13 ms·

Why do you host offensive content?

113 points by benburwell 7y ago

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
wheelerwj 7y ago
Nearlyfreespeech.net is a great dns and hosting solution for simple sites and applications. They got a nice bump back in when godaddy got mixed up in SOPA back in 2012. I've used them before and they offer a great service for a good price and I support their general philosophy in regards to privacy and free speech.
- Chirael 7y ago
  I went to bookmark this site as a hosting company supporting a ton of languages, only to see that I’d already bookmarked it back in 2006. So I guess they’ve been around for a while :)
falcolas 7y ago
Honest, but leading, question in return: Offensive to whom? 90% of the population? Wouldn't that block out the Church of Satan's distributed materials (that is, coloring books)? To 80% of the population? Wouldn't that be the Book of Mormon? To 60%? The Quran? I think this part of their answer is a great response: "Of course, the simplest reason is that it's not up to us to decide what the rest of the world should or shouldn't see. Bad news, it's not up to you either. Worse news, it's still true even when we agree. Which is probably most of the time."
- NullPrefix 7y ago
  >Offensive to whom Offensive to those, who can make enough noise about it.
  - josteink 7y ago
    Which would typically be privileged people, non-ironically complaining about other people’s privilege.
    - djsumdog 7y ago
      People don't have privilege. People toss around that word a lot and it's used incorrectly, as it is here. Say you walk into a store and are followed or stopped quite often for a receipt check. If you're black in certain parts of the world, this is quite common, but much more rare if you're not black. The privilege is a result of a system. You cannot say x people have privilege, and likewise people get offended when people yell at them for having privilege saying, "It's not something I choose." Is one person from one ethnic group responsible for all the ills cast upon others? Are we responsible for the debts of our fathers? Privilege is a result of a system, and it is a system that grants privilege and socialite (and often subconscious) level, and that system of beliefs is what needs to be changed. So fighting against privilege involves changing the narrative of the system we live in. It takes time and it takes diligence and it takes careful and critical thought. It's not as easy as throwing a word or blame around.
      - traderjane 7y ago
        That sounds like silly word play. It'd be like if I said "Tom has power." To which I guess you might reply, "People don't have power. Societies have power, structures have power, and positions have power... but people don't have power." Okay, sure. But Tom still has power. We are all responsible for the debts of our fathers, except the bill comes in the form of the physical world we inhabit. Who thinks they exist away from the past, except as rhetorical play about conquering old challenges?
      - smsm42 7y ago
        > People don't have privilege. I don't know. If you have the power to shut down a whole product line for a trans-national corporation with a single complaint, isn't that a kind of privilege? I certainly can't do it, you probably neither. But some people can. If you have a power to decide what is allowed to be spoken and what gets you removed from the platform, who is allowed to speak and who should be met with violence if only they dare to show up - isn't that a kind of privilege? If you can riot, destroy property, assault people and send them to the hospital - with full impunity and vocal support of major parts of the press and community, that would loudly denounce this conduct in everybody else - isn't that a kind of privilege? Some people seem to enjoy it.
- Zaskoda 7y ago
  > Offensive to whom? This is exactly the comment I clicked through to add. Without someone to be offended, nothing is offensive. When a service provider crosses the line and polices a piece of media, they are now responsible for defining that line moving forward. That's an insanely hard task. Most people who want "offensive" content taken down do not understand the complexity of what they are asking for.
- lucideer 7y ago
  Slightly more pragmatic reframing of the question: > "Why do you host harmful content?" To which your returned question would be similarly open-ended: Harmful to whom? Define harmless content. Etc. ... but probably a little more "down to earth" in terms of discussing the bounds of such definitions. The root of being "offended" may often be grounded in an agenda to silence and control, but it's typically defended by referencing potential harm. So that's usually a good place to start overturning such arguments.
  - sdinsn 7y ago
    I disagree. Both "offensive" and "harmful" are up to debate based on arbitrary views / moral codes.
    - zbyte64 7y ago
      Is that useful though? The following requires a moral code to say it is bad: Directly advocating for sexual violence against another group.
      - sdinsn 7y ago
        You don't need a moral code. The pragmatic argument is that throughout history and across cultures, the rise of large civilizations was enabled by basic rule of law. Protecting people against violence brings stability and maximizes productivity.
