10 ms·

Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

233 points by generic_user 9y ago

nkristoffersen 9y ago
Don't we already block and shutdown Islamic terrorist sites? How are Nazi terrorist sites different?
- ebcode 9y ago
  You're getting warmer.
Overtonwindow 9y ago
"[W]e strongly believe that what GoDaddy, Google, and Cloudflare did here was dangerous. That’s because, even when the facts are the most vile, we must remain vigilant when platforms exercise these rights. Because Internet intermediaries, especially those with few competitors, control so much online speech, the consequences of their decisions have far-reaching impacts on speech around the world." Well said. I'm glad EFF is not burrying their heads in the sand and hiding behind the "but they're nazis!" Excuse.
- Overtonwindow 9y ago
  One more quote because I think it sums things up very well: "Protecting free speech is not something we do because we agree with all of the speech that gets protected. We do it because we believe that no one—not the government and not private commercial enterprises—should decide who gets to speak and who doesn’t."
  - infinite8s 9y ago
    Although the only thing actually protected by the First Amendment is protection against censorship of speech by the government. Private commercial enterprises can do what they want (since technically you should be able to move to a competitor).
    - BearGoesChirp 9y ago
      1. Even if the First Amendment is only limited to the government, the concept of free speech predates and extends far beyond the First Amendment. 2. Does the Constitution apply if the government allows private entities to take over roles of the government? There is the concept of utilities and common carriers that extend upon this logic. 3. Even without the above points, one should still be able to see a double standard being applied to violent/extremist speech. Saying a company can do whatever it wants doesn't explain what the company actually wants. If the company is applying a double standard to what speech it allows, then the true wants of the company is something we need to discuss and decide do we want to tolerate.
      - Overtonwindow 9y ago
        An interesting example for your comment might be the use of private prisons, and probation companies.
    - base698 9y ago
      This is also dangerous for clear reasons. If speech deemed bad is censored we may have no examples with which to contrast good ideas. Think of free speech as natural selection for ideas. John Stuart Mill thought free speech should extend into the private world: Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them.
    - stillhere 9y ago
      What happens when corporations have more power and influence than the government? Furthermore, what happens when the government do not protect free speech themselves, which is exactly what happened in Charlottesville? The protesters had a permit to be there, the legal right, but the permit was revoked once the protest began. The police did not protect the protesters and funneled them straight into the violent mob. It is a frightening situation where there is literally no place for dissenting viewpoints.
- johnrichardson 9y ago
  Indeed. It seems as though the entire West has lost its collective mind about the importance of free speech and free expression as bedrock principles which ensure peace, stability and prosperity. Additionally, I view these acts of censorship as a great opportunity for blockchain and other nascent decentralized web technologies to take off. It's a classic case of the innovator's dilemma - when a company or industry seems ascendant, it becomes complacent to new threats, and the seeds of its destruction are sown right underneath it. Sometimes it even assists in the process. (Microsoft's neglect of IE, allowing Mozilla to flourish in the mid-2000s, is one of my favorite examples.) With their suppression of speech, these centralized services are quite possibly hastening their own demise.
  - netsharc 9y ago
    Someone needs to invent a Godwin-like rule about the word "blockchain" being used in Internet conversations...
    - firmgently 9y ago
      I don't understand how Godwin's rule is useful. Its only effect on arguments is that on top of the inevitable "Hitler" comment you now also get an inevitable "Godwin" follow-up, usually delivered with the air of having somehow won the argument. It's beyond redundant IMO.
      - zimpenfish 9y ago
        There's no such thing as "Godwin's Rule" - it's "Godwin's Law" and it said nothing about winning arguments; only that as the length of an argument increased, the probability that a comparison with the Nazis would appear approached 1. You can't invoke it either. It's a statistical observation.
        wu-ikkyu 9y ago
        How is that a useful observation, though? As the length of any internet argument grows, the probability of anything being said would approach 1.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  It was dangerous, but also their right to do. The CEO of Cloudflare called out his own action as capricious and not good practice, but he still did it. Because hey, they're literally nazis. And anyways, one of Cloudflare's major services is filtering out spam, noise, and malicious traffic...
  - gcp 9y ago
    The situation was called out clearly for what it was. It was his right to do it, and it was understandable that he did it, and he should be able to do it. The problem is that the centralization of these services gives them so much power that it's problematic for free speech that they do it. The latter is the problem.
- mc32 9y ago
  Can't agree more. Today it's Nazis, tomorrow it's not showing enough support for the chosen candidate. This is the one slippery slope. It's evident in PC-speech. Today's PC speech is not the PC speech from the 90s. And it's not that I don't like Pc speech. I prefer it. But I also don't want it to be the only kind of speech one can use for discussion. Try and have any good philosophical argument without breaking PC boundaries. It's a scary thing when one group controls the narrative of what is acceptable and unacceptable speech.
  - dandersh 9y ago
    No, there is no slippery slope. This is a group that advocates an ideology that, when it was put in place, resulted in catastrophe for mankind. In other words, what they advocate is what exists at the bottom of the slope. You know, Godwin's Law and all that?
    - mc32 9y ago
      So, what next, the communists or Marxists because the ideology they espouse caused even more deaths? I agree they are a hateful group. An odious group of people possibly only superseded in their vileness by extremist religious fanatics who won't hesitate to kill, but we're not shutting their speech down, are we? In my view, this is one of those things that is binary. Either you have free speech, or you don't. There is no in between, finessing it. You end up with lese majeste and other nonsense bullshit.
      - dandersh 9y ago
        This post is wrong on so many levels. Those ideologies did not have the hatred and violence at their core that Nazism did. That's why there is no "Godwins Law" when it comes to Marxism. That's my point: This is the most reviled philosophy that currently exists, and people are complaining about "free speech" when previously they would shriek "Godwins Law" whenever comparisons are made. That's how far we've fallen. Saying that free speech is binary is incredibly misguided and a root cause of the problem. It's overly simplistic and absolutist and quite frankly, is complete and total nonsense. At some point something will be uttered that you or some other "free speech absolutist" will object to.
- mar77i 9y ago
  It can't be phrased clearer while still distancing themselves from the cause clearly and coherently... unlike other people. On that same note: Good riddance. Policy and processes are probably in no case ever too slow to take effect. Thanks to Google and GoDaddy for Pavlov'ing me towards reasonable human understanding, and thanks for EFF for making me aware that that there's a problem with "learning" things that way.
- mcbruiser3 9y ago
  because it takes balls to stick up for freedom these days and let's be honest, most people just don't have the balls these days. fear is winning.
- novaleaf 9y ago
  except they are. They say "we agree with the ban" but then say "it's dangerous!" of course it's dangerous, and yes, the speech is vile. but freedom of speech doesn't stop when we are insulted.
cal5k 9y ago
It actually makes me incredibly optimistic about the future of humanity to know that such people exist. It's important to fight for the rights of all - you never know when your cause or beliefs will be in the crosshairs instead of a group as obviously vile as neo-nazis.
- ebola1717 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure to fight for people's rights, you have to fight against nazis. At least that's what all my history books told me we did in world war 2.
  - UnpossibleJim 9y ago
    as unfortunate as it may be, you not only have to fight against the nazis ideals, but also for their right to hold them and speak them in a public forum, like any other citizen. That's from the history books about the country's founding.
