5 ms·

This is amusing, They Banned the DailyStormer which I why I will never support them. While I disagree 100% with the DailyStormer it is not up to cloudflare to

by syshum 8y ago

This is amusing, They Banned the DailyStormer which I why I will never support them. While I disagree 100% with the DailyStormer it is not up to cloudflare to decide who can and can not speak, who can and can not access the internet. The concept of Free Speech is the most important right we have as humanity, while I may not agree with some peoples words I will fight for their right to say those words And do not even come at me with "well they are private company" we impose all kinds of regulations on private companies when it comes to basic human rights like free speech and Free Association for example private companies can not refuse service based on race, sex, age, etc. yet you WANT them to censor content, censor speech. You want them to apply your left authoritarian world view to legal speech, and yes everything you have cited is LEGAL SPEECH in the USA. If there are actual threats, True Threats as defined in US law, then the police should be involved and the people arrested. If there is defamation or other illegal speech then the courts should be involved It should NOT be the position of private companies to regulate speech online Platform Access Is A Civil Right. https://humanevents.com/2019/05/03/platform-access-is-a-civil-right/ https://humanevents.com/2019/05/03/platform-access-is-a-civi...

scarface74 8y ago
race, sex, age, etc. Where does daily stormer fall in the “etc.” part?
- syshum 8y ago
  Never said it did, etc was in reference to other protected classes in the list which vary by state. Many states, including California, have political ideology has a protected class as well. IMO companies run a foul of that when they start banning people for subjective ideology based reasons like "hate speech" which is not illegal in the US, and is every much based in political ideology to make the determination as to what is "hate".
fapjacks 8y ago
I think you're being downvoted because of the bit about regulation. At least, that is what I choose to believe, because imagine our state of affairs if you are being downvoted because of your comments about the idea of free speech.
- syshum 8y ago
  Then you are new to HN... Silicon Valley is full of Authoritarians that believe the Tech Companies should be our overlords and be allowed to choose what "truth" is, and who can revel that "truth" to you
  - fapjacks 8y ago
    Actually it's the opposite. It's the newer people that are this way [0], for in my day, most people didn't even trust computers, let alone buying things with a computer, or always carrying an always-connected computer with a microphone and multiple cameras in their pocket. [0] https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/01/17/generation-z-looks-a-lot-like-millennials-on-key-social-and-political-issues/psdt_1-17-19_generations-00/ https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/01/17/generation-z-look...
Aeolun 8y ago
Yes, I want them to censor lies and misleading speech. People or services that feed the public dangerous misinformation should be silenced. I realize that’s a slippery slope, but I just don’t trust the public to filter for themselves any more.
- syshum 8y ago
  So who should be the arbitrator of truth? You do understand that I can cite many many many many many examples though out history where actual truth was suppressed, actual advancement was suppressed by those in power. Free Speech is the most powerful tool Minorities and oppressed people through out the world have to end their oppression, and you just want to strip it away because of fear... How can you not see how utterly dangerous this idea is, how can you ignore all of human history to believe it is a good idea to suppress speech. It is not a slippery slope at all, is termination of basic human rights, is the the return to the dark ages, to Totalitarianism. You hope that be installing a regime of censorship and speech control you will end "lies" and/or "hate" when in reality you will ensure its continued existence and growth while taking away peoples power to challenge it in the open light of public debate
  - maccard 8y ago
    I don't have an answer to who should be the arbiter, but: > Free Speech is the most powerful tool Minorities and oppressed people through out the world have to end their oppression, So in order to protect the opressed, we should allow their opressors an equal platform to share their totalitarian views? The other side(what we currently have) is equally as bad, if not worse. Right now you have a situation where the BBC in the name of "fairness" gives equal air time to a political party who only exist as a protest vote, and they allow for climate change denier to air their views against scientists. Public debate doesn't work based on facts, it works based on emotions, and it doesn't matter how nuanced or level headed your response is, "think of the children" or "the government is trying to suppress our rights" are emotional arguments that consistently Trump facts and reason. Free speech isn't a right for you to have a platform to voice your opinion, it's a right to not have your opinion be suppressed by the government. I don't have a solution, but at some point you have to accept that tolerance of intolerance is intolerance, and when we're talking about a single incident of a platform that claims Marital Rape is ok [0],and that murdering 50 people because of their religion is "a prank" [1], they are objectively the opressors, not the opressed. [0] https://dailystormer.name/some-states-want-to-prevent-husbands-from-having-sex-by-closing-loopholes-in-marital-rape-laws/ https://dailystormer.name/some-states-want-to-prevent-husban... [1] https://dailystormer.name/the-difference-between-a-mosque-shooting-and-a-synagogue-shooting/ https://dailystormer.name/the-difference-between-a-mosque-sh...
thinkingemote 8y ago
Eastdakotas replies here and in previous threads indicate that his team have more oversight into his own wants and desires. He also writes more about being consistent in actions than they had when he did this action. I think that's a positive way forward. But the person at the top will be the weakest link. If I was a nation state that's where I would be applying the force not at the company level. Maybe he also realised this?