    - lucideer 7y ago
      This is exactly what I said in my comment. I just think debating the former is meaningless (even if two parties agreed, their shared conclusion wouldn't be useful as offending someone isn't implicitly harmful). Whereas debating what's harmful, while similarly arbitrary and subjective, at least has the implied goal of actual harm reduction.
      - sdinsn 7y ago
        > This is exactly what I said in my comment. Ooops, I think I replied to the wrong comment
- stcredzero 7y ago
  Check out their MFFAM policy. Search for, "What is the "MFFAM" policy?"
  - tubbs 7y ago
    https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq#BecauseFuckNazisThatsWhy https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq#BecauseFuckNazisT...
  - smsm42 7y ago
    The policy is a bit of a misnomer though - as I understand, that's them funding the fight - by donating the money that would otherwise be their profit - not the "morons". But I think that's a very acceptable way to handle the problem.
- Elidrake24 7y ago
  It's a tough question isn't it? One we've tried to answer a good many times as a species. The last sincere attempt may be considered to be the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; that an individual may live freely regardless of race, color, sex, religion, political opinion, etc. That seemed contradictory at the time, bit it was always predicated on the idea that no one could ever affect the ability of another to live their life in a free way. It's just funny to see the same old argument brought up the thousandth time with maybe a slight context change to the last.
gowld 7y ago
The difference between something like NearlyFreeSpeech and something like YouTube, which is often lost in the noise, is that NearlyFreeSpeech is a hosting provider, while YouTube has, in addition, also an active editorial system and recommendation engine that promotes "offensive" content. Just as NFS is justified in hosting content and requiring uploaders to back it up with their real identity, so that those uploaders can be judged, people are justified in judging YouTube management for the content that YouTube management uploads (the Watch Next side-bar, and the comment streams it attaches to videos)
- stcredzero 7y ago
  people are justified in judging YouTube management for the content that YouTube management uploads You mean "promotes." People are free to judge. However, by granting discovery/virality selectively, rather than going by pure interest and numbers, YouTube is exercising editorial judgement. This makes them into a publisher, not a platform. People are free to urge YouTube to become a publisher. YouTube is free to follow suit or not and take the rewards and consequences of their actions.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > This makes them into a publisher, not a platform. Says who? "Publisher" and "Platform" are not mutually exclusive identities.
Nursie 7y ago
> "Finally, censorship is always bad, for a variety of well understood reasons that we don't need to repeat here. But in the case of some types of content, it has special dangers. When you censor a web site based on the extreme or dangerous views of its creator(s), you haven't stopped those people from thinking that way. You haven't made them go away. You certainly haven't stopped the people who hold those views from doing whatever else they do when they're not posting on the Internet. What you've actually done is given yourself a false sense of accomplishment by closing your eyes, clapping your hands over your ears, and yelling "Lalala! I can't hear you!" at the top of your voice. Pretending a problem doesn't exist is not only not a solution, it makes real solutions harder to reach." I no longer believe this, when cesspits of alt-right, racist assholes use such grandiose ideals to spread their hatred, which then bubbles out into the real world. The idea that good ideas will win, and that common sense and rationality will take the day, are not really supported by what we see around the net. Instead the greater internet fuckwad theorem holds more true, and the spread of vile, violent ideologies is enabled. Freedom of speech is a protection from government, but I think those providing speech platforms, such as hosting companies, should probably take more responsibility for what they propagate.
- ulzeraj 7y ago
  But who decides and points out what should be removed. What is “far right” from the point of view from someone who is “far left”? It began with Alex Jones and that kinda made sense but now the same people and institutions are asking for the head of individuals like Phillip DeFranco. The thing about censorship is that it never stops where you think it should.
  - munificent 7y ago
    > it never stops where you think it should. Friendly reminder that "slippery slope" is a fallacy. 100% censorship is obviously bad. It remains to be shown that 0.1% censorship inevitably leads to it.
    - captainredbeard 7y ago
waynecochran 7y ago