    - ebola1717 9y ago
      Nope. Nazi speech is banned in Germany cause they learned their lesson.
      - UnpossibleJim 9y ago
        I thought we were talking about America, here. I might have been mistaken. Nazi speech, as well as a great number of things are illegal in Germany that aren't in America. We have completely different foinding documents, government policies and laws.
      - e9 9y ago
        We all know Nazi are bad, no one in their right mind will deny it. But the way they are currently handled through violence and censorship is not right and downright illegal. You are feeding their anger instead of squashing their ideas. We are American citizens and should respect each others right for free speech and engage in civil debate over ideas we disagree. If we resolve to silencing and violence without debate how are we better? Have you talked to any Nazi? Are you sure they know history and what Nazi stands for? etc etc etc I personally haven't met one ever but when I do I won't punch them with a fist but punch them with debate.
deckar01 9y ago
> SUSPENSION AND CANCELLATION. Google may in its sole discretion, suspend or cancel Registrant’s Registered Name registration (a) if Registrant breaches this Agreement (including a breach of any of the representations and warranties in Section 7); (b) to comply with a court order or other legal requirement; (c) as required by ICANN, a Registry Operator, or law enforcement; (d) to protect the integrity and stability of the Services; (e) if there was an error in the registration process for such Registered Name, or (f) if Registrant’s Account is disabled or terminated. https://payments.google.com/payments/apis-secure/get_legal_document?ldt=domainstos https://payments.google.com/payments/apis-secure/get_legal_d... I wonder which clause they cited to execute the suspension.
- Miner49er 9y ago
  Interesting. I'm not a lawyer. Could the DailyStorm sue Google over this? I don't see anything in that agreement that says Google could've put their domain on client hold.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
nsnick 9y ago
"on the Internet, any tactic used now to silence neo-Nazis will soon be used against others, including people whose opinions we agree with"
cup 9y ago
Should all forms of speech be defended and accessible in a public domain? Should instructions on how to make explosives be accessible and defended?
- zaroth 9y ago
  Most importantly, understand that it is not the speech which is being defended.
- Overtonwindow 9y ago
  Not saying they should, but they have. Many times. The most famous example would be the anarchist cookbook which is still being printed and sold
- gragas 9y ago
  Yes.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- carry_bit 9y ago
  Should strong encryption software be accessible and defended? Do not forget the fight for PGP.
- solomatov 9y ago
  In Brandenburg v Ohio, Supreme court stated that only speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" should be punished. This is called Brandenburg paradigm and it's currently a legal standard for what's considered hate speech in US. See more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
yarg 9y ago
This is a multifaceted debate; cloudflare is under no obligation what-so-ever to keep retain any customer - unless it has placed itself under a contractual obligation to do so. The neo-nazi sites themselves should in general not be interfered with from a governmental level - but there should be limitations of even this restriction, when it comes to the advocacy, planning and execution of violence. In a more general sense I see the silencing of free-speech on the internet as a call to move to a more decentralised structure - as per what seemed to be the original intent - we generally seem to be moving yet further away from such a structure; although there are a significant number of emerging distributed technologies - as yet they seem to be niche in their utilisation. (Somewhat tangentally, I see the free speech and public emergence of the now emboldened neo-nazis as somewhat a good thing, they were always there - but now they're in the public eye.)
Pfhreak 9y ago
The takeaway from this for me is not, "Don't get rid of Nazis", but rather, "Have a clear criteria and process for when you will remove content. Follow that process." Great, 100% agreed with that. Be clear and up front about terms of service, and be clear and open when they are violated. That said, I'm not 100% agreed that "Whatever you use against Neo-Nazis will be used 'against the ones you love'." That's a slippery slope argument that I personally don't believe. Neo-nazis are such a different class of evil, that it's hard for me to see the same practices being used against someone who is not them.
- generic_user 9y ago
  Ok then, lets give Trump, the DOJ and Jeff Sessions the impetus to start drafting legislation to fight 'internet hate speech' and see what they come up with. edit: > That's a slippery slope argument Its not. These discussions will be taken over by the political establishment and the courts very quickly with very real consequences.
  - Pfhreak 9y ago
    This seems like a false equivalence to me, given that Google (et al) are not the government nor acting due to pressure from the government. I do understand and value the concern around legislating free speech, but I think different rules apply for governments and corporations.
    - generic_user 9y ago
      It only takes one lawsuit that goes to the supreme court to turn this whole debate into a federal legislative debate about civil rights or some other expansive constitutional issue. When your in a situation where domain registrars and other core infrastructure are making judgements about what political speech they will allow on the internet then I would imagine your very close to a whole host of issues that cut the core of fundamental rights. That's why CloudFlare is so skittish, they know where this could go. Eventually this rough shot approach is going to hit someone with the resources to fight back. Lets imagine Breitbart gets nuked what then? It's only a matter of time before there is an incident like that. And when it happens its already to late to turn back.
generic_user 9y ago
We have to be steadfast to the idea that defending the free speech that you might find repulsive is defending your own right to free speech.
- randrews 9y ago
  That's a great way to put it! I am going to use that.
xupybd 9y ago
"It’s unclear whether this is for a limited amount of time, or whether Google has decided to effectively take ownership of the dailystormer.com domain permanently" Wait, what, they can do this? So if I get Google to host my domain they can just take it at will? Given the value of some domains that's insane. Google must be on shaky legal ground here.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  I was surprised by this too, but Google is one of the biggest kids on the playground right now, so I guess it's natural for them to throw their weight around. Obvious note: Outsourcing your stuff to a 3rd party like that is risky, and should be considered so
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    It's not really about them being a big kid in the playground ... they're surely a minor player in the DNS hosting market. It's more that their internal extremism means they feel justified in doing this sort of thing because they feel 'dangerous' speech must be suppressed. I am concluding that Google is no longer trustworthy enough to run a search engine.
CaptSpify 9y ago
I'm super proud to be a member of the EFF. It's hard to keep a clear head in emotionally tense times like these. It's groups like the EFF that help everyone. If you can: https://supporters.eff.org/donate https://supporters.eff.org/donate
- randrews 9y ago
  Yep. My reaction to this article exactly. "Hm, I guess I get to keep donating to the EFF."
- tortasaur 9y ago
  I agree. The ACLU, on the other hand, has begun to rationalize their way out of defending white nationalists. Not exactly a very good defender of civil liberties if they start drawing ideological lines as to who they defend. I had just started donating to them in the last week, too; I felt a bit silly canceling so soon.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    source on the ACLU thing?
    - manco 9y ago
      https://www.wsj.com/articles/aclu-changes-policy-on-defending-hate-groups-protesting-with-firearms-1503010167 https://www.wsj.com/articles/aclu-changes-policy-on-defendin...
emmelaich 9y ago
There are many good quotes on freedom of speech to ponder.[1] I think my favourite is Mencken's. > The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. A close second is Wilde's: > “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.” [1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/freedom-of-speech https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/freedom-of-speech
