4 ms·

"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -John Gilmore Lately this is getting absurd. I believe this quote is still true, but the amoun

"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -John Gilmore Lately this is getting absurd. I believe this quote is still true, but the amount of 'I don't like what is being said so therefore you should be silenced' is going too far. I don't agree with what this guy said (or even know who he is aside from what was said in the article), but I'm alarmed that Microsoft would go after Gab for a user on Gab's platform.

bitwize 8y ago
Lately we're sort of learning that absolute freedom to express any opinion you like is kind of a bad idea, especially at web scale. The example of Germany, which is freer and more democratic than the USA despite having strict laws forbidding expressing any sort of Nazi-like opinion, supports this.
- jewelthief91 8y ago
  How is Germany more free and Democratic? Aren't they purposefully less free because of anti-Nazi laws?
  - bitwize 8y ago
    Germany consistently places higher than the USA on international press freedom indices. The press, in general, is a protected institution there, whereas here, blowhards like Trump do their damnedest to intimidate journalists out of doing their job, which is to expose the dealings of government to the public. And you don't have to read Hackernews for long to see how terminally fucked and anti-freedom the U.S. justice system is. Things like plea bargaining, money bail, and systemic racism in law enforcement and criminal proceedings make U.S. "freedom" illusory unless you're white and wealthy. As for democracy, it's well known that votes in Congress can be easily bought in the US, far more easily than in Germany's parliament.
    - jewelthief91 8y ago
      How is this freedom attributable in any direct way to restrictions on "hate speech"?
      - bitwize 8y ago
        Well, you could argue that Germany successfully avoided renazifying in part because of its anti-hate-speech laws. Even absent this, the point is that Germany is, in practice, freer than the USA despite having a less absolute stance on free speech.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    But because of those, other groups whom the Nazis and other alt-right groups would have targeted are more free to participate in the conversation.
- inevitable2 8y ago
  I disagree. I would rather live with the freedom to express myself, be who am I, believe what I want, speak my mind and deal with consequences of it than deal with suppression and censorship. In the US its not that we're learning this is a bad idea granted I will say it is under attack. Its more that some people can't accept that people might just be different or have different thoughts than them and would rather say its a bad idea (easy way) than to engage them in conversation or accept that we're all individuals with different thoughts and backgrounds (hard way) or that being offended shouldn't be allowed. Germany is not freer. They do not have Freedom of speech close in terms to the US. One easy example is Section 185 of Germany's criminal code which you can be punished for insults. Section 90 is also interesting and I bet people would dislike that one if we had that currently in the US. If you see those as freeer by all means have it in Germany. I'll stick with the 1st amendment.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
Characterizing this kind of thing as just "I don't like what you said" is not being honest with your argument.
- inevitable2 8y ago
  It is pretty honest in my book. In looking at Patrick's Gab posts, he is clearly an anti-Semite (I don't condone) but given there is no evidence in this article of what was actually said we're missing the context. Gab on their twitter states it was due to a 'phishing urls'[1] and not calls to violence. I know in the article they state "‘complete eradication'" in as a quote from microsoft as part of the reasoning, but if that is true than why would they mark it as phishing to Gab and then make that statement to the hill? The article doesn't fully add up. In looking at Gab's community guidelines they prohibit calls to violence and threats to people (ie things not protected by the 1st)[2]. I will take Gab on good faith that they would adhere to the values in free speech (1st amendment) and remove posts or ban a user if they violate these terms. If they were in violation I would assume they would have removed the posts and/or banned the user and responded to microsoft staying so. [1] https://twitter.com/scottbudman/status/1027612769913253888 https://twitter.com/scottbudman/status/1027612769913253888 [2] https://gab.ai/about/guidelines https://gab.ai/about/guidelines

bitwize 8y ago

Lately we're sort of learning that absolute freedom to express any opinion you like is kind of a bad idea, especially at web scale. The example of Germany, which is freer and more democratic than the USA despite having strict laws forbidding expressing any sort of Nazi-like opinion, supports this.

jewelthief91 8y ago
How is Germany more free and Democratic? Aren't they purposefully less free because of anti-Nazi laws?
- bitwize 8y ago
  Germany consistently places higher than the USA on international press freedom indices. The press, in general, is a protected institution there, whereas here, blowhards like Trump do their damnedest to intimidate journalists out of doing their job, which is to expose the dealings of government to the public. And you don't have to read Hackernews for long to see how terminally fucked and anti-freedom the U.S. justice system is. Things like plea bargaining, money bail, and systemic racism in law enforcement and criminal proceedings make U.S. "freedom" illusory unless you're white and wealthy. As for democracy, it's well known that votes in Congress can be easily bought in the US, far more easily than in Germany's parliament.
  - jewelthief91 8y ago
    How is this freedom attributable in any direct way to restrictions on "hate speech"?
    - bitwize 8y ago
      Well, you could argue that Germany successfully avoided renazifying in part because of its anti-hate-speech laws. Even absent this, the point is that Germany is, in practice, freer than the USA despite having a less absolute stance on free speech.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  But because of those, other groups whom the Nazis and other alt-right groups would have targeted are more free to participate in the conversation.
inevitable2 8y ago
I disagree. I would rather live with the freedom to express myself, be who am I, believe what I want, speak my mind and deal with consequences of it than deal with suppression and censorship. In the US its not that we're learning this is a bad idea granted I will say it is under attack. Its more that some people can't accept that people might just be different or have different thoughts than them and would rather say its a bad idea (easy way) than to engage them in conversation or accept that we're all individuals with different thoughts and backgrounds (hard way) or that being offended shouldn't be allowed. Germany is not freer. They do not have Freedom of speech close in terms to the US. One easy example is Section 185 of Germany's criminal code which you can be punished for insults. Section 90 is also interesting and I bet people would dislike that one if we had that currently in the US. If you see those as freeer by all means have it in Germany. I'll stick with the 1st amendment.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

Characterizing this kind of thing as just "I don't like what you said" is not being honest with your argument.

inevitable2 8y ago
It is pretty honest in my book. In looking at Patrick's Gab posts, he is clearly an anti-Semite (I don't condone) but given there is no evidence in this article of what was actually said we're missing the context. Gab on their twitter states it was due to a 'phishing urls'[1] and not calls to violence. I know in the article they state "‘complete eradication'" in as a quote from microsoft as part of the reasoning, but if that is true than why would they mark it as phishing to Gab and then make that statement to the hill? The article doesn't fully add up. In looking at Gab's community guidelines they prohibit calls to violence and threats to people (ie things not protected by the 1st)[2]. I will take Gab on good faith that they would adhere to the values in free speech (1st amendment) and remove posts or ban a user if they violate these terms. If they were in violation I would assume they would have removed the posts and/or banned the user and responded to microsoft staying so. [1] https://twitter.com/scottbudman/status/1027612769913253888 https://twitter.com/scottbudman/status/1027612769913253888 [2] https://gab.ai/about/guidelines https://gab.ai/about/guidelines