5 ms·

So you're willing to give unchecked control of online discourse to a private corporation?

by FourScore 7y ago

IntelMiner 7y ago
As opposed to...what, exactly? A government funded Reddit? Which government would fund it? How would it be run?
- noobermin 7y ago
  That is perhaps not a bad idea. If not government funded, a non-profit, like c-span.
- Cakez0r 7y ago
  The government could fund educational programs to teach people to think critically about the content they see on the internet, then they wouldn't have to censor it.
  - mythrwy 7y ago
    The government already provides 12 years of (somewhat) compulsory education. Critical thinking skills still seem to be a rarity.
edna314 7y ago
Do we really need to talk about closing down a site where people encourage each other to kill other people (no matter who does it)? Why is it so important that there are no exceptions to freedom of speech? Seriously, I just don’t get how the purity of the concept of freedom of speech can be so important that it beats common sense.
- hutzlibu 7y ago
  "Do we really need to talk about closing down a site where people encourage each other to kill other people" Oh, so you are in favor of shutting down all army related sites? Well, many pacifist would probably agree ..
  - edna314 7y ago
    Since there are no army related sites which encourage people to kill other people I'm not in favor of that and you are free to convince me otherwise by providing a link. But, if they were doing this I would be in favor of shutting them down, yes.
    - hutzlibu 7y ago
      Army is all about how to kill other people. Not hypothetically, very real. Every day. And governemnts openly advertise for it. On websites, (even in schools). And private enthusiasts maintain forums where army people discuss about the current wars and how to better kill the current enemy. Etc. Etc.
      - edna314 7y ago
        > Army is all about how to kill other people. Not necessarily. The purpose of armies is to win wars. If it was possible to win wars without killing people they wouldn't kill people. In fact they are trying to minimize collateral damage. It's different with white supremacists. They have a direct interest in killing people. There is no collateral damage for them, which is also why they do mass shootings and the army usually doesn't.
        gspetr 7y ago
        Most of the latter are interested in expelling those they don't consider their own, violence to most of them is just a means to an end, otherwise "go back" or "send them back" would not have been their rallying cry. Some really do want to kill people, but then again would you deny that the army or even the police doesn't get their fair share of these people?
        edna314 7y ago
        I guess we already made the experiment what would happen if white supremacists would lead a country, so we can already tell that it's likely that "sending them back" isn't going to cut it, if "they" refuse to leave.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Have you an example in history when a lack of censorship posed a problem? I don't, so I value it very much. There were attrocities in my countries in the name of common sense on the other hand. Even if intuitive, censorship isn't an answer to anything.
  - edna314 7y ago
    I don’t consider deleting calls for violence towards minorities censorship. And I do think that history has shown too many times that propaganda is a powerful tool, that needs to be restricted. I mean you are free to doubt common sense, but I think doubting common sense is always the first step of becoming fanatic. What would be the country you are talking about? The way I could imagine for someone to commit atrocities out of common sense would be if he has a gun pointed to his head.
    - raxxorrax 7y ago
      We are not talking propaganda here, these are individual actors. Some just like to provoke a reaction, some have these believes and I have seen people turning their back on these platforms innumerable times. Regardless of the reason people visit these places, the moment they get external pressure, their believes get vindicated. We see a large surge in issues with these communities since we got on our little censorship trip. It is just plainly the wrong move to make. There have been Nazis on the internet since shortly after its inception. But random people going out and shooting crowds in this frequency is a new phenomenon. Historically censorship has always been applied for the right reasons of course.
  - foozed 7y ago
    This historical comparison just isn't fair since at no point in human history the possibilities of communication were anywhere close to what they are now.
- decoyworker 7y ago
  Freedom of speech is not without exceptions. You can't yell, "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire for example. Everyone here wants that perfect idealistic and pure world, unfortunately that's now the world we are given. Problem is many here want to just treat the world we have as the idealistic model world as if there is no difference.
- CapricornNoble 7y ago
  >>>Do we really need to talk about closing down a site where people encourage each other to kill other people (no matter who does it)? That's a fairly simple metric. So you're saying we can finally shut down Twitter? https://youtu.be/n2Gu7NqsCfg https://youtu.be/n2Gu7NqsCfg
dredmorbius 7y ago
The power is not unchecked. It can be checked through lawsuit -- 8chan could conceivably sue Cloudflare under numerous doctrines, starting with breach of promise / breach of contract. Another service provider could step up, as was the case with Daily Stormer, and is extensively commented upon in Prince's commentary, and provide services. Regulatory or legal procedures could be established to specifically address this situation or provide redress. Public outcry, market sanctions, or labour actions might be taken against providers who exercise such power in manners which are seen as morally reprehensible. For similar examples, see Google employees over Dragonfly or Edleman's emplyee backlash over a contract with a border-wall services company. The question to be asked, the question we all have to ask, is whether or not individuals, groups, companies, or inchoate movements which are themselves dedicated to abolition or denial of civil order and rule of law are themselves deserving of its full protections in pursuing those ends. And a considerable case can be made for "no".
decoyworker 7y ago
It's not unchecked- they are free to move to a different service. Why should Cloudflare be forced to keep all customers no matter what? That infringes on their rights as a private business to run their business as they see fit. There is no "freedom of platform" where your right to a platform is being infringed. You have no right to a platform.
spookthesunset 7y ago
> So you're willing to give unchecked control of online discourse to a private corporation You clearly are okay with it because you are posting on a forum with unchecked, active moderation.