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  Mencken was of course famously anti-semetic and racist, though the claims of his support of the Nazi's may be overstated. One interesting quote in this regard is this: "Any defense of Germany was impossible, he concluded, ''so long as the chief officer of the German state continues to make speeches worthy of an Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, and his followers imitate, plainly with his connivance, the monkey-shines of the American Legion at its worst.''" Weird to see Hitler, before he became the go-to bad guy, being compared with classic American racism and political violence, with the implication that better is expected of him.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dandersh 9y ago
This fetishization of "free speech" has to stop. These people do not respect free speech. They do not respect an open society. They do not respect freedom. They wish to destroy all of these things and they are entirely upfront about it. And yet all I've read the past few days is hand wringing about the "rights" of those who wish to destroy that of which open societies have built. At least the citizens of the early 1930's didn't have a historical reference for their passivity. What's your excuse?
- mixedCase 9y ago
  > These people do not respect free speech. You're right, they don't. Are you suggesting you do? And since we're talking about nazis and historical references, allow me to bring up four relevant words about something we've learned about their murderous regime and their abuse of power: "First they came for..."
  - dandersh 9y ago
    You do realize it was THE NAZIS that "first they came for..." right? You are literally using the oppression that this group levied on other people as a defense for their views. I didn't realize I was on 4chan or Reddit. Are people seriously this detached from history? I respect free speech. I don't respect absolutist speech. Unfortunately many people (including, apparently yourself) are unable to tell the difference.
    - mixedCase 9y ago
      EDIT: Here was an anger-fueled answer about not stooping as low as nazis and how the erosion of free speech has a snowball effect. There's irony in defending peace with anger, so I've deleted it. So I'll just remind anyone reading this: Life is short. Enjoy and defend the freedoms you have now while you can; for the road to hell is paved with good intentions and we never know when it could be our turn to become the marginalized.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
tekromancr 9y ago
I really don't understand the resistance here. I have heard no arguments against no-platforming isis propaganda. Youtube, twitter, facebook all have a policy of removing such content. I don't really have a problem with white supremacists also being no-platformed. These are private entities, deciding for themselves that they refuse to be party to such content. Let the dipshits buy their own damn servers. Now, the minute either group is harassed or arrested by the government over things is when it becomes a problem. That is actual censorship, and should be resisted.
- smith_winston 9y ago
  The law is clear on what constitutes illegal speech in the US(1). ISIS propaganda, to the extent it incites violence, is clearly illegal. If The Daily Stormer had engaged in speech that incited violence, they would have been shut down and imprisoned. This story is about legal but unpopular speech and if something is legal to say whether it should be allowed to be said. (And the role of large corporations effectively acting as gateways.) 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- gcp 9y ago
  The point that's being made is that, indeed, as private entities they have the right to ban this content from their sites. But due to the SIZE of these operations, their actions practically amount to censorship. Saying that the right of free speech only protects you against the government does not mean much in practice, in these circumstances.
  - tekromancr 9y ago
    It means all the difference in the world. It means that they won't be arrested for their speech. They won't be jailed. They won't be executed for speaking out against the government. Which is, ironically, very different from the historical treatment of dissidents by governments who adopt their politics. It also means that, for example, they have the freedom to pool funds and buy their own server, and host it in a datacenter that is willing to do business with them, or they can host their shit on ipfs. It's not like someone like Level 2 is stepping in and saying "We are going to deep inspect all traffic going across our pipe and filter nazi traffic"
forthefuture 9y ago
If the EFF really wants to support free speech they could host the Daily Stormer and see what happens to their donations. It seems duplicitous to force someone else to bear the cost of facilitating toxicity.
rev_null 9y ago
I understand the argument that they're making, but the EFF also offers a browser extension to block adware (privacy badger). Is hate speech somehow more justifiable than adware?
- gcp 9y ago
  You're free not to install it, and the EFF has no overwhelming market power that makes it impossible to avoid their extension. Google, Cloudflare, etc, not so much.
dredmorbius 9y ago
I've sided with the EFF on many, many, many causes. I've sided against Google on numerous causes. The EFF are wrong. Google is correct. And yes, the reasons are complicated. But "slippery slope" is a facile fallacy. Ultimately, society can, does, and must defend itself from attacks. Including attacks on the underprivileged (of whom the Fascists and Nazis at question here are not). The history of media and new-media utilisation in demagoguery, totalitarianism, mob incitement and rule, and fascism is rich. It should give strong cause to pause to those who've sung (and believed) the narrative of the all-positive, peace-and-harmony bringing Internet. As I long had. And am now pausing. Epistemic systems gain significance when they can be abused for personal, political, nationalistic, or fascistic gain. That was the insight of a friend of mine some months back. Call it "the paradox of epistemic systems". This includes Hacker News itself, which seems to have quite the fascist problem, and an unwillingness, at the moderator level itself, to face that, over concerns of "dignity". Those concerns are very, very, desperately and sadly misplaced. https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5wg0hp/when_epistemic_systems_gain_social_and_political/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5wg0hp/when_ep... https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6ufeu1/does_hacker_news_have_a_fascismdenial_problem/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6ufeu1/does_ha...
- piaste 9y ago
  > This includes Hacker News itself, which seems to have quite the fascist problem And here we go. For all the people who (correctly) wondered "how broad will the definition of 'nazi' get", well, parent just helpfully illustrated it for you. The Hacker News comments section has been declared full of fascist unpersons who must be silenced at all costs. But remember: > But "slippery slope" is a facile fallacy.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    Far from it. You're equating the observation that a fascist tendency exists with an unjust accusation of participation therein. You're also conflating advocacy of ideology with essential personal characteristics.
- tnone 9y ago
unityByFreedom 9y ago
I prefer to stand against groups that promote violence. > CANTWELL: "a lot more people are gonna die before we're done here" [1] I'm pretty sure the Daily Stormer said something similar. I don't need that crap in my backyard. [1] https://youtu.be/P54sP0Nlngg?t=20m51s https://youtu.be/P54sP0Nlngg?t=20m51s
Raz2 9y ago
Uneducated people should be protected from ideas that are proven to be bad. Looks like America just can't learn lessons like Sandy Hook or this one.
- gcp 9y ago
  Uneducated people should be protected from ideas that are proven to be bad. Like capitalism? Or free Negroes? Western Culture?
  - Raz2 9y ago
    Please don't make it absurd. The border is very clear. Ideas that undoubtedly caused tens of millions of deaths. It is even worse than child porn.
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      > Ideas that undoubtedly caused tens of millions of deaths. Like slavery or manifest destiny? both ideas that America as a whole supported at one time, and used ideas like "they are too uneducated" to prop up.
    - gcp 9y ago
      Ideas that undoubtedly caused tens of millions of deaths. Yes, I mentioned Western Culture, didn't I?
- cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
  Can you please make a complete list of all of the ideas I can't read about because I'm too stupid? Thanks!/s Who decides who is uneducated? Who decides what ideas are so bad they can't read? What's the enforcement mechanism?
  - Raz2 9y ago
    1. Incitement to hatred based on religion, sex, race. 2. No need to decide who is uneducated. 3. Who decided that child porn is bad? I believe America can manage it. Most European countries could.
tim333 9y ago
The Daily Stormer is still expressing itself freely at http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion/ http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion/ Latest featured story "Atari Promises Faggots It’ll Produce Homo Video Games." Does it really matter that Cloudflare dropped them? You have a right to free speech, not a right to be promoted by Cloudflare and Google.
