4 ms·

How is that any different than a well lauded service like nearlyfreespeach.net? Just because you believe in the first amendment doesn't mean you should be the t

How is that any different than a well lauded service like nearlyfreespeach.net? Just because you believe in the first amendment doesn't mean you should be the target of harassment.

gkoberger 5y ago
Every single registrar is targeted by hackers daily. I'm not convinced this is a sign of targeted harassment as much as just shoddy security practices.
- Natsu 5y ago
  The hackers in this case released a statement giving their exact reasons for doing this, though, and it was hacked precisely because it hosts badspeech. So it's not a random hack, they did this specifically to give information out to activists. I wonder if the media outlets will continue with their policies of not reporting on hacked info or not?
  - gkoberger 5y ago
    No media outlet in the world has ever had a policy of not reporting on hacks. Sure, they won't show the data or how to get it yourself, but that's crazy to say that media outlets don't report on hacks.
    - Natsu 5y ago
      Many were advocating exactly that, though: https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/responsible-reporting-in-an-age-of-irresponsible-information/ https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/responsible-reporting-in... Then at least some places put into place policies like that, though some were then modified later: https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/16/twitter-changes-its-hacked-materials-policy-in-wake-of-new-york-post-controversy/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/16/twitter-changes-its-hacked...
      - smoldesu 5y ago
        Twitter is not a "media outlet". That kind of mentality is the one that encouraged thousands to microwave their iPhone to charge it.
        Natsu 5y ago
        I agree that Twitter is not something generally trustworthy, but that ignores Twitter's role in breaking news. The many places that generally are called "media outlets" that have reported news with tweets as their primary sources to the point where I think you would have trouble finding a media outlet that is an exception.
eigengrau5150 5y ago
NFS.net probably wouldn't tolerate many of the clients that Epik takes pride in hosting, though they do take on some of that type to fund their MFFAM efforts. https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq?keywords=offensive&submit=Search+for+Keywords&form=1#BecauseFuckNazisThatsWhy https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq?keywords=offensiv... > What is the "MFFAM" policy? > Because we believe in free speech, we host a small amount of offensive content. Some days, that's really hard to do. There are views expressed using our service that we find personally repugnant. (Although we don't host as much of that type of content as one might expect, given our extremely broad Terms & Conditions of Service. The simple fact is that our service is for smart people, which disproportionately excludes people who hold those types of views.) > Nonetheless, our content policy does occasionally put us in a position of accepting money to host sites we find abhorrent. But we have no interest in profiting from sites like that. For that reason, since our founding in 2002, we have what we have more recently started calling the MFFAM policy: Morons Funding the Fight Against Morons. > When we find a repugnant site on our service, we mark the account. We receive reports about all payments to such accounts, and we take a portion of that money larger than the amount of estimated profit and we donate it to the best organization we can find. The best organization in any given case meets two criteria: > 1. The recipient organization does share our values. > 2. The recipient organization is as opposite (and hopefully as offensive) as possible to the site operator that funded the donation. > Examples of organizations that have received funding over the years include the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, local chapters of the NAACP, the National Bail Fund Network, the American Immigration Council, the Trevor Project, and others. > This policy isn't perfect by any means, but neither is the world we live in. MFFAM does let us help the organizations that we hope will eventually get us closer to that perfect world. It helps the people who operate repugnant sites understand that they are here because we tolerate them... barely... not because we endorse them or their views. It also does a pretty decent job of further thinning out the number of such sites, as a fair number of people who run them only believe in free speech when they're the ones talking.
john-doe 5y ago
https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq#BecauseFuckNazisThatsWhy https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq#BecauseFuckNazisT...

How is that any different than a well lauded service like nearlyfreespeach.net? Just because you believe in the first amendment doesn't mean you should be the target of harassment.

gkoberger 5y ago

Every single registrar is targeted by hackers daily. I'm not convinced this is a sign of targeted harassment as much as just shoddy security practices.

Natsu 5y ago
The hackers in this case released a statement giving their exact reasons for doing this, though, and it was hacked precisely because it hosts badspeech. So it's not a random hack, they did this specifically to give information out to activists. I wonder if the media outlets will continue with their policies of not reporting on hacked info or not?
- gkoberger 5y ago
  No media outlet in the world has ever had a policy of not reporting on hacks. Sure, they won't show the data or how to get it yourself, but that's crazy to say that media outlets don't report on hacks.
  - Natsu 5y ago
    Many were advocating exactly that, though: https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/responsible-reporting-in-an-age-of-irresponsible-information/ https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/responsible-reporting-in... Then at least some places put into place policies like that, though some were then modified later: https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/16/twitter-changes-its-hacked-materials-policy-in-wake-of-new-york-post-controversy/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/16/twitter-changes-its-hacked...
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      Twitter is not a "media outlet". That kind of mentality is the one that encouraged thousands to microwave their iPhone to charge it.
      - Natsu 5y ago
        I agree that Twitter is not something generally trustworthy, but that ignores Twitter's role in breaking news. The many places that generally are called "media outlets" that have reported news with tweets as their primary sources to the point where I think you would have trouble finding a media outlet that is an exception.

eigengrau5150 5y ago

NFS.net probably wouldn't tolerate many of the clients that Epik takes pride in hosting, though they do take on some of that type to fund their MFFAM efforts. https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq?keywords=offensive&submit=Search+for+Keywords&form=1#BecauseFuckNazisThatsWhy https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq?keywords=offensiv... > What is the "MFFAM" policy? > Because we believe in free speech, we host a small amount of offensive content. Some days, that's really hard to do. There are views expressed using our service that we find personally repugnant. (Although we don't host as much of that type of content as one might expect, given our extremely broad Terms & Conditions of Service. The simple fact is that our service is for smart people, which disproportionately excludes people who hold those types of views.) > Nonetheless, our content policy does occasionally put us in a position of accepting money to host sites we find abhorrent. But we have no interest in profiting from sites like that. For that reason, since our founding in 2002, we have what we have more recently started calling the MFFAM policy: Morons Funding the Fight Against Morons. > When we find a repugnant site on our service, we mark the account. We receive reports about all payments to such accounts, and we take a portion of that money larger than the amount of estimated profit and we donate it to the best organization we can find. The best organization in any given case meets two criteria: > 1. The recipient organization does share our values. > 2. The recipient organization is as opposite (and hopefully as offensive) as possible to the site operator that funded the donation. > Examples of organizations that have received funding over the years include the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, local chapters of the NAACP, the National Bail Fund Network, the American Immigration Council, the Trevor Project, and others. > This policy isn't perfect by any means, but neither is the world we live in. MFFAM does let us help the organizations that we hope will eventually get us closer to that perfect world. It helps the people who operate repugnant sites understand that they are here because we tolerate them... barely... not because we endorse them or their views. It also does a pretty decent job of further thinning out the number of such sites, as a fair number of people who run them only believe in free speech when they're the ones talking.

john-doe 5y ago

https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq#BecauseFuckNazisThatsWhy https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq#BecauseFuckNazisT...