinical need.
Then someone else is 69. But once you make the race adjustment, they are 71 and get treated first.
So instead of treating the most needy patients first, we penalize certain people for their race.
What’s important to the scenario though, is that at present, Māori and Pacific Islanders get seen less by specialists, less clinical tests, less treatment and then worse outcomes. They die several years earlier than their Pakeha peers. It’s incredible that this is acceptable, but here we are.
Māori and Pacific Islanders are being discriminated against by the system, it’s just that their race demerit points are not nicely documented.
So getting promoted on lists by a couple of points is an attempt to even it up via forced functionality.
I don’t think you and I are ever going to agree that positive description should be used.
Other things are being tried. Part of the massive and overdue restructuring that’s underway to our healthcare system is going to be interesting to watch. “In each local community, partnerships between Iwi-Māori Partnership Boards, Health New Zealand’s regional and district teams, and the wider community will ensure Māori voices are heard, embedded in plans and services, and that health equity for Māori is non-negotiable.” [1].
We will see how it goes. The structural changes so far have been rather painful and seem clumsy when viewed from my adjacent seat.
[1] https://www.futureofhealth.govt.nz/maori-health-authority/
Promoting one group by very definition penalized other groups. You can't have one without the other.
What’s important to the scenario though, is that at present, Māori and Pacific Islanders get seen less by specialists, less clinical tests, less treatment and then worse outcomes. They die several years earlier than their Pakeha peers. It’s incredible that this is acceptable, but here we are.
That's fine, then fix those issues. It's bizarre that a lack of medical care in one group is solved by reducing access to medical care in other groups.
If they don't want to follow a treaty they should rescind it. Until then it is the law of the land and it should be followed.
Or not, as parliament is free to decide. I think my previous statement on parliamentary supremacy stands for itself. If you have something specific to talk about from that Wikipedia page, it's best that you spell it out for us.
Stuff like this may have a certain level of "might makes right" (similar question for Hawaii, although there it's obvious who would win in a fight) but not always (Irish independence at close to the peak of the British Empire, the Cod Wars, that the US didn't keep all of Mexico after the war, just Texas, Arizona, California, etc.)
Of course they have a casus belli. They’d lose if there was a war though so there’s that.
We don't want another Holocaust or Gulag camps here ever again. I'm fine with restricting some speech. It's a small price to pay.
I see all these arguments waxing poetic about how dangerous it is to... I don't know, give anyone power? As if we haven't had these debates before. We have concrete examples of policies and behaviors that are harmful on fascist/Communist (big C is important) levels. We can compare someone's rhetoric and actions to those of people who have done the kinds of harm we want to prevent. We can use reasoning to parse their arguments instead of reacting emotionally. People do this every single day.
If it's really your concern that we can't define what dangerous ideologies are, then educate yourself, because we can.
It's very difficult because calling someone "Nazi" means you get to attack the "Nazi". So people who want to attack others just call them Nazis to justify it.
It's happened a lot in US politics, but for an example everyone here can agree on, "Ukraine is infested by Nazis" was one of the excuses for Russia invading Ukraine.
Yeah, that's not true. That isn't something that happens.
I'd be surprised if you can find even one news article about a non-fascist being called a Nazi and then attacked and everyone being ok with it. Nazis don't get punched as often as they should.
Russia invading Ukraine is not a good example. Much of the rest of the world said "No, you're full of shit and we're sending Ukraine missiles." I don't think anybody has actually supported Russia's "anti-Nazi" justification, even those countries economically bound to Russia and unwilling to resist them. It's just something Russia said, that doesn't mean it worked.
Further, international invasions are extremely different from internal politics are extremely different from personal/public interactions. You're painting broad strokes as if the entire planet of 8 billion people has the same mindset that "you can call anyone a Nazi and attack them." That doesn't even make sense. We are talking about US culture.
Finally, I shouldn't even be replying since it doesn't seem you read the majority of my previous comment. I've already said this: we know what Nazis are. You can call anybody anything, but whether or not they're a Nazi depends on if they hold Nazi beliefs.
NAFTA or TTIP — unless I've fallen for the exact same propaganda that led to Brexit — would have been better examples.
You're welcome to not like the details of the democratic mechanism within the EU; ironically this is in part because some of the member state governments thought that making the EU more democratic would usurp the sovereignty of the member states.