meri_dian 9y ago
This is how extremism spreads: 1. A Reasonable Position is expressed, in this case - 'Nazi's are very bad'. The Reasonable Position often involves an Enemy that must be stopped. Most reasonable people will agree with the Reasonable Position. 2. The Reasonable Position becomes the overriding factor in any situation that involves it. All other factors and considerations are dwarfed by it and forgotten. 3. Because the Reasonable Position comes to dominate the thinking of the Extremist - who often means well - they come to believe one can only ever be for or against the Reasonable Position. There is no room for moderate positions that try to balance the Reasonable Position with other important considerations and values - in this case, freedom of speech. 4. In order to show support for the Reasonable Position, third parties are forced to action in accordance with the world view of the Extremist. If they try to balance other considerations against the Reasonable Position, they are seen by the Extremist as sympathizing with the Enemy. 5. The fervor of extremism charges through society, trampling on other values and considerations. Some historical examples: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials
- JustBirk 9y ago
  So the real extremism is anti-extremism?
- kenjackson 9y ago
  But how do you know the reasonable position isn't "Freedom of speech is good"? And it seems that the "Freedom of speech" position is the one that has expanded more in context than "Nazis are very bad". Thus far people don't seem to be applying the badness of Nazis to non-Nazis (at least not intentionally), but we do seem to be expanding Freedom of speech slowly beyond government censorship to asking private entities to propagate speech.
  - julianmarq 9y ago
    > But how do you know the reasonable position isn't "Freedom of speech is good"? Because it's the best (probably only) way to prevent every actual Reasonable Position from overriding every other factor and consideration. If freedom of speech is the default, there's no way an extremist group will stop conversation about any particular issue. > Thus far people don't seem to be applying the badness of Nazis to non-Nazis (at least not intentionally) This is Godwin's Law, which is in itself a testament to how common this is.
tchaffee 9y ago
Google is rightly protected from government interference of their right to exercise free speech just like all individuals and companies in the US. The EFF is confusing a free speech problem with a monopoly problem. One would hope they aren't suggesting that the government be allowed to interfere with Google's speech. So if they aren't, they are basically saying "bad boy, shame on you" to Google and others. It will have zero impact. The right way to solve this problem is to name the actual problem and forget about free speech: monopoly. Break up Google and these other companies and problem solved.
JustBirk 9y ago
I should have the right not to sell rope to a lynch mob. Fascism is a cancer and we should take whatever legal means we can to eradicate it before it kills the host.
jeffdavis 9y ago
"incite hate" That is a scary, clever manipulation of language. Inciting violence is an exception to free speech because it is directly linked to a specific violent result. "Hate" is non-specific, and not an action at all. It often means nothing more than offending someone or violating some political correctness. Hate speech is and should be protected speech.
- tchaffee 9y ago
  Hate speech is protected from the government interfering with it. Other than that, there are no protections. Google or any other company or individual is perfectly free to give a platform to only the speech they decide to. Because they too are protected from government interference.
  - jeffdavis 9y ago
    True, and we are free to criticize them for abusing their power. Further, we should reconsider the high amount of trust we place in Google, et al.
ameister14 9y ago
I think we should examine the effectiveness of bans on speech r.e. limitation of the spread of an ideology. For example, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (not a group with an incentive to deflate numbers), at its peak the National Alliance had 1,200 members. All together, there are a few thousand active Neo-Nazis in the United States. In contrast, let's take 2 countries where advocating Nazi ideology is illegal: Austria and Germany. In Austria, the Freedom Party, founded by a former SS officer, has 50,000 members, 13 seats in the Upper House (similar to the Senate in the US) and 38 seats in the lower house as well as 4 in the European Parliament. In Germany, the NPD received over 600,000 votes in the most recent election and now has a seat in the European Parliament.
- putsteadywere 9y ago
  I don't think comparing the adoption rate of Nazi ideology in nations where it was historically successful to nations where it was historically unsuccessful is appropriate. A more equivalent comparison is Nazi ideology in Germany/Austria to Klanist ideology in the United States. The list of US politicians with Klan affiliation is long. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United...
  - ameister14 9y ago
    None of those people are currently serving in any capacity in Congress and almost all of them are dead. I don't deny that the KKK was big in the US and had political power in 1926. Also, The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that there are 190 active KKK groups with between 5,000 and 8,000 Klan members in the U.S. That's a far cry from Austria and Germany.
  - pfg 9y ago
    In addition to this, comparing Austria and Germany, which both are multi-party systems, to a two-party system like the United States is problematic in this context. A significant chunk of the GOP and their voters likely support the same policies that the Freedom Party or the NPD support, but it's much harder to label or quantify that group.
dgudkov 9y ago
The internet needs a constitution.
sangnoir 9y ago
I'm amazed at how the HN's Libertarian streak gets subdued when discussing free speech (which only enjoins the government). Private individuals and corporations should be free to decide who they want to do business with (even if it's under duress of bad PR). When Brendan Eich was ousted[1] from Mozilla, I warned that the boycott threat set a bad precedent. The counter argument at the time was that "his donation wasn't free speech" and rights weren't negotiable. In the aftermath of 3 people losing their lives in Charlottesville, supporting the Daily Stormer is clearly Bad for Business™ - even if none of the companies are explicitly stating how commercially toxic DS has become. 1. He was ousted, his resignation was a technicality
- kadenshep 9y ago
  >I'm amazed at how the HN's Libertarian streak gets subdued I'm not. The moral lukewarmness and willingness to stick to quite literally the HN (obviously comprised of white suburbanites) echo chamber should be quite obvious at this point on the site, to anyone willing to observe such patterns and how political rhetoric on this site is contained. Commenters seem to do damn near anything to not even so much as turn their heads to the left socially. Look at which comments are being downvoted in this thread and objectively ask yourself whether those downvotes have actual merit. So what is being defended here in reference to the ideal of free speech? Actual Nazis with a known ideology, and known consequences of that ideology, are trying to spread their message. This isn't a matter of some moral ambiguity or merely silencing those we have "disagreements" with. I'd be nice if people in the U.S. would stop feigning ignorance or neutrality all to put up some faux enlightened defense of an abstract ideal. Be practical. It's not going to be a slippery slope. We're not going to turn into 1984. A private company chose to not do business with a group of people hellbent on spreading a totalitarian racist ideology. An ideology that speaks to some pretty primal fears and habits of humans. It's okay to correct for it. I'll repeat it again, just to end: it's okay and necessary to silence these people. It's not going to open Pandora's box. Not addressing the problem will. I think the EFF's take on this, while noble, is naively idealistic.
narrator 9y ago
Even more disturbing to me is that Youtube has started banning UFO research channels like Steve Greer's CSETI. I don't really bother watching these channels and consider the UFO thing a bit of a quasi-religion, but they aren't inciting violence or hate against anybody. Has Google decided they are now the truth police? Is Google taking it upon themselves to be like the Chinese censorship bureaus except for the whole world? I think this shows that the hate speech censorship is a real slippery slope.
- julianmarq 9y ago
  Wait, is this true? Could you provide a source?
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Maybe you should investigate the context before leaping to conclusions. According to this discussion Many people view Greer as a swindler/scammer. https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/6toeoz/cseti_youtube_channel_shut_down/ https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/6toeoz/cseti_youtube_...

