8 ms·

There's always a line, and therefore, I'm ok with drawing the line at Nazis.

by jonny_eh 6y ago

frandroid 6y ago
slow clap for HNers downvoting this and the parent answer...
- zajd 6y ago
  Nazism is pretty popular on HN, comes with the territory when most of the board's users are well off westerners. Doesn't hurt that the mods are way more concerned with anti-capitalist rhetoric. Not surprising considering who owns the site though.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> There's always a line This is where you've gone wrong. There isn't always a line, some businesses are in the business of selling products and services and not in the business of policing content. And if some of their customers are pedophiles or the like then have the police arrest the pedophiles and leave the fry cooks and gas station attendants out of it, even if the pedophiles eat food and drive cars.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Certhas 6y ago
  Would you have an issue if a printing shop said no to doing business with a Nazi newspaper?
- midasz 6y ago
  > There isn't always a line Yes there is. The line is Nazis now. There was a war, they lost. They're not welcome anymore.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Wait, so being a Nazi would be okay if they had won the war? Might makes right and censorship of political opponents was Nazi canon. I thought you were saying their ideology was defeated.
    - midasz 6y ago
      We wouldn't be having this conversation if they had won the war - my family would be dead and I would never have been born. Excuse me for not protecting their right to speech (which leads to action). Nazism isn't a point of contention anymore. We know what their rhetoric leads to (because they were allowed to rise and showed the world what the consequences are). That's why I said they lost the war. It's imho a pretty strong argument to draw the line right there, to ensure the sacrifices were not made for nothing.
    - jonny_eh 6y ago
      Well, they had their chance to show what they'd do while in power, and it was very very bad.
- ygjb 6y ago
  No. The reason why freedom of speech (or freedom of expression, if you're Canadian like me) is important in a government context is because the government (in theory) has a monopoly on violence. Businesses and private individuals should not be expected to uphold and enforce freedom of speech because requiring them to do so puts them at odds with themselves. An employer expected to uphold freedom of speech must then require their employees to work with or for people who believe they are lesser people, not even people, or should be the victims of abuse, violence, and genocide. That is an untenable position from a human rights perspective. I as a private individual do not want to do business or associate with people who use freedom of speech as a platform to preach hate or ignorance, and that is my choice. I am happy to see companies kick bad actors to the curb, whether they are fashionable nazis being deplatformed, gamergaters harassing women and minorities, and I am frustrated when I see legitimate journalists being censored by those same platforms. It's not cognitive dissonance to support stopping bad actors while rallying to support good actors, it's a recognition of the fact that our rights are open to abuse and that the current system isn't great at coping with abuse. I certainly don't think that requiring businesses and platforms to provide guarantees around freedom of speech is a good idea, and most platforms that have attempted to or succeeded in doing so have turned into the cesspools of the internet.
  - Reelin 6y ago
    > The reason why freedom of speech ... is important This view is (IMO) far too narrow. Freedom of expression, particularly political expression, is absolutely essential to the functioning of western society as it currently exists. Personally, I also see it as an ideal to be pursued in and of itself regardless of any functional need for it. Government regulation has a high potential for abuse for a number of reasons (the monopoly on violence is merely one) so it makes sense to take steps to constrain it in certain critical cases. Note that this doesn't imply anything about private entities; it is simply a logical consequence of a functional need or ideal in the context of our current system. As to private entities (businesses, etc) things vary based on context. Certainly I don't have any wish (for example) to force YouTube to host pornographic content. However there may well exist cases where broader freedom of expression (either the functional need or the ideal) requires protection against private entities. California actually has such a law - an employer is not permitted to take actions that would "influence or tend to influence" their employees political activities outside of the workplace. This can get very complicated (as you might imagine) when an employer takes an official political stance on an issue. US telecoms are also subject to regulation of this sort (ie common carrier laws). Personally I think that infrastructure companies (Cloudflare and other CDNs, as well as those providing the physical layer) ought to be subject to something broadly similar. It would help protect usage of and access to the underlying infrastructure for everyone by shielding the relevant companies from negative public opinion (public outrage campaigns accomplish nothing if the company is legally required to serve all customers). > ... have turned into the cesspools of the internet Broadly, I think you are tending to conflate infrastructure providers with social networks (and similar end user sites). There are important differences (for example) between FedEx and an online retailer, even though they might both be involved in getting a physical product to you.

