5 ms·

Just like how 911 changed airport security permanently, this is going to change the internet forever.

by j16sdiz 6y ago

dionian 6y ago
Yes, although there was good reason to change the way airports are policed the way they are now.
- j16sdiz 6y ago
  Sure. But from time to time we heard people banned traveling for "reasons" like having the similar name as a criminal. False positive are unavoidable. I am not sure I want to pay that price.
- akvadrako 6y ago
  It's surprising to see this expressed here without a rebuttal. The reaction to 9/11, especially the creation of the TSA, is one of the worst things that have happened in my lifetime. Most people I know generally agree. Not only is it not effective, but it's very expensive and causes lots of violations of personal rights.
offby37years 6y ago
Yes, expedited the decentralised, uncensorable web by 3-5 years. Then we're back to square one with no recourse.
- ascendantlogic 6y ago
  Where is the line? Do we defend free speech as violent mobs incited on false pretense attempt to overthrow the government to install their wannabe dictator back into power? If that happens do you think freedom of speech will survive? If Trump were to succeed with his coup and be put back into power do you really think the constitution survives in its current incarnation at all? Freedom of speech is one thing but when it finally translates into violent action it's a different animal.
  - JasonFruit 6y ago
    Yes, that's exactly when we defend free speech — when it is unpleasant, disgusting, even hateful — because that's when precedents are set that will affect us all.
    - geofft 6y ago
      The allegation is not that it's merely unpleasant, but that it threatens the future of free speech itself. If "defending free speech" takes us to a world where free speech doesn't exist, then you didn't actually defend free speech at all. (You might disagree that free speech is at risk from people enacting violence against the government in an attempt to overthrow a democratic election - if so, make that argument, instead of repeating platitudes about how it's important to defend free speech you don't like.)
      - JasonFruit 6y ago
        So you're saying, "Destroy free speech to defend free speech"? That sounds a lot like "Destroy the republic to save the republic." I've heard a lot of both recently, and I don't agree with either.
        metabagel 6y ago
        You don’t seem to be making much of an attempt to understand.
        geofft 6y ago
        (Which is ironic, because the point of free speech, one would hope, would be to try to understand new viewpoints instead of yelling your slogans into increasingly loud megaphones. Free speech advocates who treat speech as an end in itself rather than as a means to some obviously useful goal like improving society are a large part of why there isn't as much of a public commitment to free speech as you would hope.)
        jonathanyc 6y ago
neom 6y ago
The internet has been like this forever. Don't like the stuff someone says on my irc server? gline. Don't like a comment on a forum? banned. Heck, we removed swaths of users from DeviantART back in the day for simply being rude. At least from as long back as I can remember (1996/7), the interneting has mostly been privately owned stuff run by real people who get to choose what happens on their lawn.
- seneca 6y ago
  I've got a handful of years on you, and I disagree that this is anything like how the internet has always been. Unless you've got your head in the sand, you can see that tech companies have been steadily ratcheting up the use of their moderation policies to silence political speech they don't like. The last week is just a feeding frenzy now that they feel like they have a strong excuse. I'm speaking generally here, and more about companies like Twitter. I don't know whether that wider trend is what is happening here with GoDaddy.
- JasonFruit 6y ago
  The difference here, as I see it, is that it's not being banned for the usual reasons, but because it's political speech the resource owner doesn't agree with. There's been a huge uptick in that over the last several months, and with the disgusting episode in Washington, it kicked into high gear these past few days. It's affecting people who have very little in common with the people who engaged in illegal acts there, too. There are topics that correlate with disfavored political views but are not directly related to politics that have practically been eliminated from Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms. It's probably not illegal, but it's disturbing to watch.
  - na85 6y ago
    >The difference here, as I see it, is that it's not being banned for the usual reasons, but because it's political speech the resource owner doesn't agree with. Oh please. It's political speech, all right, but the difference here is that it's political speech in the wake of a bunch of guys with knives, bombs, and zip ties trying to storm the US Senate to subvert the democratic process, and the political speech is advocating more of the same. This isn't just someone saying odious things, it's calls to make a second attempt at armed insurrection.

