12 ms·

I'd say it's more sad than terrifying. Terror implies immediate danger, most people will not feel the danger that shutting down of a Nazi website should entail.

I'd say it's more sad than terrifying. Terror implies immediate danger, most people will not feel the danger that shutting down of a Nazi website should entail. Most people are not Nazis. The value of an online community exists within participation from those that visit the website. Anyone that visits can explore the ideology from the perspective of those that believe in it, which is an invaluable tool for education. What happened in Charlottesville was a moment in american history, no matter which side you fall on. What google, godaddy, and cloudflare are doing is (understandably) limiting community engagement on extremist websites. However by doing that it is also restricting those that want to understand who-what-where-when-why-how from accessing the conversations that occurred, and obviously, they did indeed occur. Now, anybody that wants to explore both sides of the event has to do so by navigating a barrage of news articles which loosely throws around the term "nazi", and a smaller subset of opinion articles which view it as a censorship issue. It makes the stance of anti-censorship & anti-nazi an impossibly difficult stance to take because these two issues are being viewed as two sides of the same issue. This is not conducive to a proactive internet culture. For the first time in history we have the opportunity to explore opposing political/race ideologies from inception to protest, and instead of using it to learn about human nature and group think, companies are hitting a mute button to win a popularity contest with investors.

AstralStorm 9y ago
Here's a parable: They came for the anarchists. I am not an anarchist, so I didn't care. Then they came for the communists, neither am I. Then they came for the Muslims. Then they came for debtors and child pornographers. Then they came for me. Or in other words, for every man there is a paragraph (in criminal law). If not, one will be invented.
- Ntrails 9y ago
  Here is a parable: They came for the murderers and put them in prison. They didn't come for me because I'm not a murderer, and we're broadly ok with seeing murderers as being bad for society. I'm not saying that your quote doesn't have power - it does. But the important aspect of it is that the targets were people the subject knows were being unfairly treated. So yes, if they start locking up homosexuals or Muslims or jews I'll refer to that parable and think "shit - I'd best do something". As things stand I'm not getting out of bed to help a nazi.
  - zzzcpan 9y ago
    You are equating a real victimized crime, like murder, with a thought crime, like following a nazi ideology.
    - lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
      Worth noting no one is going to jail for being a Nazi (except the ones that are actually killing people). Private companies are just choosing not to do business with them; because, turns out associating with people that think killing minorities for the glory of the master race is a good idea tends to be bad for business. Who could have guessed?
    - chc 9y ago
      I am having a hard time figuring out if this is a strange joke I'm failing to get or if you actually mean to suggest that Nazism is victimless.
    - bduerst 9y ago
      Isn't consuming child porn just a thought crime? I think you may be splitting hairs when the ideology promotes hate crime & harm to others.
      - Zuider 9y ago
        Believing NAMBLA'a propaganda is a thought crime. By contrast, actually viewing indecent images of children involves participating in a crime committed by the creator of those images. Similarly, the demented ravings of The Daily Stormer are thought crime. Racially motivated abuse and violence are actual crimes.
        bduerst 9y ago
        You just reiterated my point: Thought crimes can involve participating in, or contributing to, crimes committed by other people (as you just elaborated). That's why as a society we ban consumption of child pornography and other types of thought crimes - because they involve harming others.
- AgentME 9y ago
  There's a tremendous and insensitive irony in using that parable to describe the persecution of Nazis when it was originally about the Nazi's persecution and genocide of groups.
lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
That's great until the mob with torches are outside your door calling for your blood. Intolerance will always win if you insist on every issue being a "both sides" debate. It's the same as trying to argue with a creationist, antivaxer or flat earther; there cannot be a reasonable discussion if one or more sides have no facts to stand on (master race bollux was bad science back in the 1920s and hasn't gotten better). No one is loosely throwing around the term Nazi, these groups self identify as American nazis, carry fucking nazi flags, are on video chanting "jews will not replace us". Also these groups aren't new; they've been around for years technology has just amplified their voice. You don't need The Daily Stormer and its ilk to come to an informed decision on "are Nazis bad" just open a history book. There's a valuable discussion to be had about whether it makes sense for the internet to not be a public run utility (and thus subject to full 1st amendment protections). But so long as we're leaning on the free market to sort things out, you're on the wrong side of history if Nazis are the cause you want to defend.
- ineptech 9y ago
  Sounds like you're okay with society censoring the websites of Nazis, yes? Care to clarify who gets to decide who is and isn't a Nazi? This is not rhetorical. In my experience, a lot of people agree with "It's okay to censor Nazis" but virtually no one agrees with "It's okay to censor people that ____ disapproves of", regardless of what fills the blank. I guess I'd say I'm against censorship not because there's no speech bad enough to censor, but because there's no one trustworthy enough to do the censoring.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > Care to clarify who gets to decide who is and isn't a Nazi? Given the strict definition of "waving swastikas and advocating for violence against Jews" works in the scenario at hand, I'm not yet terrifically concerned about over-reach.
    - ineptech 9y ago
      > waving swastikas The only reason people wear swastikas in America is because of the strong free-speech protection that this thread is discussing the erosion of. If we banned swastikas (like Germany) then people would stop wearing them (like Germany), but we'd still have the same hate speech you're discussing censoring. > advocating for violence against Jews That's a pretty broad standard. If a politician supports evicting Israelis from disputed settlements in the West Bank, is that "advocating violence against Jews?" The answer "Yes according to some people, No according to others." So again, I ask: who are you trusting to decide? President Trump? Congress? You personally? To be clear, the offer currently on the table is "some middle-managers at Cloudfare, as directed by the fickle hand of social media."
codeisawesome 9y ago
Perhaps "terrifying" is just an adjective that gets more clicks and people to read what's so terrifying. The marketing of fear - on a site and an article purportedly trying to counter the marketing of fear (Nazi & hate ideologies are broadly about fearing the "other").
- craftyguy 9y ago
  In other words, the title is very clickbaity.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