• The Vatican (a "country" on paper; but seriously?)
• The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta (not to be confused with the country of Malta; this lot have no territory)
• The Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
• The African Development Bank
• The Andean Community (another free trade area)
• Both the Commonwealth of Independent States (former soviet bloc) and the Commonwealth of Nations (former British Empire)
• The International Olympic Committee
…
The list of organisations sending delegations is pretty big, even just limiting to the ones important enough to get into Wikipedia; you can probably find a whole bunch more of small ones.
I did not use the word "just".
It is also a FTA. And unlike most (all?) other FTAs, it has democratic elections. All the funky stuff it can do is tied into that democratic process, because that is what the member states wanted.
> into a single country ("ever closer union")
The former is not the latter.
> which unfortunately would be the death of democracy in Europe
Bothering with elections and MPs is a bizarro mirror-world way of doing that.
That aside: Turning the EU into a country would require a massive treaty change; there's no way at all to forecast what this might look like given it's not even on the horizon yet.
They weren't even able to give UK citizens in the EU a way to claim EU citizenship despite several politicians wanting to make it available, because "EU citizen" is really just a shorthand for "citizen of an EU member state" rather than a coherent thing in its own right.
> because the EU is a totalitarian system
I work near to Checkpoint Charlie, I've been to the DDR and Stasi museums; if you think the EU is "totalitarian" you don't know what those words mean.
The way you're using the word, I think 100% of all treaties would fail, given they are not (generally? Ever?) negotiated directly by parliaments.
MEPs are pretty much powerless, which is why the EP fills up with joke candidates who think the EU should be abolished or who don't even bother turning up at all.
Turning the EU into a country would require a massive treaty change
Why? Since Lisbon was rejected the EU treaties have been "self amending" (i.e. worthless). The EU routinely goes beyond its treaty-granted powers without pushback. It just gave itself powers to censor things globally, a power that appears in no treaty.
Also the EU already has: borders, taxes, a civil service, an army, a spy agency, a diplomatic corps, law making powers that override all others, a flag, a national anthem, a president, a cabinet, a central bank, a currency and dozens of other country-like things I'm forgetting. It's already more than half way there.
if you think the EU is "totalitarian" you don't know what those words mean.
The EU is a totalitarian system; the freedoms you have today that didn't exist in the DDR are because the EU has not yet been able to completely subsume the post-war countries and institutions put in place by the allies.
Nonetheless the fact remains that the EU is not a real democracy. In a real democracy, elections mean things. Elections to the EU Parliament don't because the MEPs aren't empowered to change anything. This reality was made brutally apparent when the self-proclaimed Parliament was entirely cut out of the process of choosing the leader of the government. Instead you got vDL, someone with no history as an MEP and who didn't campaign. Why did she get the job? Nobody knows! The tiny number of people who theoretically made that decision point-blank refuse to tell anyone how it was made. That's way closer to DDR style leadership than democracy.
Second: UK parliament theoretically has this power, but in practice private members bills are either trivial, filibustered, or both ("nurses should have free parking at the hospitals they work in"). In practice this is up to the government, and given how much of the uk government is "convention" rather than constitution, it's almost impossible to untangle it without at least a politics degree.
Third: can you name literally even one other trade agreement that tries? If there is one, and there may be, I've not heard of it.
this is based on the idea of streitbare demokratie[0]. Which basically states that the foundation of the state (bundestag, bundesregerung and courts) has the right AND duty to defend itself against parties/elements who wish to abolish the "freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung" (freedom/democratic foundation/order).
This concept actually is worked out in various different laws in the Grundgesetz.
It solves the problem of the paradox of intolerance quiet well in my opinion, and considering germany's history it is a very, very good system to have.
For those that don't know, so-called "deadnaming" "is the act of referring to a transgender or non-binary person by a name they used prior to transitioning, such as their birth name."
And these kinds of laws also exist in more extreme "free-speech" countries like the United States (where the guarantee of free speech doesn't cover, for example, libel).
I'd be very surprised if the German law (if actually policed) expands to anything an individual might be insulted by, especially if the offense is one of self image.
You must make intentionally untrue statements with the intent to harm that causes harm.
