7 ms·

>You guys seem to be ok with this very slippery slope being assessed by random private companies accountable to who knows. To me its strange someone would cons

>You guys seem to be ok with this very slippery slope being assessed by random private companies accountable to who knows. To me its strange someone would consider closing down /pol/ a "slippery slope". I am amazed that someone would consider 4chan a moral compass for the type of things their admins should put up with. moot has closed down /pol/ for this very reason in the past with even less "political" awareness than the CEO of cloudflare. 4Chan is "free-speech" not through effort but through negligence & apathy. moot shut down /pol/ (aka /n/) before, twice, on a whim because he didn't like the content. It's not the first time it has devolved into nazi-fetishism. While 4chan has the reputation for being a seedy place, moot has taken stands and banned people and conversions from 4chan (for example most recently gamergate on /v/) for reasons that can be boiled down to that he didn't like it (mods of 4chan have done this as well, such as no Naruto on /a/). The current iteration of /pol/ has likely been allowed to live through negligence - moot is no longer involved with 4chan, and the new owner hiroyuki has been as absent as moot during his VC startup days. Simply put 4chan never had any moderator accountability (see Rule 9 of the internet). In conclusion, the notion that this is a "slippery slope" is nonsense. "Free speech" on the internet never really existed, the current view points that exist only exist because their operators have never bothered to flex their muscles - and the reason they haven't has rarely been because of some moral high ground. At the end of the day there is plenty of "reasonable" content YouTube won't host for you, and that Facebook will kick you for. If you are concerned about being silenced by a corporate vendor, then choose your partners wisely. If none will support you - then self fund. Free Speech doesn't mean the NYT is obligated to print your content, only that the government wont stop circulation of your newspaper. If you can't acquire the resources to start your own print, then tough luck.

abalone 9y ago
> If you are concerned about being silenced by a corporate vendor, then choose your partners wisely. The issue here is more nuanced. It's about any site on the Internet being censored by a mob. That's why the YouTube or Facebook analogies don't hold. You could always host the content yourself. But DDoS can knock out any unprotected host anywhere. And DDoS protection isn't really something you can DIY. So the issue here is not about being silenced by a corporate vendor. It's about being silenced, period, wherever you host.
- mirimir 9y ago
  It's harder to DDoS Tor onion sites.
- jamespo 9y ago
  Comes down to the argument of "how dare you be intolerant of my intolerance"
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    I think we're all intolerant of hate. Some of us just think that due process should be applied even when the conclusion is obvious.
  - abalone 9y ago
    It really doesn't. The issue is what is an acceptable way to express that intolerance: with speech or by forcefully shutting the mouths of those you disagree with?
    - jamespo 9y ago
      DDoS attacks could be considered forcefully shutting those mouths, and I don't agree with that. Do you propose forcing a private entity (Cloudflare et al) to publish those they disagree with?
      - abalone 9y ago
        You raise a very good question. We agree that DDoS is the digital equivalent of forcing someone to shut up, and that is contrary to freedom of speech. It's also true that private entities don't have any legal obligation to honor freedom of speech. Certainly you or I would not enjoy Instagram more if there was a bunch of hate speech on it. But we can make a distinction between destinations, like Instagram, and infrastructure, like streets and public parks and libraries that allows you to access the destinations of your choice. DDoS is something that kicks people off of the very infrastructure of the Internet itself, thus denying others the choice to visit them. The underlying problem is that core Internet infrastructure is managed by private entities. This is unlike "meatspace" where there are public spaces protected by the police / government who block the physical equivalent of DDoS (duct taping mouths / burning down printing presses). So, what does this mean as more of our communication as a society moves into the digital realm? Is it a blessing that it is more privately managed, empowering those managers to block "bad" speech? Or should we extend the same "meatspace" principles of free speech for all by requiring Internet infrastructure providers to provide unimpeded access to all?
genon 9y ago
> "Free speech" on the internet never really existed Long before 4chan repeated everything Usenet had done many years earlier there was plenty of free speech on the Internet. Not because nobody was in control to prevent it, but because the news admins who were in control believed in free speech enough to facilitate it. Although Usenet is a shadow of its heyday, that still applies even to this day.
noobermin 9y ago
>moot shut down /pol/ (aka /n/) before, twice, on a whim because he didn't like the content Hate to bring /b/ into my hn, but newfriends, who make up the majority of the /pol/lacks don't even know this.
- bitexploder 9y ago
  It is also an ideal ground for groups with bad intentions to manipulate folks. Who is actually operating those keyboards? What are their actual motives?
  - evook 9y ago
    > Who is actually operating those keyboards? Your usual neighbour's 18-year old son. > What are their actual motives? For the 'lulz' of course.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      > For the 'lulz' of course. So how does one distinguish between a genuine kill-all-the-scum Nazi, and a child who's pretending to be one, for the lulz? You get lulz from people who get upset. And you get lulz from people who agree with you. It's a win-win. Ultimately, there's no way to tell. It's a textbook example of Poe's Law. And indeed, there's no observable difference. Maybe everyone behind Nazi sites are in it for the lulz. And/or for the money, or fame. You get the same fucked up social impacts, either way.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        When they start dressing the part, take part in torch carrying marches shouting slogans about mass murder.
        mirimir 9y ago
        Maybe. But many of them could still be in it for the lulz. I mean, many gangbangers are fundamentally after lulz.
seabird 9y ago
The whole Gamergate shitfest was disallowed on /v/ because it constantly hijacked the board, had tangential relevance in most cases, and the legal implications weren't worth supporting a largely off-topic subject. Having five pages of threads on a single subject would pretty much never be allowed on any board (save /b/), especially if that subject focused on a holy war between two radical elements. /j/ was temporarily accessible through a bug and IRC chatlogs are widely available. The moderation on 4chan is very much active, it's just not compelled to fast and hard action for anything save child porn or an impending murder. Much of the hooliganism is largely explicitly allowed, at least according to the info currently available to us.
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>If you can't acquire the resources to start your own print, then tough luck. "See, we just had a misunderstanding. I thought I lived in the USA, the United States of America, and actually we live in the USA, the United States of Advertising: freedom of expression guaranteed, if you've got the money!" -Bill Hicks on being censored by CBS