by syshum 8y ago

scarface74 8y ago

race, sex, age, etc. Where does daily stormer fall in the “etc.” part?

syshum 8y ago
Never said it did, etc was in reference to other protected classes in the list which vary by state. Many states, including California, have political ideology has a protected class as well. IMO companies run a foul of that when they start banning people for subjective ideology based reasons like "hate speech" which is not illegal in the US, and is every much based in political ideology to make the determination as to what is "hate".

fapjacks 8y ago

I think you're being downvoted because of the bit about regulation. At least, that is what I choose to believe, because imagine our state of affairs if you are being downvoted because of your comments about the idea of free speech.

syshum 8y ago
Then you are new to HN... Silicon Valley is full of Authoritarians that believe the Tech Companies should be our overlords and be allowed to choose what "truth" is, and who can revel that "truth" to you
- fapjacks 8y ago
  Actually it's the opposite. It's the newer people that are this way [0], for in my day, most people didn't even trust computers, let alone buying things with a computer, or always carrying an always-connected computer with a microphone and multiple cameras in their pocket. [0] https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/01/17/generation-z-looks-a-lot-like-millennials-on-key-social-and-political-issues/psdt_1-17-19_generations-00/ https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/01/17/generation-z-look...

Aeolun 8y ago

Yes, I want them to censor lies and misleading speech. People or services that feed the public dangerous misinformation should be silenced. I realize that’s a slippery slope, but I just don’t trust the public to filter for themselves any more.

syshum 8y ago
So who should be the arbitrator of truth? You do understand that I can cite many many many many many examples though out history where actual truth was suppressed, actual advancement was suppressed by those in power. Free Speech is the most powerful tool Minorities and oppressed people through out the world have to end their oppression, and you just want to strip it away because of fear... How can you not see how utterly dangerous this idea is, how can you ignore all of human history to believe it is a good idea to suppress speech. It is not a slippery slope at all, is termination of basic human rights, is the the return to the dark ages, to Totalitarianism. You hope that be installing a regime of censorship and speech control you will end "lies" and/or "hate" when in reality you will ensure its continued existence and growth while taking away peoples power to challenge it in the open light of public debate
- maccard 8y ago
  I don't have an answer to who should be the arbiter, but: > Free Speech is the most powerful tool Minorities and oppressed people through out the world have to end their oppression, So in order to protect the opressed, we should allow their opressors an equal platform to share their totalitarian views? The other side(what we currently have) is equally as bad, if not worse. Right now you have a situation where the BBC in the name of "fairness" gives equal air time to a political party who only exist as a protest vote, and they allow for climate change denier to air their views against scientists. Public debate doesn't work based on facts, it works based on emotions, and it doesn't matter how nuanced or level headed your response is, "think of the children" or "the government is trying to suppress our rights" are emotional arguments that consistently Trump facts and reason. Free speech isn't a right for you to have a platform to voice your opinion, it's a right to not have your opinion be suppressed by the government. I don't have a solution, but at some point you have to accept that tolerance of intolerance is intolerance, and when we're talking about a single incident of a platform that claims Marital Rape is ok [0],and that murdering 50 people because of their religion is "a prank" [1], they are objectively the opressors, not the opressed. [0] https://dailystormer.name/some-states-want-to-prevent-husbands-from-having-sex-by-closing-loopholes-in-marital-rape-laws/ https://dailystormer.name/some-states-want-to-prevent-husban... [1] https://dailystormer.name/the-difference-between-a-mosque-shooting-and-a-synagogue-shooting/ https://dailystormer.name/the-difference-between-a-mosque-sh...

thinkingemote 8y ago

Eastdakotas replies here and in previous threads indicate that his team have more oversight into his own wants and desires. He also writes more about being consistent in actions than they had when he did this action. I think that's a positive way forward. But the person at the top will be the weakest link. If I was a nation state that's where I would be applying the force not at the company level. Maybe he also realised this?