233 points by generic_user 9y ago

nkristoffersen 9y ago

Don't we already block and shutdown Islamic terrorist sites? How are Nazi terrorist sites different?

ebcode 9y ago
You're getting warmer.

Overtonwindow 9y ago

"[W]e strongly believe that what GoDaddy, Google, and Cloudflare did here was dangerous. That’s because, even when the facts are the most vile, we must remain vigilant when platforms exercise these rights. Because Internet intermediaries, especially those with few competitors, control so much online speech, the consequences of their decisions have far-reaching impacts on speech around the world." Well said. I'm glad EFF is not burrying their heads in the sand and hiding behind the "but they're nazis!" Excuse.

Overtonwindow 9y ago
One more quote because I think it sums things up very well: "Protecting free speech is not something we do because we agree with all of the speech that gets protected. We do it because we believe that no one—not the government and not private commercial enterprises—should decide who gets to speak and who doesn’t."
- infinite8s 9y ago
  Although the only thing actually protected by the First Amendment is protection against censorship of speech by the government. Private commercial enterprises can do what they want (since technically you should be able to move to a competitor).
  - BearGoesChirp 9y ago
    1. Even if the First Amendment is only limited to the government, the concept of free speech predates and extends far beyond the First Amendment. 2. Does the Constitution apply if the government allows private entities to take over roles of the government? There is the concept of utilities and common carriers that extend upon this logic. 3. Even without the above points, one should still be able to see a double standard being applied to violent/extremist speech. Saying a company can do whatever it wants doesn't explain what the company actually wants. If the company is applying a double standard to what speech it allows, then the true wants of the company is something we need to discuss and decide do we want to tolerate.
    - Overtonwindow 9y ago
      An interesting example for your comment might be the use of private prisons, and probation companies.
  - base698 9y ago
    This is also dangerous for clear reasons. If speech deemed bad is censored we may have no examples with which to contrast good ideas. Think of free speech as natural selection for ideas. John Stuart Mill thought free speech should extend into the private world: Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them.
  - stillhere 9y ago
    What happens when corporations have more power and influence than the government? Furthermore, what happens when the government do not protect free speech themselves, which is exactly what happened in Charlottesville? The protesters had a permit to be there, the legal right, but the permit was revoked once the protest began. The police did not protect the protesters and funneled them straight into the violent mob. It is a frightening situation where there is literally no place for dissenting viewpoints.
johnrichardson 9y ago
Indeed. It seems as though the entire West has lost its collective mind about the importance of free speech and free expression as bedrock principles which ensure peace, stability and prosperity. Additionally, I view these acts of censorship as a great opportunity for blockchain and other nascent decentralized web technologies to take off. It's a classic case of the innovator's dilemma - when a company or industry seems ascendant, it becomes complacent to new threats, and the seeds of its destruction are sown right underneath it. Sometimes it even assists in the process. (Microsoft's neglect of IE, allowing Mozilla to flourish in the mid-2000s, is one of my favorite examples.) With their suppression of speech, these centralized services are quite possibly hastening their own demise.
- netsharc 9y ago
  Someone needs to invent a Godwin-like rule about the word "blockchain" being used in Internet conversations...
  - firmgently 9y ago
    I don't understand how Godwin's rule is useful. Its only effect on arguments is that on top of the inevitable "Hitler" comment you now also get an inevitable "Godwin" follow-up, usually delivered with the air of having somehow won the argument. It's beyond redundant IMO.
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      There's no such thing as "Godwin's Rule" - it's "Godwin's Law" and it said nothing about winning arguments; only that as the length of an argument increased, the probability that a comparison with the Nazis would appear approached 1. You can't invoke it either. It's a statistical observation.
      - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
        How is that a useful observation, though? As the length of any internet argument grows, the probability of anything being said would approach 1.
leggomylibro 9y ago
It was dangerous, but also their right to do. The CEO of Cloudflare called out his own action as capricious and not good practice, but he still did it. Because hey, they're literally nazis. And anyways, one of Cloudflare's major services is filtering out spam, noise, and malicious traffic...
- gcp 9y ago
  The situation was called out clearly for what it was. It was his right to do it, and it was understandable that he did it, and he should be able to do it. The problem is that the centralization of these services gives them so much power that it's problematic for free speech that they do it. The latter is the problem.
mc32 9y ago
Can't agree more. Today it's Nazis, tomorrow it's not showing enough support for the chosen candidate. This is the one slippery slope. It's evident in PC-speech. Today's PC speech is not the PC speech from the 90s. And it's not that I don't like Pc speech. I prefer it. But I also don't want it to be the only kind of speech one can use for discussion. Try and have any good philosophical argument without breaking PC boundaries. It's a scary thing when one group controls the narrative of what is acceptable and unacceptable speech.
- dandersh 9y ago
  No, there is no slippery slope. This is a group that advocates an ideology that, when it was put in place, resulted in catastrophe for mankind. In other words, what they advocate is what exists at the bottom of the slope. You know, Godwin's Law and all that?
  - mc32 9y ago
    So, what next, the communists or Marxists because the ideology they espouse caused even more deaths? I agree they are a hateful group. An odious group of people possibly only superseded in their vileness by extremist religious fanatics who won't hesitate to kill, but we're not shutting their speech down, are we? In my view, this is one of those things that is binary. Either you have free speech, or you don't. There is no in between, finessing it. You end up with lese majeste and other nonsense bullshit.
    - dandersh 9y ago
      This post is wrong on so many levels. Those ideologies did not have the hatred and violence at their core that Nazism did. That's why there is no "Godwins Law" when it comes to Marxism. That's my point: This is the most reviled philosophy that currently exists, and people are complaining about "free speech" when previously they would shriek "Godwins Law" whenever comparisons are made. That's how far we've fallen. Saying that free speech is binary is incredibly misguided and a root cause of the problem. It's overly simplistic and absolutist and quite frankly, is complete and total nonsense. At some point something will be uttered that you or some other "free speech absolutist" will object to.
mar77i 9y ago
It can't be phrased clearer while still distancing themselves from the cause clearly and coherently... unlike other people. On that same note: Good riddance. Policy and processes are probably in no case ever too slow to take effect. Thanks to Google and GoDaddy for Pavlov'ing me towards reasonable human understanding, and thanks for EFF for making me aware that that there's a problem with "learning" things that way.
mcbruiser3 9y ago
because it takes balls to stick up for freedom these days and let's be honest, most people just don't have the balls these days. fear is winning.
novaleaf 9y ago
except they are. They say "we agree with the ban" but then say "it's dangerous!" of course it's dangerous, and yes, the speech is vile. but freedom of speech doesn't stop when we are insulted.

cal5k 9y ago

It actually makes me incredibly optimistic about the future of humanity to know that such people exist. It's important to fight for the rights of all - you never know when your cause or beliefs will be in the crosshairs instead of a group as obviously vile as neo-nazis.