If it is offensive because it stems from "bad ideas" then it is imperative that it is posted in the "public market of ideas" so it can be exposed and refuted. If it is not posted then folks will not know how to refute it when it crops up again -- and it will. Free Speech for bad ideas is as important as free speech for good ideas. Don't be offended. That's your choice. P.S. This doesn't mean that everything offensive must be posted -- there is stuff that should be illegal to post because of the harm it can cause. Edit: downvote within 15 seconds of posting ... you are speedy in your thoughtlessness.
- stronglikedan 7y ago
  > Free Speech for bad ideas is as important as free speech for good ideas. I would argue that it's more important. > Phillip DeFranco Edit regarding your edit: Complaining about downvotes is cringe inducing.
  - waynecochran 7y ago
    I don't care about downvotes -- it was the immediacy of it.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - mikestew 7y ago
      That just means that a person inclined to downvote your comment saw it within seconds after posting. It’s not like there’s a shot clock for posts.
      - waynecochran 7y ago
        "saw it" bit did not "read it"
        UncleMeat 7y ago
ecoled_ame 7y ago
The user takes total responsibility for the address he or she types in the navigation bar. They navigate there from an infinite distance.
jchw 7y ago
My favorite bit here is not the content policy, it’s the MFFAM bit, which is clever and amusing. https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq#BecauseFuckNazisThatsWhy https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq#BecauseFuckNazisT...
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  Also, great URL for that section!
- duxup 7y ago
  It's a great idea... provided it is used frequently.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  The SPLC has done good work in the past, but they've published outright falsehoods recently. They've even had to retract, apologize, and pay a legal settlement. Much of their activity of late seems to be about political expedience and tribe, less about principle.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
duxup 7y ago
Do they have a policy where they deal with threats of violence / organizing something like that? I couldn't find any, but I'm also not familiar with the site. There's "offensive" as in thinks I don't like, or even hateful statements ... but to me threats of violence and etc fall into another area.
- dmitrygr 7y ago
  At least in the United States, threats of violence are also protected speech. "Fighting words" are not, but that is generally taken to mean words intending to cause immediate direct and specific harm to a specific person. A generic sort of "I wish $person was dead" is protected. This sort of thing came up a long time ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...
  - duxup 7y ago
    I'm thinking of the specific type.
root_axis 7y ago
> censorship is always bad This isn't true. A few examples. If I post your naked photos online and they are censored, that isn't bad. If I post your address online next to a photo of your house and it is censored, that isn't bad. If I post the source code of your personal project online and it is censored, that isn't bad. If I post the contents of your diary online and it is censored, that isn't bad. If I post the contents of a heated argument between you and your spouse online and it is censored, that isn't bad. If I post a photoshopped picture of your kid online and it is censored, that isn't bad. Not everything deserves to see the light of day and actually, we do get to make that decision. This idea that "free speech" means everyone has to agree to let everything appear on the internet is false. "Free speech" also means "I have the freedom not to support someone else's speech".
- stcredzero 7y ago
  This isn't true. A few examples. If you have to resort to extreme examples, then it shows the weakness of your position. Those examples are mostly illegal. It's not "censorship" in the context of Free Speech if one is counteracting illegal activity. The serious societal problems come in when there is censorship on an ideological basis. This idea that "free speech" means everyone has to agree to let everything appear on the internet is false. If Free Speech applies to the Internet, then it means precisely that everyone has to agree to let everything appear on the Internet. In 2019, saying that people can have Free Speech, just not on the Internet, is like saying people can have Free Speech, just not with mechanized printing. In 2019, publishing has to include the Internet, and suppressing publishing on an ideological basis is suppressing the principle of Free Speech.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > If you have to resort to extreme examples, then it shows the weakness of your position What is extreme about them? An example of an extreme would be "child porn" or "your credit card number" or "the password to your email". The examples I listed are pretty mundane and actually quite common. Either way, you haven't actually explained why any of the examples I listed would be "bad". > Those examples are mostly illegal None of those examples are illegal except the naked photos and not even that in all states (but most, and not even just "naked photos" in and of themselves necessarily, i.e. naked photos in the context of "revenge porn"). But even if they were, so what? If it's illegal does that mean it's not censorship to remove it? > If Free Speech applies to the Internet, then it means precisely that everyone has to agree to let everything appear on the Internet This is obviously wrong. Based on that logic you should never be able to delete a comment from your personal blog because you're censoring the critics.