The truth is a perfect defense. Even if you thought you were lying, you are protected. If you believe what you are saying, you are protected. If you did not know for certain that you said a lie, you are protected. If you did not mean to cause harm, you are protected. If no harm occurred, even if you tried to cause harm, you are protected.
The standard is extremely hard to reach, possibly even too hard, and it is clearly qualitatively different than most other countries.
> The truth is a perfect defense. Even if you thought you were lying, you are protected. If you believe what you are saying, you are protected.
IIUC the truth is a perfect defense in most states, but in some states maliciously stated truths (insults, more or less) can be defamatory. For example, see Johnson v Johnson in Rhode Island, where one Clifford Johnson was required to pay compensatory damages for (more or less accurately) calling his ex-wife a "[redacted] whore" in public. (He was also initially ordered to pay punitive damages, but that was reversed on appeal.)
> If you did not know for certain that you said a lie, you are protected.
I don't think this is the case in most states. If you say something with reckless disregard for the truth, it can be defamatory.
> If you did not mean to cause harm, you are protected.
I think this is typically only true of defaming public figures.
Much like many other things. But, alas, we do not yet live in a world where people treat each other with even the simplest basic respect and we have to force the issue via laws.
Here's a quick test. Let's say Bob goes for a walk, but Bob's neighbor, John, is a complete dick and whenever Bob leaves his house to go for a walk, John follows him and just hurls non-stop insults at Bob.
Should John's behavior be illegal? You could argue that as long as he's not trespassing anywhere, and he has the right to free speech, then John should be legally allowed to do this. In that case, it makes no sense to make deadnaming a criminal offense. There's no discussion to be had, as we've decided that asshole-ish speech is not illegal.
If you say no, it's verbal harassment, and should be illegal, then you're saying free speech does have limits, and we just gotta decide if deadnaming is bad enough to be illegal.
So unless you follow someone around and harass them - just saying someone's so-called "deadname" shouldn't be illegal.
I worry that we've started to use the ponderous blunt government legal system more and more widely for things that used to be resolved via society and community censure. The law should be restricted to the most serious and large scale community disrupting acts, not for policing every bit of cheating, insults and lying. It's very unsuited for the latter.
Hurricane declining to accept KiwiFarms' /36 into its BGP table is community censure.
On a local scale, 'community censure' may work well. But not so much on a global scale, where a few determined activists anywhere in the world have the power to get a person fired, take away various online accounts or services, or maybe even have their banking services removed, all over issues of 'speech', with no due process.
100% agree. But since public shame and censure no longer work for limiting people's actions[1] that negatively affect others, what else do we have?
[1] And any time anyone tries, people scream "CANCEL CULTURE!!!!".
Which would also apply to places like pre-Musk Twitter, reddit, tumblr and Facebook (and indeed every social media site), all of which have lead to targeted and sustained harassment of people, often for things they didn't actually do.
"Who directed 'The Matrix'?" probably shouldn't be a controversial question, let alone one with potential answers that are considered offensive or even illegal.
Not everyone is a world famous artist that certainly can hire a whole team of body guard h24 all year around if they feel like it's appropriate.
I'm not aware of the the law in question. It seems strange to me to target specifically naming the person with this or that name, rather than cover the case in a more generic way like creating threats on someone's life or social integrity through public release of intimate information.
Yours is not a remotely apt comparison of the situations.
You can still have an intellectually unhealthy society subject to groupthink and stagnation if you make it illegal to say many things.
It’s actually the opposite. Plenty of authoritarian regimes look awfully peaceful because the only acceptable views are the government approved ones.
Id take political strife any day over forced “political harmony”. Far better to “air the dirty laundry” than pretend it doesn’t exist.
Political harmony is a problem if forced, but a common vision shared by much of society is a strength if arrived at through healthy, intellectually honest debate.
Political debate is fine and healthy, but it should not be possible to end a debate by being louder, more obnoxious and more ready to do violence than the other debaters.
I prefer a messy, publicly conflicting government to a smooth running authoritarian police state any day
While I agree that making it a crime is a bit over the top, it's just not a good look to complain about it.
[2] (with an NSFW header image) explains that it only covers "[deadnaming] with the aim of harming the person" which is completely different from "deadnaming [is] a crime", right?
[1] https://apnews.com/article/germany-transgender-legal-registr...