Just like how 911 changed airport security permanently, this is going to change the internet forever.

dionian 6y ago

Yes, although there was good reason to change the way airports are policed the way they are now.

j16sdiz 6y ago
Sure. But from time to time we heard people banned traveling for "reasons" like having the similar name as a criminal. False positive are unavoidable. I am not sure I want to pay that price.
akvadrako 6y ago
It's surprising to see this expressed here without a rebuttal. The reaction to 9/11, especially the creation of the TSA, is one of the worst things that have happened in my lifetime. Most people I know generally agree. Not only is it not effective, but it's very expensive and causes lots of violations of personal rights.

offby37years 6y ago

Yes, expedited the decentralised, uncensorable web by 3-5 years. Then we're back to square one with no recourse.

ascendantlogic 6y ago
Where is the line? Do we defend free speech as violent mobs incited on false pretense attempt to overthrow the government to install their wannabe dictator back into power? If that happens do you think freedom of speech will survive? If Trump were to succeed with his coup and be put back into power do you really think the constitution survives in its current incarnation at all? Freedom of speech is one thing but when it finally translates into violent action it's a different animal.
- JasonFruit 6y ago
  Yes, that's exactly when we defend free speech — when it is unpleasant, disgusting, even hateful — because that's when precedents are set that will affect us all.
  - geofft 6y ago
    The allegation is not that it's merely unpleasant, but that it threatens the future of free speech itself. If "defending free speech" takes us to a world where free speech doesn't exist, then you didn't actually defend free speech at all. (You might disagree that free speech is at risk from people enacting violence against the government in an attempt to overthrow a democratic election - if so, make that argument, instead of repeating platitudes about how it's important to defend free speech you don't like.)
    - JasonFruit 6y ago
      So you're saying, "Destroy free speech to defend free speech"? That sounds a lot like "Destroy the republic to save the republic." I've heard a lot of both recently, and I don't agree with either.
      - metabagel 6y ago
        You don’t seem to be making much of an attempt to understand.
        geofft 6y ago
        (Which is ironic, because the point of free speech, one would hope, would be to try to understand new viewpoints instead of yelling your slogans into increasingly loud megaphones. Free speech advocates who treat speech as an end in itself rather than as a means to some obviously useful goal like improving society are a large part of why there isn't as much of a public commitment to free speech as you would hope.)
      - jonathanyc 6y ago

neom 6y ago

The internet has been like this forever. Don't like the stuff someone says on my irc server? gline. Don't like a comment on a forum? banned. Heck, we removed swaths of users from DeviantART back in the day for simply being rude. At least from as long back as I can remember (1996/7), the interneting has mostly been privately owned stuff run by real people who get to choose what happens on their lawn.

seneca 6y ago
I've got a handful of years on you, and I disagree that this is anything like how the internet has always been. Unless you've got your head in the sand, you can see that tech companies have been steadily ratcheting up the use of their moderation policies to silence political speech they don't like. The last week is just a feeding frenzy now that they feel like they have a strong excuse. I'm speaking generally here, and more about companies like Twitter. I don't know whether that wider trend is what is happening here with GoDaddy.
JasonFruit 6y ago
The difference here, as I see it, is that it's not being banned for the usual reasons, but because it's political speech the resource owner doesn't agree with. There's been a huge uptick in that over the last several months, and with the disgusting episode in Washington, it kicked into high gear these past few days. It's affecting people who have very little in common with the people who engaged in illegal acts there, too. There are topics that correlate with disfavored political views but are not directly related to politics that have practically been eliminated from Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms. It's probably not illegal, but it's disturbing to watch.
- na85 6y ago
  >The difference here, as I see it, is that it's not being banned for the usual reasons, but because it's political speech the resource owner doesn't agree with. Oh please. It's political speech, all right, but the difference here is that it's political speech in the wake of a bunch of guys with knives, bombs, and zip ties trying to storm the US Senate to subvert the democratic process, and the political speech is advocating more of the same. This isn't just someone saying odious things, it's calls to make a second attempt at armed insurrection.