ketzo 7y ago
I see this argument so, so frequently -- that repugnant views need to be given a platform, that heinous and disgusting content must be allowed a space, so that everyone can see it and fight against it! Since when the fuck is that how the internet works? If Stormfront hosts a site on NFS.net, who do you think visits that site? Bright young progressives valiantly carrying a banner of social justice? No. Fucking neo-Nazis visit the Stormfront website, because, and this is important, _it's a platform for fucking neo-Nazis_. Christchurch. Charlottesville. Numerous terrorists have indicated very clearly that they were radicalized online. Why the fuck is it somehow your responsibility to provide these people a platform to spread their poison? To end my rant, here's that ridiculous quote that always gets tossed around in these discussions: > "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." Actually, as it happens, the best disinfectant is a harsh chemical, and the most efficient policeman is a fucking policeman. The internet is not a place of light and exposure. It is a place where disgusting ideologies can hide, quietly attract followers, and conspire to murder people. Consider how powerful that sunlight was the next time a right-wing terrorist screams about blood and soil while brandishing an AR. I'm sorry the tone of this is so angry. NFS is a great service -- I just can't stand this pitiful justification for aiding radicalization and eventual violence. There is a line you can draw. It is up to you to draw it.
- dlivingston 7y ago
  Where do you, personally, define the line though? And how do you ensure that line won't be changed to fight against you once your enemies are in power?
  - ketzo 7y ago
    I could give you my answer, but it doesn't really matter (and anyway, I think it's kinda clear from my earlier comment) because I don't run a platform that could host any offensive content. NFS.net does -- and so I believe it's their responsibility to draw a line. It's a very, very hard problem, and there simply isn't one right answer, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't give one at all. You can't ensure that! At all! Which sucks! But that doesn't mean we should wring our hands and worry about "what if?" -- in fact, it only makes it MORE important that we resoundingly reject ideologies that would seek to abuse a line for nefarious, censorship-y purposes. Maybe we make that part of our line...
gwbas1c 7y ago
Over the last few years I've been questioning what it means to have freedom of speech. This quote in particular strikes me: > Finally, censorship is always bad, for a variety of well understood reasons that we don't need to repeat here. But in the case of some types of content, it has special dangers. When you censor a web site based on the extreme or dangerous views of its creator(s), you haven't stopped those people from thinking that way. Why? The problem is that I've seen someone who was very close to me repost propaganda on Facebook that looks like it's following the Nazi propaganda playbook. Stuff against immigrants, against religious minorities, ect. Just take some classic Nazi propaganda, swap out "jew", and that's this person reposts. (Or used to, as this person recently complained that Facebook is blocking their posts.) Anyway, I don't think that this person really thinks this way; instead I think this person's thinking is manipulated to push a political agenda.
parliament32 7y ago
Reddit could take a page from their book.
lliamander 7y ago
I tend to look at it from the perspective of the listener. Do I, as a individual adult, have the freedom and responsibility to make up my own mind about other people's ideas or not? I believe I do, and so I think there should be a platform for free speech. I believe this even though I largely do not wish to consume much of what people might term offensive. I appreciate platforms which curate and moderate content as a form of customer service. What I don't appreciate is entities (governments or corporations) taking a moralistic stance as if it is their duty to stamp out bad ideas from existence.
jasonvorhe 7y ago
If you allow everything that isn't illegal, you're actively supporting Nazis, anti-Semitism, racism, anti-LGBTQI content which makes you an accessory. It's censorship if a government suppresses information, if a company decides not to business with you, it's contract law. This isn't that difficult to grasp.
- AQuantized 7y ago
  I think I would disagree with your definition of censorship. If almost all entities in a given sphere, be it web hosting or media, decided they would absolutely not publish or host anything related to a particular topic or form of content, it seems accurate to term that censorship. The fact that it isn't done by the government doesn't mean that particular content isn't functionally suppressed.