ebola1717 9y ago
I'm pretty sure to fight for people's rights, you have to fight against nazis. At least that's what all my history books told me we did in world war 2.
- UnpossibleJim 9y ago
  as unfortunate as it may be, you not only have to fight against the nazis ideals, but also for their right to hold them and speak them in a public forum, like any other citizen. That's from the history books about the country's founding.
  - ebola1717 9y ago
    Nope. Nazi speech is banned in Germany cause they learned their lesson.
    - UnpossibleJim 9y ago
      I thought we were talking about America, here. I might have been mistaken. Nazi speech, as well as a great number of things are illegal in Germany that aren't in America. We have completely different foinding documents, government policies and laws.
    - e9 9y ago
      We all know Nazi are bad, no one in their right mind will deny it. But the way they are currently handled through violence and censorship is not right and downright illegal. You are feeding their anger instead of squashing their ideas. We are American citizens and should respect each others right for free speech and engage in civil debate over ideas we disagree. If we resolve to silencing and violence without debate how are we better? Have you talked to any Nazi? Are you sure they know history and what Nazi stands for? etc etc etc I personally haven't met one ever but when I do I won't punch them with a fist but punch them with debate.

deckar01 9y ago

> SUSPENSION AND CANCELLATION. Google may in its sole discretion, suspend or cancel Registrant’s Registered Name registration (a) if Registrant breaches this Agreement (including a breach of any of the representations and warranties in Section 7); (b) to comply with a court order or other legal requirement; (c) as required by ICANN, a Registry Operator, or law enforcement; (d) to protect the integrity and stability of the Services; (e) if there was an error in the registration process for such Registered Name, or (f) if Registrant’s Account is disabled or terminated. https://payments.google.com/payments/apis-secure/get_legal_document?ldt=domainstos https://payments.google.com/payments/apis-secure/get_legal_d... I wonder which clause they cited to execute the suspension.

Miner49er 9y ago
Interesting. I'm not a lawyer. Could the DailyStorm sue Google over this? I don't see anything in that agreement that says Google could've put their domain on client hold.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

nsnick 9y ago

"on the Internet, any tactic used now to silence neo-Nazis will soon be used against others, including people whose opinions we agree with"

cup 9y ago

Should all forms of speech be defended and accessible in a public domain? Should instructions on how to make explosives be accessible and defended?

zaroth 9y ago
Most importantly, understand that it is not the speech which is being defended.
Overtonwindow 9y ago
Not saying they should, but they have. Many times. The most famous example would be the anarchist cookbook which is still being printed and sold
gragas 9y ago
Yes.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
carry_bit 9y ago
Should strong encryption software be accessible and defended? Do not forget the fight for PGP.
solomatov 9y ago
In Brandenburg v Ohio, Supreme court stated that only speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" should be punished. This is called Brandenburg paradigm and it's currently a legal standard for what's considered hate speech in US. See more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

yarg 9y ago

This is a multifaceted debate; cloudflare is under no obligation what-so-ever to keep retain any customer - unless it has placed itself under a contractual obligation to do so. The neo-nazi sites themselves should in general not be interfered with from a governmental level - but there should be limitations of even this restriction, when it comes to the advocacy, planning and execution of violence. In a more general sense I see the silencing of free-speech on the internet as a call to move to a more decentralised structure - as per what seemed to be the original intent - we generally seem to be moving yet further away from such a structure; although there are a significant number of emerging distributed technologies - as yet they seem to be niche in their utilisation. (Somewhat tangentally, I see the free speech and public emergence of the now emboldened neo-nazis as somewhat a good thing, they were always there - but now they're in the public eye.)

Pfhreak 9y ago

The takeaway from this for me is not, "Don't get rid of Nazis", but rather, "Have a clear criteria and process for when you will remove content. Follow that process." Great, 100% agreed with that. Be clear and up front about terms of service, and be clear and open when they are violated. That said, I'm not 100% agreed that "Whatever you use against Neo-Nazis will be used 'against the ones you love'." That's a slippery slope argument that I personally don't believe. Neo-nazis are such a different class of evil, that it's hard for me to see the same practices being used against someone who is not them.

generic_user 9y ago
Ok then, lets give Trump, the DOJ and Jeff Sessions the impetus to start drafting legislation to fight 'internet hate speech' and see what they come up with. edit: > That's a slippery slope argument Its not. These discussions will be taken over by the political establishment and the courts very quickly with very real consequences.
- Pfhreak 9y ago
  This seems like a false equivalence to me, given that Google (et al) are not the government nor acting due to pressure from the government. I do understand and value the concern around legislating free speech, but I think different rules apply for governments and corporations.
  - generic_user 9y ago
    It only takes one lawsuit that goes to the supreme court to turn this whole debate into a federal legislative debate about civil rights or some other expansive constitutional issue. When your in a situation where domain registrars and other core infrastructure are making judgements about what political speech they will allow on the internet then I would imagine your very close to a whole host of issues that cut the core of fundamental rights. That's why CloudFlare is so skittish, they know where this could go. Eventually this rough shot approach is going to hit someone with the resources to fight back. Lets imagine Breitbart gets nuked what then? It's only a matter of time before there is an incident like that. And when it happens its already to late to turn back.

generic_user 9y ago

We have to be steadfast to the idea that defending the free speech that you might find repulsive is defending your own right to free speech.

randrews 9y ago
That's a great way to put it! I am going to use that.

xupybd 9y ago

"It’s unclear whether this is for a limited amount of time, or whether Google has decided to effectively take ownership of the dailystormer.com domain permanently" Wait, what, they can do this? So if I get Google to host my domain they can just take it at will? Given the value of some domains that's insane. Google must be on shaky legal ground here.

CaptSpify 9y ago
I was surprised by this too, but Google is one of the biggest kids on the playground right now, so I guess it's natural for them to throw their weight around. Obvious note: Outsourcing your stuff to a 3rd party like that is risky, and should be considered so
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  It's not really about them being a big kid in the playground ... they're surely a minor player in the DNS hosting market. It's more that their internal extremism means they feel justified in doing this sort of thing because they feel 'dangerous' speech must be suppressed. I am concluding that Google is no longer trustworthy enough to run a search engine.

CaptSpify 9y ago

I'm super proud to be a member of the EFF. It's hard to keep a clear head in emotionally tense times like these. It's groups like the EFF that help everyone. If you can: https://supporters.eff.org/donate https://supporters.eff.org/donate

randrews 9y ago
Yep. My reaction to this article exactly. "Hm, I guess I get to keep donating to the EFF."
tortasaur 9y ago
I agree. The ACLU, on the other hand, has begun to rationalize their way out of defending white nationalists. Not exactly a very good defender of civil liberties if they start drawing ideological lines as to who they defend. I had just started donating to them in the last week, too; I felt a bit silly canceling so soon.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  source on the ACLU thing?
  - manco 9y ago
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/aclu-changes-policy-on-defending-hate-groups-protesting-with-firearms-1503010167 https://www.wsj.com/articles/aclu-changes-policy-on-defendin...

emmelaich 9y ago

There are many good quotes on freedom of speech to ponder.[1] I think my favourite is Mencken's. > The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. A close second is Wilde's: > “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.” [1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/freedom-of-speech https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/freedom-of-speech