So you're willing to give unchecked control of online discourse to a private corporation?

IntelMiner 7y ago

As opposed to...what, exactly? A government funded Reddit? Which government would fund it? How would it be run?

noobermin 7y ago
That is perhaps not a bad idea. If not government funded, a non-profit, like c-span.
Cakez0r 7y ago
The government could fund educational programs to teach people to think critically about the content they see on the internet, then they wouldn't have to censor it.
- mythrwy 7y ago
  The government already provides 12 years of (somewhat) compulsory education. Critical thinking skills still seem to be a rarity.

edna314 7y ago

Do we really need to talk about closing down a site where people encourage each other to kill other people (no matter who does it)? Why is it so important that there are no exceptions to freedom of speech? Seriously, I just don’t get how the purity of the concept of freedom of speech can be so important that it beats common sense.

hutzlibu 7y ago
"Do we really need to talk about closing down a site where people encourage each other to kill other people" Oh, so you are in favor of shutting down all army related sites? Well, many pacifist would probably agree ..
- edna314 7y ago
  Since there are no army related sites which encourage people to kill other people I'm not in favor of that and you are free to convince me otherwise by providing a link. But, if they were doing this I would be in favor of shutting them down, yes.
  - hutzlibu 7y ago
    Army is all about how to kill other people. Not hypothetically, very real. Every day. And governemnts openly advertise for it. On websites, (even in schools). And private enthusiasts maintain forums where army people discuss about the current wars and how to better kill the current enemy. Etc. Etc.
    - edna314 7y ago
      > Army is all about how to kill other people. Not necessarily. The purpose of armies is to win wars. If it was possible to win wars without killing people they wouldn't kill people. In fact they are trying to minimize collateral damage. It's different with white supremacists. They have a direct interest in killing people. There is no collateral damage for them, which is also why they do mass shootings and the army usually doesn't.
      - gspetr 7y ago
        Most of the latter are interested in expelling those they don't consider their own, violence to most of them is just a means to an end, otherwise "go back" or "send them back" would not have been their rallying cry. Some really do want to kill people, but then again would you deny that the army or even the police doesn't get their fair share of these people?
        edna314 7y ago
        I guess we already made the experiment what would happen if white supremacists would lead a country, so we can already tell that it's likely that "sending them back" isn't going to cut it, if "they" refuse to leave.
raxxorrax 7y ago
Have you an example in history when a lack of censorship posed a problem? I don't, so I value it very much. There were attrocities in my countries in the name of common sense on the other hand. Even if intuitive, censorship isn't an answer to anything.
- edna314 7y ago
  I don’t consider deleting calls for violence towards minorities censorship. And I do think that history has shown too many times that propaganda is a powerful tool, that needs to be restricted. I mean you are free to doubt common sense, but I think doubting common sense is always the first step of becoming fanatic. What would be the country you are talking about? The way I could imagine for someone to commit atrocities out of common sense would be if he has a gun pointed to his head.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    We are not talking propaganda here, these are individual actors. Some just like to provoke a reaction, some have these believes and I have seen people turning their back on these platforms innumerable times. Regardless of the reason people visit these places, the moment they get external pressure, their believes get vindicated. We see a large surge in issues with these communities since we got on our little censorship trip. It is just plainly the wrong move to make. There have been Nazis on the internet since shortly after its inception. But random people going out and shooting crowds in this frequency is a new phenomenon. Historically censorship has always been applied for the right reasons of course.
- foozed 7y ago
  This historical comparison just isn't fair since at no point in human history the possibilities of communication were anywhere close to what they are now.
decoyworker 7y ago
Freedom of speech is not without exceptions. You can't yell, "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire for example. Everyone here wants that perfect idealistic and pure world, unfortunately that's now the world we are given. Problem is many here want to just treat the world we have as the idealistic model world as if there is no difference.
CapricornNoble 7y ago
>>>Do we really need to talk about closing down a site where people encourage each other to kill other people (no matter who does it)? That's a fairly simple metric. So you're saying we can finally shut down Twitter? https://youtu.be/n2Gu7NqsCfg https://youtu.be/n2Gu7NqsCfg

dredmorbius 7y ago

The power is not unchecked. It can be checked through lawsuit -- 8chan could conceivably sue Cloudflare under numerous doctrines, starting with breach of promise / breach of contract. Another service provider could step up, as was the case with Daily Stormer, and is extensively commented upon in Prince's commentary, and provide services. Regulatory or legal procedures could be established to specifically address this situation or provide redress. Public outcry, market sanctions, or labour actions might be taken against providers who exercise such power in manners which are seen as morally reprehensible. For similar examples, see Google employees over Dragonfly or Edleman's emplyee backlash over a contract with a border-wall services company. The question to be asked, the question we all have to ask, is whether or not individuals, groups, companies, or inchoate movements which are themselves dedicated to abolition or denial of civil order and rule of law are themselves deserving of its full protections in pursuing those ends. And a considerable case can be made for "no".

decoyworker 7y ago

It's not unchecked- they are free to move to a different service. Why should Cloudflare be forced to keep all customers no matter what? That infringes on their rights as a private business to run their business as they see fit. There is no "freedom of platform" where your right to a platform is being infringed. You have no right to a platform.

spookthesunset 7y ago

> So you're willing to give unchecked control of online discourse to a private corporation You clearly are okay with it because you are posting on a forum with unchecked, active moderation.