113 points by benburwell 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Nearlyfreespeech.net is a great dns and hosting solution for simple sites and applications. They got a nice bump back in when godaddy got mixed up in SOPA back in 2012. I've used them before and they offer a great service for a good price and I support their general philosophy in regards to privacy and free speech.

Chirael 7y ago
I went to bookmark this site as a hosting company supporting a ton of languages, only to see that I’d already bookmarked it back in 2006. So I guess they’ve been around for a while :)

falcolas 7y ago

Honest, but leading, question in return: Offensive to whom? 90% of the population? Wouldn't that block out the Church of Satan's distributed materials (that is, coloring books)? To 80% of the population? Wouldn't that be the Book of Mormon? To 60%? The Quran? I think this part of their answer is a great response: "Of course, the simplest reason is that it's not up to us to decide what the rest of the world should or shouldn't see. Bad news, it's not up to you either. Worse news, it's still true even when we agree. Which is probably most of the time."

NullPrefix 7y ago
>Offensive to whom Offensive to those, who can make enough noise about it.
- josteink 7y ago
  Which would typically be privileged people, non-ironically complaining about other people’s privilege.
  - djsumdog 7y ago
    People don't have privilege. People toss around that word a lot and it's used incorrectly, as it is here. Say you walk into a store and are followed or stopped quite often for a receipt check. If you're black in certain parts of the world, this is quite common, but much more rare if you're not black. The privilege is a result of a system. You cannot say x people have privilege, and likewise people get offended when people yell at them for having privilege saying, "It's not something I choose." Is one person from one ethnic group responsible for all the ills cast upon others? Are we responsible for the debts of our fathers? Privilege is a result of a system, and it is a system that grants privilege and socialite (and often subconscious) level, and that system of beliefs is what needs to be changed. So fighting against privilege involves changing the narrative of the system we live in. It takes time and it takes diligence and it takes careful and critical thought. It's not as easy as throwing a word or blame around.
    - traderjane 7y ago
      That sounds like silly word play. It'd be like if I said "Tom has power." To which I guess you might reply, "People don't have power. Societies have power, structures have power, and positions have power... but people don't have power." Okay, sure. But Tom still has power. We are all responsible for the debts of our fathers, except the bill comes in the form of the physical world we inhabit. Who thinks they exist away from the past, except as rhetorical play about conquering old challenges?
    - smsm42 7y ago
      > People don't have privilege. I don't know. If you have the power to shut down a whole product line for a trans-national corporation with a single complaint, isn't that a kind of privilege? I certainly can't do it, you probably neither. But some people can. If you have a power to decide what is allowed to be spoken and what gets you removed from the platform, who is allowed to speak and who should be met with violence if only they dare to show up - isn't that a kind of privilege? If you can riot, destroy property, assault people and send them to the hospital - with full impunity and vocal support of major parts of the press and community, that would loudly denounce this conduct in everybody else - isn't that a kind of privilege? Some people seem to enjoy it.
Zaskoda 7y ago
> Offensive to whom? This is exactly the comment I clicked through to add. Without someone to be offended, nothing is offensive. When a service provider crosses the line and polices a piece of media, they are now responsible for defining that line moving forward. That's an insanely hard task. Most people who want "offensive" content taken down do not understand the complexity of what they are asking for.
lucideer 7y ago
Slightly more pragmatic reframing of the question: > "Why do you host harmful content?" To which your returned question would be similarly open-ended: Harmful to whom? Define harmless content. Etc. ... but probably a little more "down to earth" in terms of discussing the bounds of such definitions. The root of being "offended" may often be grounded in an agenda to silence and control, but it's typically defended by referencing potential harm. So that's usually a good place to start overturning such arguments.
- sdinsn 7y ago
  I disagree. Both "offensive" and "harmful" are up to debate based on arbitrary views / moral codes.
  - zbyte64 7y ago
    Is that useful though? The following requires a moral code to say it is bad: Directly advocating for sexual violence against another group.
    - sdinsn 7y ago
      You don't need a moral code. The pragmatic argument is that throughout history and across cultures, the rise of large civilizations was enabled by basic rule of law. Protecting people against violence brings stability and maximizes productivity.
  - lucideer 7y ago
    This is exactly what I said in my comment. I just think debating the former is meaningless (even if two parties agreed, their shared conclusion wouldn't be useful as offending someone isn't implicitly harmful). Whereas debating what's harmful, while similarly arbitrary and subjective, at least has the implied goal of actual harm reduction.
    - sdinsn 7y ago
      > This is exactly what I said in my comment. Ooops, I think I replied to the wrong comment
stcredzero 7y ago
Check out their MFFAM policy. Search for, "What is the "MFFAM" policy?"
- tubbs 7y ago
  https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq#BecauseFuckNazisThatsWhy https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq#BecauseFuckNazisT...
- smsm42 7y ago
  The policy is a bit of a misnomer though - as I understand, that's them funding the fight - by donating the money that would otherwise be their profit - not the "morons". But I think that's a very acceptable way to handle the problem.
Elidrake24 7y ago
It's a tough question isn't it? One we've tried to answer a good many times as a species. The last sincere attempt may be considered to be the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; that an individual may live freely regardless of race, color, sex, religion, political opinion, etc. That seemed contradictory at the time, bit it was always predicated on the idea that no one could ever affect the ability of another to live their life in a free way. It's just funny to see the same old argument brought up the thousandth time with maybe a slight context change to the last.