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
Mencken was of course famously anti-semetic and racist, though the claims of his support of the Nazi's may be overstated. One interesting quote in this regard is this: "Any defense of Germany was impossible, he concluded, ''so long as the chief officer of the German state continues to make speeches worthy of an Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, and his followers imitate, plainly with his connivance, the monkey-shines of the American Legion at its worst.''" Weird to see Hitler, before he became the go-to bad guy, being compared with classic American racism and political violence, with the implication that better is expected of him.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dandersh 9y ago

This fetishization of "free speech" has to stop. These people do not respect free speech. They do not respect an open society. They do not respect freedom. They wish to destroy all of these things and they are entirely upfront about it. And yet all I've read the past few days is hand wringing about the "rights" of those who wish to destroy that of which open societies have built. At least the citizens of the early 1930's didn't have a historical reference for their passivity. What's your excuse?

mixedCase 9y ago
> These people do not respect free speech. You're right, they don't. Are you suggesting you do? And since we're talking about nazis and historical references, allow me to bring up four relevant words about something we've learned about their murderous regime and their abuse of power: "First they came for..."
- dandersh 9y ago
  You do realize it was THE NAZIS that "first they came for..." right? You are literally using the oppression that this group levied on other people as a defense for their views. I didn't realize I was on 4chan or Reddit. Are people seriously this detached from history? I respect free speech. I don't respect absolutist speech. Unfortunately many people (including, apparently yourself) are unable to tell the difference.
  - mixedCase 9y ago
    EDIT: Here was an anger-fueled answer about not stooping as low as nazis and how the erosion of free speech has a snowball effect. There's irony in defending peace with anger, so I've deleted it. So I'll just remind anyone reading this: Life is short. Enjoy and defend the freedoms you have now while you can; for the road to hell is paved with good intentions and we never know when it could be our turn to become the marginalized.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

tekromancr 9y ago

I really don't understand the resistance here. I have heard no arguments against no-platforming isis propaganda. Youtube, twitter, facebook all have a policy of removing such content. I don't really have a problem with white supremacists also being no-platformed. These are private entities, deciding for themselves that they refuse to be party to such content. Let the dipshits buy their own damn servers. Now, the minute either group is harassed or arrested by the government over things is when it becomes a problem. That is actual censorship, and should be resisted.

smith_winston 9y ago
The law is clear on what constitutes illegal speech in the US(1). ISIS propaganda, to the extent it incites violence, is clearly illegal. If The Daily Stormer had engaged in speech that incited violence, they would have been shut down and imprisoned. This story is about legal but unpopular speech and if something is legal to say whether it should be allowed to be said. (And the role of large corporations effectively acting as gateways.) 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
gcp 9y ago
The point that's being made is that, indeed, as private entities they have the right to ban this content from their sites. But due to the SIZE of these operations, their actions practically amount to censorship. Saying that the right of free speech only protects you against the government does not mean much in practice, in these circumstances.
- tekromancr 9y ago
  It means all the difference in the world. It means that they won't be arrested for their speech. They won't be jailed. They won't be executed for speaking out against the government. Which is, ironically, very different from the historical treatment of dissidents by governments who adopt their politics. It also means that, for example, they have the freedom to pool funds and buy their own server, and host it in a datacenter that is willing to do business with them, or they can host their shit on ipfs. It's not like someone like Level 2 is stepping in and saying "We are going to deep inspect all traffic going across our pipe and filter nazi traffic"

forthefuture 9y ago

If the EFF really wants to support free speech they could host the Daily Stormer and see what happens to their donations. It seems duplicitous to force someone else to bear the cost of facilitating toxicity.

rev_null 9y ago

I understand the argument that they're making, but the EFF also offers a browser extension to block adware (privacy badger). Is hate speech somehow more justifiable than adware?

gcp 9y ago
You're free not to install it, and the EFF has no overwhelming market power that makes it impossible to avoid their extension. Google, Cloudflare, etc, not so much.

dredmorbius 9y ago

I've sided with the EFF on many, many, many causes. I've sided against Google on numerous causes. The EFF are wrong. Google is correct. And yes, the reasons are complicated. But "slippery slope" is a facile fallacy. Ultimately, society can, does, and must defend itself from attacks. Including attacks on the underprivileged (of whom the Fascists and Nazis at question here are not). The history of media and new-media utilisation in demagoguery, totalitarianism, mob incitement and rule, and fascism is rich. It should give strong cause to pause to those who've sung (and believed) the narrative of the all-positive, peace-and-harmony bringing Internet. As I long had. And am now pausing. Epistemic systems gain significance when they can be abused for personal, political, nationalistic, or fascistic gain. That was the insight of a friend of mine some months back. Call it "the paradox of epistemic systems". This includes Hacker News itself, which seems to have quite the fascist problem, and an unwillingness, at the moderator level itself, to face that, over concerns of "dignity". Those concerns are very, very, desperately and sadly misplaced. https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5wg0hp/when_epistemic_systems_gain_social_and_political/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5wg0hp/when_ep... https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6ufeu1/does_hacker_news_have_a_fascismdenial_problem/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6ufeu1/does_ha...

piaste 9y ago
> This includes Hacker News itself, which seems to have quite the fascist problem And here we go. For all the people who (correctly) wondered "how broad will the definition of 'nazi' get", well, parent just helpfully illustrated it for you. The Hacker News comments section has been declared full of fascist unpersons who must be silenced at all costs. But remember: > But "slippery slope" is a facile fallacy.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Far from it. You're equating the observation that a fascist tendency exists with an unjust accusation of participation therein. You're also conflating advocacy of ideology with essential personal characteristics.
tnone 9y ago

unityByFreedom 9y ago

I prefer to stand against groups that promote violence. > CANTWELL: "a lot more people are gonna die before we're done here" [1] I'm pretty sure the Daily Stormer said something similar. I don't need that crap in my backyard. [1] https://youtu.be/P54sP0Nlngg?t=20m51s https://youtu.be/P54sP0Nlngg?t=20m51s

Raz2 9y ago

Uneducated people should be protected from ideas that are proven to be bad. Looks like America just can't learn lessons like Sandy Hook or this one.

gcp 9y ago
Uneducated people should be protected from ideas that are proven to be bad. Like capitalism? Or free Negroes? Western Culture?
- Raz2 9y ago
  Please don't make it absurd. The border is very clear. Ideas that undoubtedly caused tens of millions of deaths. It is even worse than child porn.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    > Ideas that undoubtedly caused tens of millions of deaths. Like slavery or manifest destiny? both ideas that America as a whole supported at one time, and used ideas like "they are too uneducated" to prop up.
  - gcp 9y ago
    Ideas that undoubtedly caused tens of millions of deaths. Yes, I mentioned Western Culture, didn't I?
cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
Can you please make a complete list of all of the ideas I can't read about because I'm too stupid? Thanks!/s Who decides who is uneducated? Who decides what ideas are so bad they can't read? What's the enforcement mechanism?
- Raz2 9y ago
  1. Incitement to hatred based on religion, sex, race. 2. No need to decide who is uneducated. 3. Who decided that child porn is bad? I believe America can manage it. Most European countries could.

tim333 9y ago

The Daily Stormer is still expressing itself freely at http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion/ http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion/ Latest featured story "Atari Promises Faggots It’ll Produce Homo Video Games." Does it really matter that Cloudflare dropped them? You have a right to free speech, not a right to be promoted by Cloudflare and Google.