There's always a line, and therefore, I'm ok with drawing the line at Nazis.

frandroid 6y ago

slow clap for HNers downvoting this and the parent answer...

zajd 6y ago
Nazism is pretty popular on HN, comes with the territory when most of the board's users are well off westerners. Doesn't hurt that the mods are way more concerned with anti-capitalist rhetoric. Not surprising considering who owns the site though.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> There's always a line This is where you've gone wrong. There isn't always a line, some businesses are in the business of selling products and services and not in the business of policing content. And if some of their customers are pedophiles or the like then have the police arrest the pedophiles and leave the fry cooks and gas station attendants out of it, even if the pedophiles eat food and drive cars.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Certhas 6y ago
Would you have an issue if a printing shop said no to doing business with a Nazi newspaper?
midasz 6y ago
> There isn't always a line Yes there is. The line is Nazis now. There was a war, they lost. They're not welcome anymore.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Wait, so being a Nazi would be okay if they had won the war? Might makes right and censorship of political opponents was Nazi canon. I thought you were saying their ideology was defeated.
  - midasz 6y ago
    We wouldn't be having this conversation if they had won the war - my family would be dead and I would never have been born. Excuse me for not protecting their right to speech (which leads to action). Nazism isn't a point of contention anymore. We know what their rhetoric leads to (because they were allowed to rise and showed the world what the consequences are). That's why I said they lost the war. It's imho a pretty strong argument to draw the line right there, to ensure the sacrifices were not made for nothing.
  - jonny_eh 6y ago
    Well, they had their chance to show what they'd do while in power, and it was very very bad.
ygjb 6y ago
No. The reason why freedom of speech (or freedom of expression, if you're Canadian like me) is important in a government context is because the government (in theory) has a monopoly on violence. Businesses and private individuals should not be expected to uphold and enforce freedom of speech because requiring them to do so puts them at odds with themselves. An employer expected to uphold freedom of speech must then require their employees to work with or for people who believe they are lesser people, not even people, or should be the victims of abuse, violence, and genocide. That is an untenable position from a human rights perspective. I as a private individual do not want to do business or associate with people who use freedom of speech as a platform to preach hate or ignorance, and that is my choice. I am happy to see companies kick bad actors to the curb, whether they are fashionable nazis being deplatformed, gamergaters harassing women and minorities, and I am frustrated when I see legitimate journalists being censored by those same platforms. It's not cognitive dissonance to support stopping bad actors while rallying to support good actors, it's a recognition of the fact that our rights are open to abuse and that the current system isn't great at coping with abuse. I certainly don't think that requiring businesses and platforms to provide guarantees around freedom of speech is a good idea, and most platforms that have attempted to or succeeded in doing so have turned into the cesspools of the internet.
- Reelin 6y ago
  > The reason why freedom of speech ... is important This view is (IMO) far too narrow. Freedom of expression, particularly political expression, is absolutely essential to the functioning of western society as it currently exists. Personally, I also see it as an ideal to be pursued in and of itself regardless of any functional need for it. Government regulation has a high potential for abuse for a number of reasons (the monopoly on violence is merely one) so it makes sense to take steps to constrain it in certain critical cases. Note that this doesn't imply anything about private entities; it is simply a logical consequence of a functional need or ideal in the context of our current system. As to private entities (businesses, etc) things vary based on context. Certainly I don't have any wish (for example) to force YouTube to host pornographic content. However there may well exist cases where broader freedom of expression (either the functional need or the ideal) requires protection against private entities. California actually has such a law - an employer is not permitted to take actions that would "influence or tend to influence" their employees political activities outside of the workplace. This can get very complicated (as you might imagine) when an employer takes an official political stance on an issue. US telecoms are also subject to regulation of this sort (ie common carrier laws). Personally I think that infrastructure companies (Cloudflare and other CDNs, as well as those providing the physical layer) ought to be subject to something broadly similar. It would help protect usage of and access to the underlying infrastructure for everyone by shielding the relevant companies from negative public opinion (public outrage campaigns accomplish nothing if the company is legally required to serve all customers). > ... have turned into the cesspools of the internet Broadly, I think you are tending to conflate infrastructure providers with social networks (and similar end user sites). There are important differences (for example) between FedEx and an online retailer, even though they might both be involved in getting a physical product to you.