gowld 7y ago

The difference between something like NearlyFreeSpeech and something like YouTube, which is often lost in the noise, is that NearlyFreeSpeech is a hosting provider, while YouTube has, in addition, also an active editorial system and recommendation engine that promotes "offensive" content. Just as NFS is justified in hosting content and requiring uploaders to back it up with their real identity, so that those uploaders can be judged, people are justified in judging YouTube management for the content that YouTube management uploads (the Watch Next side-bar, and the comment streams it attaches to videos)

stcredzero 7y ago
people are justified in judging YouTube management for the content that YouTube management uploads You mean "promotes." People are free to judge. However, by granting discovery/virality selectively, rather than going by pure interest and numbers, YouTube is exercising editorial judgement. This makes them into a publisher, not a platform. People are free to urge YouTube to become a publisher. YouTube is free to follow suit or not and take the rewards and consequences of their actions.
- root_axis 7y ago
  > This makes them into a publisher, not a platform. Says who? "Publisher" and "Platform" are not mutually exclusive identities.

Nursie 7y ago

> "Finally, censorship is always bad, for a variety of well understood reasons that we don't need to repeat here. But in the case of some types of content, it has special dangers. When you censor a web site based on the extreme or dangerous views of its creator(s), you haven't stopped those people from thinking that way. You haven't made them go away. You certainly haven't stopped the people who hold those views from doing whatever else they do when they're not posting on the Internet. What you've actually done is given yourself a false sense of accomplishment by closing your eyes, clapping your hands over your ears, and yelling "Lalala! I can't hear you!" at the top of your voice. Pretending a problem doesn't exist is not only not a solution, it makes real solutions harder to reach." I no longer believe this, when cesspits of alt-right, racist assholes use such grandiose ideals to spread their hatred, which then bubbles out into the real world. The idea that good ideas will win, and that common sense and rationality will take the day, are not really supported by what we see around the net. Instead the greater internet fuckwad theorem holds more true, and the spread of vile, violent ideologies is enabled. Freedom of speech is a protection from government, but I think those providing speech platforms, such as hosting companies, should probably take more responsibility for what they propagate.

ulzeraj 7y ago
But who decides and points out what should be removed. What is “far right” from the point of view from someone who is “far left”? It began with Alex Jones and that kinda made sense but now the same people and institutions are asking for the head of individuals like Phillip DeFranco. The thing about censorship is that it never stops where you think it should.
- munificent 7y ago
  > it never stops where you think it should. Friendly reminder that "slippery slope" is a fallacy. 100% censorship is obviously bad. It remains to be shown that 0.1% censorship inevitably leads to it.
  - captainredbeard 7y ago

waynecochran 7y ago

If it is offensive because it stems from "bad ideas" then it is imperative that it is posted in the "public market of ideas" so it can be exposed and refuted. If it is not posted then folks will not know how to refute it when it crops up again -- and it will. Free Speech for bad ideas is as important as free speech for good ideas. Don't be offended. That's your choice. P.S. This doesn't mean that everything offensive must be posted -- there is stuff that should be illegal to post because of the harm it can cause. Edit: downvote within 15 seconds of posting ... you are speedy in your thoughtlessness.