meri_dian 9y ago

This is how extremism spreads: 1. A Reasonable Position is expressed, in this case - 'Nazi's are very bad'. The Reasonable Position often involves an Enemy that must be stopped. Most reasonable people will agree with the Reasonable Position. 2. The Reasonable Position becomes the overriding factor in any situation that involves it. All other factors and considerations are dwarfed by it and forgotten. 3. Because the Reasonable Position comes to dominate the thinking of the Extremist - who often means well - they come to believe one can only ever be for or against the Reasonable Position. There is no room for moderate positions that try to balance the Reasonable Position with other important considerations and values - in this case, freedom of speech. 4. In order to show support for the Reasonable Position, third parties are forced to action in accordance with the world view of the Extremist. If they try to balance other considerations against the Reasonable Position, they are seen by the Extremist as sympathizing with the Enemy. 5. The fervor of extremism charges through society, trampling on other values and considerations. Some historical examples: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

JustBirk 9y ago
So the real extremism is anti-extremism?
kenjackson 9y ago
But how do you know the reasonable position isn't "Freedom of speech is good"? And it seems that the "Freedom of speech" position is the one that has expanded more in context than "Nazis are very bad". Thus far people don't seem to be applying the badness of Nazis to non-Nazis (at least not intentionally), but we do seem to be expanding Freedom of speech slowly beyond government censorship to asking private entities to propagate speech.
- julianmarq 9y ago
  > But how do you know the reasonable position isn't "Freedom of speech is good"? Because it's the best (probably only) way to prevent every actual Reasonable Position from overriding every other factor and consideration. If freedom of speech is the default, there's no way an extremist group will stop conversation about any particular issue. > Thus far people don't seem to be applying the badness of Nazis to non-Nazis (at least not intentionally) This is Godwin's Law, which is in itself a testament to how common this is.

tchaffee 9y ago

Google is rightly protected from government interference of their right to exercise free speech just like all individuals and companies in the US. The EFF is confusing a free speech problem with a monopoly problem. One would hope they aren't suggesting that the government be allowed to interfere with Google's speech. So if they aren't, they are basically saying "bad boy, shame on you" to Google and others. It will have zero impact. The right way to solve this problem is to name the actual problem and forget about free speech: monopoly. Break up Google and these other companies and problem solved.

JustBirk 9y ago

I should have the right not to sell rope to a lynch mob. Fascism is a cancer and we should take whatever legal means we can to eradicate it before it kills the host.

jeffdavis 9y ago

"incite hate" That is a scary, clever manipulation of language. Inciting violence is an exception to free speech because it is directly linked to a specific violent result. "Hate" is non-specific, and not an action at all. It often means nothing more than offending someone or violating some political correctness. Hate speech is and should be protected speech.

tchaffee 9y ago
Hate speech is protected from the government interfering with it. Other than that, there are no protections. Google or any other company or individual is perfectly free to give a platform to only the speech they decide to. Because they too are protected from government interference.
- jeffdavis 9y ago
  True, and we are free to criticize them for abusing their power. Further, we should reconsider the high amount of trust we place in Google, et al.

ameister14 9y ago

I think we should examine the effectiveness of bans on speech r.e. limitation of the spread of an ideology. For example, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (not a group with an incentive to deflate numbers), at its peak the National Alliance had 1,200 members. All together, there are a few thousand active Neo-Nazis in the United States. In contrast, let's take 2 countries where advocating Nazi ideology is illegal: Austria and Germany. In Austria, the Freedom Party, founded by a former SS officer, has 50,000 members, 13 seats in the Upper House (similar to the Senate in the US) and 38 seats in the lower house as well as 4 in the European Parliament. In Germany, the NPD received over 600,000 votes in the most recent election and now has a seat in the European Parliament.

putsteadywere 9y ago
I don't think comparing the adoption rate of Nazi ideology in nations where it was historically successful to nations where it was historically unsuccessful is appropriate. A more equivalent comparison is Nazi ideology in Germany/Austria to Klanist ideology in the United States. The list of US politicians with Klan affiliation is long. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United...
- ameister14 9y ago
  None of those people are currently serving in any capacity in Congress and almost all of them are dead. I don't deny that the KKK was big in the US and had political power in 1926. Also, The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that there are 190 active KKK groups with between 5,000 and 8,000 Klan members in the U.S. That's a far cry from Austria and Germany.
- pfg 9y ago
  In addition to this, comparing Austria and Germany, which both are multi-party systems, to a two-party system like the United States is problematic in this context. A significant chunk of the GOP and their voters likely support the same policies that the Freedom Party or the NPD support, but it's much harder to label or quantify that group.

dgudkov 9y ago

The internet needs a constitution.

sangnoir 9y ago

I'm amazed at how the HN's Libertarian streak gets subdued when discussing free speech (which only enjoins the government). Private individuals and corporations should be free to decide who they want to do business with (even if it's under duress of bad PR). When Brendan Eich was ousted[1] from Mozilla, I warned that the boycott threat set a bad precedent. The counter argument at the time was that "his donation wasn't free speech" and rights weren't negotiable. In the aftermath of 3 people losing their lives in Charlottesville, supporting the Daily Stormer is clearly Bad for Business™ - even if none of the companies are explicitly stating how commercially toxic DS has become. 1. He was ousted, his resignation was a technicality

kadenshep 9y ago
>I'm amazed at how the HN's Libertarian streak gets subdued I'm not. The moral lukewarmness and willingness to stick to quite literally the HN (obviously comprised of white suburbanites) echo chamber should be quite obvious at this point on the site, to anyone willing to observe such patterns and how political rhetoric on this site is contained. Commenters seem to do damn near anything to not even so much as turn their heads to the left socially. Look at which comments are being downvoted in this thread and objectively ask yourself whether those downvotes have actual merit. So what is being defended here in reference to the ideal of free speech? Actual Nazis with a known ideology, and known consequences of that ideology, are trying to spread their message. This isn't a matter of some moral ambiguity or merely silencing those we have "disagreements" with. I'd be nice if people in the U.S. would stop feigning ignorance or neutrality all to put up some faux enlightened defense of an abstract ideal. Be practical. It's not going to be a slippery slope. We're not going to turn into 1984. A private company chose to not do business with a group of people hellbent on spreading a totalitarian racist ideology. An ideology that speaks to some pretty primal fears and habits of humans. It's okay to correct for it. I'll repeat it again, just to end: it's okay and necessary to silence these people. It's not going to open Pandora's box. Not addressing the problem will. I think the EFF's take on this, while noble, is naively idealistic.

narrator 9y ago

Even more disturbing to me is that Youtube has started banning UFO research channels like Steve Greer's CSETI. I don't really bother watching these channels and consider the UFO thing a bit of a quasi-religion, but they aren't inciting violence or hate against anybody. Has Google decided they are now the truth police? Is Google taking it upon themselves to be like the Chinese censorship bureaus except for the whole world? I think this shows that the hate speech censorship is a real slippery slope.

julianmarq 9y ago
Wait, is this true? Could you provide a source?
anigbrowl 9y ago
Maybe you should investigate the context before leaping to conclusions. According to this discussion Many people view Greer as a swindler/scammer. https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/6toeoz/cseti_youtube_channel_shut_down/ https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/6toeoz/cseti_youtube_...