There are always going to be people who are fearful and ignorant and looking for a convenient external something to blame their problems on. There are also the people who are raised with those views and others who feel excluded and find a place to belong with a group of "outsiders". I don't think we can ever get rid of racist ideologies. We've evolved to be tribal and distrustful of outsiders and some will struggle with those feelings more than others. We're always going to struggle with racism and that's going to include Nazis. That doesn't mean we're powerless against them, but censorship and oppression certainly isn't the solution.
> And how are countries like Germany still doing kinda okay
Germany is not okay. Personally, I think Germany takes things way too far and that state censorship really is dangerous, but I also recognize that they've been in a very difficult position since the end of the war. I can't really fault them for over-correcting, but I do feel for the German people who have to live under unjust laws.
To their credit they've also relaxed a bit over the years. For example, they lifted the ban on Mein Kampf and it flew off the shelves (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38495456) not because the country was full of secret Nazis this whole time just waiting for it, but because the German people strongly desire freedom.
It's worth noting that even in Germany and other EU counties that gave up basic freedoms in an effort to oppose racism there are still racists. Innocent people get hurt by oppressive laws and racists gain a talking point for recruiting that resonates with a lot of people. It's a lot easier to feed into a person's victim complex when they're actually being oppressed.
Most of these laws stems from a time where monarchy wanted to suppress unsanctioned speech.
The Nazis made a lot of political capital because people wanted them banned and censored. Of course that was just political play and they set new standards for suppression of information and propaganda, but that came after they got into power.
> Also of note is that Germany already had and still has laws against numerous forms
> of speech, most notably anything that could threaten the public order, which you
> could mold into a justification to basically stop any speech.
There are laws against hate speech: "Volksverhetzung", a more direct translation: "incitement of the people", i.e. hate speech with the intent of causing mob violence or the persecution of minorities. There are also laws against disrupting the public order: "Erregung öffentlichen Ärgernisses", so "causing public offence", but those don't really target speech, they're more about taking your pants off in public and peeing on the sidewalk.
Also, neither of those laws are from the time of the monarchy.
> The Nazis made a lot of political capital because people wanted them banned and
> censored. Of course that was just political play and they set new standards for
> suppression of information and propaganda, but that came after they got into
> power.
> Wir gehen in den Reichstag hinein, um uns im Waffenarsenal der Demokratie mit
> deren eigenen Waffen zu versorgen. Wir werden Reichstagsabgeordnete, um die
> Weimarer Gesinnung mit ihrer eigenen Unterstützung lahmzulegen. Wenn die
> Demokratie so dumm ist, uns für diesen Bärendienst Freifahrkarten und Diäten zu
> geben, so ist das ihre eigene Sache.
> We enter the Reichstag [Weimar Republic parliament] to stock ourselves with
> weapons from democracy's own arsenal. We become assemblymen of the Reichstag to
> take down the spirit of Weimar with its own support. If democracy is so stupid
> to supply us with hall passes and diets for this disservice we do to it, then
> that is its own problem.
I picked the example because it can collide with freedom of speech as you can imagine. If you demonstrating something and your placard is seen as insulting, the police can force you to take it down.
Laws against speech like "Volksverhetzung" were already in place in the late 19th century. The monarchy was ended in 1918. There is a constant with laws restricting speech and it is mostly those in power just wanting to do so. That was mostly the case in Germany.
> As Goebbels, the Nazi's chief propagandist, himself said
Perhaps he said that so people start to destroy democracy themselves. He had a knack for propaganda and fooling people.
> To their credit they've also relaxed a bit over the years. For example, they
> lifted the ban on Mein Kampf and it flew off the shelves (https://www.bbc.com
> /news/world-europe-38495456) not because the country was full of secret Nazis
> this whole time just waiting for it, but because the German people strongly
> desire freedom.
The reason Mein Kampf could not be distributed until a few years ago is because after Hitler's death, the copyright on Mein Kampf fell to the state of Bavaria (for convoluted reasons), and Bavaria just never reprinted it, nor gave license to reprint it. Therefore, any copying of the book was piracy and was prosecuted under piracy laws. Because German copyright ends 70 years after the death of the author, this no longer applies, and the book can be printed and distributed again.