stronglikedan 7y ago
> Free Speech for bad ideas is as important as free speech for good ideas. I would argue that it's more important. > Phillip DeFranco Edit regarding your edit: Complaining about downvotes is cringe inducing.
- waynecochran 7y ago
  I don't care about downvotes -- it was the immediacy of it.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikestew 7y ago
    That just means that a person inclined to downvote your comment saw it within seconds after posting. It’s not like there’s a shot clock for posts.
    - waynecochran 7y ago
      "saw it" bit did not "read it"
      - UncleMeat 7y ago

ecoled_ame 7y ago

The user takes total responsibility for the address he or she types in the navigation bar. They navigate there from an infinite distance.

jchw 7y ago

My favorite bit here is not the content policy, it’s the MFFAM bit, which is clever and amusing. https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq#BecauseFuckNazisThatsWhy https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq#BecauseFuckNazisT...

jakelazaroff 7y ago
Also, great URL for that section!
duxup 7y ago
It's a great idea... provided it is used frequently.
stcredzero 7y ago
The SPLC has done good work in the past, but they've published outright falsehoods recently. They've even had to retract, apologize, and pay a legal settlement. Much of their activity of late seems to be about political expedience and tribe, less about principle.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

duxup 7y ago

Do they have a policy where they deal with threats of violence / organizing something like that? I couldn't find any, but I'm also not familiar with the site. There's "offensive" as in thinks I don't like, or even hateful statements ... but to me threats of violence and etc fall into another area.

dmitrygr 7y ago
At least in the United States, threats of violence are also protected speech. "Fighting words" are not, but that is generally taken to mean words intending to cause immediate direct and specific harm to a specific person. A generic sort of "I wish $person was dead" is protected. This sort of thing came up a long time ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...
- duxup 7y ago
  I'm thinking of the specific type.

root_axis 7y ago

> censorship is always bad This isn't true. A few examples. If I post your naked photos online and they are censored, that isn't bad. If I post your address online next to a photo of your house and it is censored, that isn't bad. If I post the source code of your personal project online and it is censored, that isn't bad. If I post the contents of your diary online and it is censored, that isn't bad. If I post the contents of a heated argument between you and your spouse online and it is censored, that isn't bad. If I post a photoshopped picture of your kid online and it is censored, that isn't bad. Not everything deserves to see the light of day and actually, we do get to make that decision. This idea that "free speech" means everyone has to agree to let everything appear on the internet is false. "Free speech" also means "I have the freedom not to support someone else's speech".

stcredzero 7y ago
This isn't true. A few examples. If you have to resort to extreme examples, then it shows the weakness of your position. Those examples are mostly illegal. It's not "censorship" in the context of Free Speech if one is counteracting illegal activity. The serious societal problems come in when there is censorship on an ideological basis. This idea that "free speech" means everyone has to agree to let everything appear on the internet is false. If Free Speech applies to the Internet, then it means precisely that everyone has to agree to let everything appear on the Internet. In 2019, saying that people can have Free Speech, just not on the Internet, is like saying people can have Free Speech, just not with mechanized printing. In 2019, publishing has to include the Internet, and suppressing publishing on an ideological basis is suppressing the principle of Free Speech.
- root_axis 7y ago
  > If you have to resort to extreme examples, then it shows the weakness of your position What is extreme about them? An example of an extreme would be "child porn" or "your credit card number" or "the password to your email". The examples I listed are pretty mundane and actually quite common. Either way, you haven't actually explained why any of the examples I listed would be "bad". > Those examples are mostly illegal None of those examples are illegal except the naked photos and not even that in all states (but most, and not even just "naked photos" in and of themselves necessarily, i.e. naked photos in the context of "revenge porn"). But even if they were, so what? If it's illegal does that mean it's not censorship to remove it? > If Free Speech applies to the Internet, then it means precisely that everyone has to agree to let everything appear on the Internet This is obviously wrong. Based on that logic you should never be able to delete a comment from your personal blog because you're censoring the critics.