abalone 9y ago

> If you are concerned about being silenced by a corporate vendor, then choose your partners wisely. The issue here is more nuanced. It's about any site on the Internet being censored by a mob. That's why the YouTube or Facebook analogies don't hold. You could always host the content yourself. But DDoS can knock out any unprotected host anywhere. And DDoS protection isn't really something you can DIY. So the issue here is not about being silenced by a corporate vendor. It's about being silenced, period, wherever you host.

mirimir 9y ago
It's harder to DDoS Tor onion sites.
jamespo 9y ago
Comes down to the argument of "how dare you be intolerant of my intolerance"
- humanrebar 9y ago
  I think we're all intolerant of hate. Some of us just think that due process should be applied even when the conclusion is obvious.
- abalone 9y ago
  It really doesn't. The issue is what is an acceptable way to express that intolerance: with speech or by forcefully shutting the mouths of those you disagree with?
  - jamespo 9y ago
    DDoS attacks could be considered forcefully shutting those mouths, and I don't agree with that. Do you propose forcing a private entity (Cloudflare et al) to publish those they disagree with?
    - abalone 9y ago
      You raise a very good question. We agree that DDoS is the digital equivalent of forcing someone to shut up, and that is contrary to freedom of speech. It's also true that private entities don't have any legal obligation to honor freedom of speech. Certainly you or I would not enjoy Instagram more if there was a bunch of hate speech on it. But we can make a distinction between destinations, like Instagram, and infrastructure, like streets and public parks and libraries that allows you to access the destinations of your choice. DDoS is something that kicks people off of the very infrastructure of the Internet itself, thus denying others the choice to visit them. The underlying problem is that core Internet infrastructure is managed by private entities. This is unlike "meatspace" where there are public spaces protected by the police / government who block the physical equivalent of DDoS (duct taping mouths / burning down printing presses). So, what does this mean as more of our communication as a society moves into the digital realm? Is it a blessing that it is more privately managed, empowering those managers to block "bad" speech? Or should we extend the same "meatspace" principles of free speech for all by requiring Internet infrastructure providers to provide unimpeded access to all?

genon 9y ago

> "Free speech" on the internet never really existed Long before 4chan repeated everything Usenet had done many years earlier there was plenty of free speech on the Internet. Not because nobody was in control to prevent it, but because the news admins who were in control believed in free speech enough to facilitate it. Although Usenet is a shadow of its heyday, that still applies even to this day.

noobermin 9y ago

>moot shut down /pol/ (aka /n/) before, twice, on a whim because he didn't like the content Hate to bring /b/ into my hn, but newfriends, who make up the majority of the /pol/lacks don't even know this.

bitexploder 9y ago
It is also an ideal ground for groups with bad intentions to manipulate folks. Who is actually operating those keyboards? What are their actual motives?
- evook 9y ago
  > Who is actually operating those keyboards? Your usual neighbour's 18-year old son. > What are their actual motives? For the 'lulz' of course.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    > For the 'lulz' of course. So how does one distinguish between a genuine kill-all-the-scum Nazi, and a child who's pretending to be one, for the lulz? You get lulz from people who get upset. And you get lulz from people who agree with you. It's a win-win. Ultimately, there's no way to tell. It's a textbook example of Poe's Law. And indeed, there's no observable difference. Maybe everyone behind Nazi sites are in it for the lulz. And/or for the money, or fame. You get the same fucked up social impacts, either way.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      When they start dressing the part, take part in torch carrying marches shouting slogans about mass murder.
      - mirimir 9y ago
        Maybe. But many of them could still be in it for the lulz. I mean, many gangbangers are fundamentally after lulz.

seabird 9y ago

The whole Gamergate shitfest was disallowed on /v/ because it constantly hijacked the board, had tangential relevance in most cases, and the legal implications weren't worth supporting a largely off-topic subject. Having five pages of threads on a single subject would pretty much never be allowed on any board (save /b/), especially if that subject focused on a holy war between two radical elements. /j/ was temporarily accessible through a bug and IRC chatlogs are widely available. The moderation on 4chan is very much active, it's just not compelled to fast and hard action for anything save child porn or an impending murder. Much of the hooliganism is largely explicitly allowed, at least according to the info currently available to us.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago

>If you can't acquire the resources to start your own print, then tough luck. "See, we just had a misunderstanding. I thought I lived in the USA, the United States of America, and actually we live in the USA, the United States of Advertising: freedom of expression guaranteed, if you've got the money!" -Bill Hicks on being censored by CBS