Note that public distribution of the book for nazi propaganda purposes is still banned under German hate speech laws ("Volksverhetzung") - not because it is this particular book, but because all nazi propaganda in public is blanket banned. This is why the now-released official Bavarian-government-approved copy of Mein Kampf contains additional commentary by historians to situate Hitler's remarks in historic context.
Bavaria used copyright to enforce an "unofficial" ban on the book. It's ridiculous to try to paint the situation as one where Bavaria just never got around to reprinting it.
> To their credit they've also relaxed a bit over the years. For example,
> they lifted the ban on Mein Kampf
Because it's essentially impossible to ensure that any particular advertisement will only be seen by adults, this however means that games not approved by the USK may practically not be publicly advertised at all. Because game publishing companies have a strong incentive to be allowed to advertise their games, they will often self-censor to ensure USK approval. This is done for commercial, not legal reasons; if the companies didn't want to advertise their games, they wouldn't have to abide by USK guidelines.
It is also illegal to advertise tobacco in Germany, and it is also illegal to sell tobacco to minors. Unless you believe that this constitutes a "tobacco ban" in Germany, it is hard to argue that video games are "banned" under this law.
That said, the 2018 change in USK policy that allows video games showing anti-constitutional symbolism to still be approved as long as the message is clearly anti-nazi is still perfectly reasonable, and probably a good development, as it aligns USK policy in this regard with policy that it previously took on other media.
That's a ban by any reasonable standard. That's like saying that a requirement that churches be built on the moon wasn't banning churches, or a requirement that Jews who own businesses pay a 95% tax isn't a ban on Jews owning businesses. In some technical sense it's not a complete ban, but if the government says that if you do X, you face so many restrictions that you'd go broke, that's defacto a ban. It's an excuse made by people who like to pretend that they're not getting their hands dirty by literally banning something, while banning it in practice.
In the US we have our own problems with censorship. I've had to track down copies of video games released overseas to get uncensored versions myself. Censorship in art is a huge problem, but it's a lot more dangerous when people can't even recognize when it's happening.
https://www.racket.news/p/madness-american-satirist-cj-hopki...
Just when you may have thought things couldn’t get any crazier: American playwright and humorist C.J. Hopkins, profiled in this space on numerous occasions, has been sent a “punishment order” by a German judge, offering him a Sophie’s Choice of 60 days in jail or 3,600 euros.
His crime? Essentially, insulting the German health minister in a tweet, and using a scarcely-visible image of a Swastika on a mask in a book critical of the global pandemic response, The Rise of the New Normal Reich. He was first accused of this “crime” in June, shortly after Roger Waters was placed under investigation for wearing his clearly satirical “Pink” costume in a stage performance in Berlin. As I wrote when C.J. was charged weeks later, authorities claim that through the use of the mask image, C.J. was “disseminating propaganda, the contents of which are intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization.”
I am confused as to what this last sentence has to do with anything.
Germany treads very lightly when it comes to limiting speech, even for Nazi things.
They have plenty of far-right racist groups that model themselves after the Nazis.
As long as you don’t display the swastika gratuitously (there is no blanket ban), you’re quite free to organize a racist political party and takes seats in the government.
Hell, there are still SS alumni groups in Germany. They arent banned.
No.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/13/afd-party-ban-ge...
"Considers" can mean someone had an idle thought about it. It can also mean that the full apparatus of the government is able to do something, and is allowed by its own rules to do so, and just hasn't yet. This "considers" is the second kind.
That was my entire point.
This is the image it projects, and maybe it was even true in the past. But not any more.
https://www.racket.news/p/madness-american-satirist-cj-hopki...
American playwright and humorist C.J. Hopkins, profiled in this space on numerous occasions, has been sent a “punishment order” by a German judge, offering him a Sophie’s Choice of 60 days in jail or 3,600 euros.
His crime? Essentially, insulting the German health minister in a tweet, and using a scarcely-visible image of a Swastika on a mask in a book critical of the global pandemic response, The Rise of the New Normal Reich.
They're literally punishing a guy for calling someone else a Nazi due to their political policies, under anti-Nazi laws. It's the wrong way around but they don't seem to care, the victim in this case was protesting against their COVID laws so down with those sorts.
Also remember the EU just handed itself the power to force tech firms to globally censor anything the EU decides is misinformation, which in practice appears to be anything that disagrees with their policies or ideology.
You're equivocating between two different meanings of "Nazi" in this sentence.