ketzo 7y ago

I see this argument so, so frequently -- that repugnant views need to be given a platform, that heinous and disgusting content must be allowed a space, so that everyone can see it and fight against it! Since when the fuck is that how the internet works? If Stormfront hosts a site on NFS.net, who do you think visits that site? Bright young progressives valiantly carrying a banner of social justice? No. Fucking neo-Nazis visit the Stormfront website, because, and this is important, _it's a platform for fucking neo-Nazis_. Christchurch. Charlottesville. Numerous terrorists have indicated very clearly that they were radicalized online. Why the fuck is it somehow your responsibility to provide these people a platform to spread their poison? To end my rant, here's that ridiculous quote that always gets tossed around in these discussions: > "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." Actually, as it happens, the best disinfectant is a harsh chemical, and the most efficient policeman is a fucking policeman. The internet is not a place of light and exposure. It is a place where disgusting ideologies can hide, quietly attract followers, and conspire to murder people. Consider how powerful that sunlight was the next time a right-wing terrorist screams about blood and soil while brandishing an AR. I'm sorry the tone of this is so angry. NFS is a great service -- I just can't stand this pitiful justification for aiding radicalization and eventual violence. There is a line you can draw. It is up to you to draw it.

dlivingston 7y ago
Where do you, personally, define the line though? And how do you ensure that line won't be changed to fight against you once your enemies are in power?
- ketzo 7y ago
  I could give you my answer, but it doesn't really matter (and anyway, I think it's kinda clear from my earlier comment) because I don't run a platform that could host any offensive content. NFS.net does -- and so I believe it's their responsibility to draw a line. It's a very, very hard problem, and there simply isn't one right answer, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't give one at all. You can't ensure that! At all! Which sucks! But that doesn't mean we should wring our hands and worry about "what if?" -- in fact, it only makes it MORE important that we resoundingly reject ideologies that would seek to abuse a line for nefarious, censorship-y purposes. Maybe we make that part of our line...

gwbas1c 7y ago

Over the last few years I've been questioning what it means to have freedom of speech. This quote in particular strikes me: > Finally, censorship is always bad, for a variety of well understood reasons that we don't need to repeat here. But in the case of some types of content, it has special dangers. When you censor a web site based on the extreme or dangerous views of its creator(s), you haven't stopped those people from thinking that way. Why? The problem is that I've seen someone who was very close to me repost propaganda on Facebook that looks like it's following the Nazi propaganda playbook. Stuff against immigrants, against religious minorities, ect. Just take some classic Nazi propaganda, swap out "jew", and that's this person reposts. (Or used to, as this person recently complained that Facebook is blocking their posts.) Anyway, I don't think that this person really thinks this way; instead I think this person's thinking is manipulated to push a political agenda.

parliament32 7y ago

Reddit could take a page from their book.

lliamander 7y ago

I tend to look at it from the perspective of the listener. Do I, as a individual adult, have the freedom and responsibility to make up my own mind about other people's ideas or not? I believe I do, and so I think there should be a platform for free speech. I believe this even though I largely do not wish to consume much of what people might term offensive. I appreciate platforms which curate and moderate content as a form of customer service. What I don't appreciate is entities (governments or corporations) taking a moralistic stance as if it is their duty to stamp out bad ideas from existence.

jasonvorhe 7y ago

If you allow everything that isn't illegal, you're actively supporting Nazis, anti-Semitism, racism, anti-LGBTQI content which makes you an accessory. It's censorship if a government suppresses information, if a company decides not to business with you, it's contract law. This isn't that difficult to grasp.

AQuantized 7y ago
I think I would disagree with your definition of censorship. If almost all entities in a given sphere, be it web hosting or media, decided they would absolutely not publish or host anything related to a particular topic or form of content, it seems accurate to term that censorship. The fact that it isn't done by the government doesn't mean that particular content isn't functionally suppressed.