AstralStorm 9y ago

Here's a parable: They came for the anarchists. I am not an anarchist, so I didn't care. Then they came for the communists, neither am I. Then they came for the Muslims. Then they came for debtors and child pornographers. Then they came for me. Or in other words, for every man there is a paragraph (in criminal law). If not, one will be invented.

Ntrails 9y ago
Here is a parable: They came for the murderers and put them in prison. They didn't come for me because I'm not a murderer, and we're broadly ok with seeing murderers as being bad for society. I'm not saying that your quote doesn't have power - it does. But the important aspect of it is that the targets were people the subject knows were being unfairly treated. So yes, if they start locking up homosexuals or Muslims or jews I'll refer to that parable and think "shit - I'd best do something". As things stand I'm not getting out of bed to help a nazi.
- zzzcpan 9y ago
  You are equating a real victimized crime, like murder, with a thought crime, like following a nazi ideology.
  - lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
    Worth noting no one is going to jail for being a Nazi (except the ones that are actually killing people). Private companies are just choosing not to do business with them; because, turns out associating with people that think killing minorities for the glory of the master race is a good idea tends to be bad for business. Who could have guessed?
  - chc 9y ago
    I am having a hard time figuring out if this is a strange joke I'm failing to get or if you actually mean to suggest that Nazism is victimless.
  - bduerst 9y ago
    Isn't consuming child porn just a thought crime? I think you may be splitting hairs when the ideology promotes hate crime & harm to others.
    - Zuider 9y ago
      Believing NAMBLA'a propaganda is a thought crime. By contrast, actually viewing indecent images of children involves participating in a crime committed by the creator of those images. Similarly, the demented ravings of The Daily Stormer are thought crime. Racially motivated abuse and violence are actual crimes.
      - bduerst 9y ago
        You just reiterated my point: Thought crimes can involve participating in, or contributing to, crimes committed by other people (as you just elaborated). That's why as a society we ban consumption of child pornography and other types of thought crimes - because they involve harming others.
AgentME 9y ago
There's a tremendous and insensitive irony in using that parable to describe the persecution of Nazis when it was originally about the Nazi's persecution and genocide of groups.

lordCarbonFiber 9y ago

That's great until the mob with torches are outside your door calling for your blood. Intolerance will always win if you insist on every issue being a "both sides" debate. It's the same as trying to argue with a creationist, antivaxer or flat earther; there cannot be a reasonable discussion if one or more sides have no facts to stand on (master race bollux was bad science back in the 1920s and hasn't gotten better). No one is loosely throwing around the term Nazi, these groups self identify as American nazis, carry fucking nazi flags, are on video chanting "jews will not replace us". Also these groups aren't new; they've been around for years technology has just amplified their voice. You don't need The Daily Stormer and its ilk to come to an informed decision on "are Nazis bad" just open a history book. There's a valuable discussion to be had about whether it makes sense for the internet to not be a public run utility (and thus subject to full 1st amendment protections). But so long as we're leaning on the free market to sort things out, you're on the wrong side of history if Nazis are the cause you want to defend.

ineptech 9y ago
Sounds like you're okay with society censoring the websites of Nazis, yes? Care to clarify who gets to decide who is and isn't a Nazi? This is not rhetorical. In my experience, a lot of people agree with "It's okay to censor Nazis" but virtually no one agrees with "It's okay to censor people that ____ disapproves of", regardless of what fills the blank. I guess I'd say I'm against censorship not because there's no speech bad enough to censor, but because there's no one trustworthy enough to do the censoring.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > Care to clarify who gets to decide who is and isn't a Nazi? Given the strict definition of "waving swastikas and advocating for violence against Jews" works in the scenario at hand, I'm not yet terrifically concerned about over-reach.
  - ineptech 9y ago
    > waving swastikas The only reason people wear swastikas in America is because of the strong free-speech protection that this thread is discussing the erosion of. If we banned swastikas (like Germany) then people would stop wearing them (like Germany), but we'd still have the same hate speech you're discussing censoring. > advocating for violence against Jews That's a pretty broad standard. If a politician supports evicting Israelis from disputed settlements in the West Bank, is that "advocating violence against Jews?" The answer "Yes according to some people, No according to others." So again, I ask: who are you trusting to decide? President Trump? Congress? You personally? To be clear, the offer currently on the table is "some middle-managers at Cloudfare, as directed by the fickle hand of social media."

codeisawesome 9y ago

Perhaps "terrifying" is just an adjective that gets more clicks and people to read what's so terrifying. The marketing of fear - on a site and an article purportedly trying to counter the marketing of fear (Nazi & hate ideologies are broadly about fearing the "other").

craftyguy 9y ago
In other words, the title is very clickbaity.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]