> And how are countries like Germany still doing kinda okay despite making it illegal to do Nazi stuff?
They aren't, they moved the Overton window so far via a ratchet effect that they're unable to calmly discuss immigration policy.
But I think EFF would have a stronger case if we had common carriers following net neutrality laws. Content decisions are in the hands of upstream ISPs because we don't have the right regulations in place.
EFF has clearly tried here. The case is strong. But it's the edge cases where we need the net neutrality regulations most.
What makes HE well-positioned to be able to determine what constitutes a "legitimate safety concern"? What happens when a pro-life organization or a corrupt politician starts leaning on ISPs to enforce their own views of what constitutes a "legitimate safety concern"?
Cloudflare denied service to KF on an imminent threat to people's lives, which could have been justified on a short term basis. Their refusal to reinstate service months later strains the credulity of this rationale, and shows that it was never really the goal.
I'm going to guess that if we ever get a post-mortem on what really is happening inside HE, what we'll find is not "a well-reasoned, dispassionate debate occurred and a consensus was reached in favor of censorship". Instead it will be like "someone powerful in the company made a unilateral decision and dissent was absent because everyone understood that it would have negative career consequences."
However, I would argue that KF is a long-term threat whose imminent dangers were honestly a very narrow lens that barely appeased a company that shouldn’t have been making the call in the first place. Their position in last year’s debate created a very volatile atmosphere for a solid month—a situation which would be volatile once again if brought back.
> When a person uses a room in a house to engage in illegal or just terrible activity, we don’t call on the electric company to cut off the light and heat to the entire house, or the post office to stop delivering mail. We know that this will backfire in the long run. Instead, we go after the bad guys themselves and hold them accountable.
Although I see your point, the quote above made me switch to thinking it’s not okay.
Now, we're deputizing landlords. If that isn't the perfect public-private partnership, I don't know what is.
If I can't have full, unfettered free speech, then it's the end of the world.
Let's put aside the slippery-slope arguments. The real world is messy, with ridiculously obscure corner cases that make blanket statements and policies practically impossible to operationalize without significant collateral damage.
Shouldn't a more realistic approach be something like "give me speech as free as is possible", with considerations that are negotiable, such as, "does this speech promote destroying the institutions on which the speech itself is based on", etc...
As an extension of the Spolky-ism that all non-trivial abstractions are leaky, all production systems have edge and corner cases that can't (or shouldn't) be contained within a blanket uniform policy.
Yeah, it's messy. But, as with many regulations written in blood, there are legitimate use cases where exceptions to blanket policies and statements are better to include than not include.
That's not a considerable negotiation. Give people power and they will use literally every single bit of it and then some. ISPs should have absolutely no say, in any way, of what people do. They shouldn't even be able to know anything about what I'm doing past what is needed for the ISP to function.
This is going back to slippery slope argument issue.
What makes you think there isn't pushback to create an equilibrium of policies?
Why does it necessarily need to be one-sided, where giving in to one iota entails giving in to the whole enchilada?
Complex systems entail dialogue and pushback across competing incentives and motivations. Yes, each side works on the basis of self-interest, but what is to say that giving one inch necessarily entials giving up entirely, unless the original premise is that one cannot give up anything (i.e., uncompromising by definition). That doesn't seem to scale in any real-world system, only ideal systems.
Because every single time this is what happens. Your argument basically comes down to creating some speedbumps to slow down how long it will take, not whether it will or not create the same predictable outcome.
I'd rather not live in a place like the UK where SWAT teams do over-night raids of peoples houses because they tweeted something mean. The sort of situation I'm sure people said would never happen when the ball got rolling decades ago.
As long as there's a split between powers and a choice, there's just as little need to restrict that as there is to restrict how for example spam filtering works.
Up until the point you become disruptive to the service, other customers or third parties for ex. DDoS attacks.
Absolute statements like these are silly. Making comparisons with houses is quite silly if you can figuratively "take your house somewhere else", people don't have to just turn the other cheek.
Though it would indeed be better if law(makers) would target malicious activity, but providing a billboard for it should not be mandatory.
It never was absolute. We prescribed limits with laws.
Utility companies should be the last to declare them.
"Slippery slope" is you denying the causality of a relationship. But, it does. Heard of Cloudflare?