6 ms·

The EFF is arguing here that companies should not take anything down and instead rely on the government to dictate what shouldn't be allowed. This is absolutely

The EFF is arguing here that companies should not take anything down and instead rely on the government to dictate what shouldn't be allowed. This is absolutely ridiculous. Imagine being such a free speech advocate that you say something like this.

catiopatio 3y ago
I am such a free speech advocate. Why is a belief in the common carrier model ridiculous?
- concordDance 3y ago
  That's not the ridiculous bit, the ridiculous bit is the advocating that the government crack down on people saying mean things about third parties to each other on the Internet. And make no mistake, that's 99% of what KiwiFarms does, the last time this came up on hackernews I browsed through hundreds of posts in a bunch of threads to see if there was anything other than that going on, so if its there it's in the DMs (and policing person-to-person communication is utterly insane) or very rare.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    What they're really saying is the the bar for ISP intervention in speech should be higher than the bar for prosecution. Which is not particularly ridiculous. It's not so much about the particular site.
  - EamonnMR 3y ago
    If kiwifarms was just about being a jerk and not about doxing I do not think people would have as big a problem.
    - concordDance 3y ago
      Having accessed that disgusting site for the third time, it definitely looks like it's 80% being a jerk and 20% doxxing.
- nextlevelwizard 3y ago
  They want to be common carriers, but also be able to discriminate users. Start by banning racists and bigoted users, then slowly start discriminating against other groups while offering new "private connection" for only $9.99/mo extra.
  - Levitz 3y ago
    I find it baffling that so much of the public is content with ostracizing despicable people when it's precisely "racists and bigoted users". The only reason that those are despicable nowadays is precisely because minorities and their supporters, which were considered despicable at the time, exercised their freedom of speech.
goodluckchuck 3y ago
Allowing speech is not an endorsement of the restrictions others may try to impose.
ocdtrekkie 3y ago
Yeah the EFF has gotten ridiculously radical into pro-corporate and pro-free speech positions. Generally anything that protects a company's ability to willfully harm society for money is worth protecting for the EFF. The EFF is so detached from humanity it doesn't mind innocent people dying for it's radical free speech cause. And that's really pretty sad.
- hnbad 3y ago
  You're disagreeing with the comment you replied to. That comment said the EFF is bad because it actually wants the government to intervene, not ISPs. Your comment says the EFF is bad because it wants companies to be allowed to do what they want. Did you misread the comment or did I misread yours?
  - chonkerz 3y ago
    I think the EFF is just giving us all whiplash
- didntcheck 3y ago
  Having the ~~clergy~~ ~~nobility~~ bourgeoisie decide what is "harmful to society" and unilaterally censor it is far more harmful. The fact that "pro free-speech" is considered something to sneer at makes me want to facepalm. People will say unpleasant things, but it's far less unpleasant then being told what we're "allowed" to hear "for our safety". The idea that they're "detached from humanity" and killing people by this is ridiculous
metalspot 3y ago
I don't have to imagine. Instead on censoring speech why not provide tools that lead to better speech? This is perfectly possible from a tech stand point but companies would rather have the power that comes from censorship. 1. Get rid of anonymity/pseudonymity. Free speech is a right. Anonymity is not. If people had to post everything in their real name you would get rid of all of the fake b.s. and people would be much more civilized in their speech. 2. Provide content filtering tools based on user voting with a public record of user votes and the option for people to turn off the filters so that they can see what is filtered. With these 2 mechanisms you can create a public square with absolute free speech where hate speech is filtered and suppressed, if people choose that, but the records are clear and people who want to audit the filtering can do so as they please.
- woofcat 3y ago
  That is a hot take. So if you post asking about abortion access as a 16 year old that should have your name plastered next to it. The internet has saved many people by opening up questions you wouldn't ask your doctor.
  - metalspot 3y ago
    its a free market so people are always welcome to run services that allow pseudonymity (nothing is actually anonymous on the internet, everything is logged and tracked and traceable) and people are free to use them. the most popular services (facebook/instagram, twitter) are the ones that have the most real people posting stuff under their real names. those companies continue to allow fake users for a variety of financial reasons but the fake users are actively degrading the experience. twitter is working on KYC now, but it is a cheap AI version that is easily exploitable, so it won't make much of a difference (as i understand it so far).
    - bobsmooth 3y ago
      Facebook, Instagram and Twitter are proof that having your real name next to your posts does not mean people will behave better.
Levitz 3y ago
The corporation is either responsible for its content or it's not. If they can pick and choose whatever message they like with absolute discretion, then that's effectively the corporation's speech and should be treated as such, with full responsibility over it. If they don't want to bear the responsibility for what they publish, then it's easy, don't pretend to have the legitimacy to choose. That the same social media platform can have as big of a change in views as Twitter/X did is insane to me. That's not "the public changing opinion". That's a corporation exercising speech. Full stop.
- chonkerz 3y ago
  It's a consequence of freedom. If companies aren't allowed to make the decision, then you're saying the government should make the decision instead. It's one or the other. There is no functional world where no one is allowed to moderate abuse, because in that world the Internet ceases to function. You don't have to like the results, but someone has to do it.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    Luckily both law and politics can distinguish between conventional internet abuse like spam or hacking, and ordinary political speech.
    - chonkerz 3y ago
      A fair amount of that is orchestrated on Kiwifarms, where hackers share leaked personal information of their victims and dissect it in creepy detail
      - dmatech 3y ago
        This is actually completely legal in the USA. It might be illegal if you are doing it with the stated intention of facilitating targeted harassment, but just posting personal information isn't a crime. If it were, the media would be in a lot of trouble.

catiopatio 3y ago

I am such a free speech advocate. Why is a belief in the common carrier model ridiculous?

concordDance 3y ago
That's not the ridiculous bit, the ridiculous bit is the advocating that the government crack down on people saying mean things about third parties to each other on the Internet. And make no mistake, that's 99% of what KiwiFarms does, the last time this came up on hackernews I browsed through hundreds of posts in a bunch of threads to see if there was anything other than that going on, so if its there it's in the DMs (and policing person-to-person communication is utterly insane) or very rare.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  What they're really saying is the the bar for ISP intervention in speech should be higher than the bar for prosecution. Which is not particularly ridiculous. It's not so much about the particular site.
- EamonnMR 3y ago
  If kiwifarms was just about being a jerk and not about doxing I do not think people would have as big a problem.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    Having accessed that disgusting site for the third time, it definitely looks like it's 80% being a jerk and 20% doxxing.
nextlevelwizard 3y ago
They want to be common carriers, but also be able to discriminate users. Start by banning racists and bigoted users, then slowly start discriminating against other groups while offering new "private connection" for only $9.99/mo extra.
- Levitz 3y ago
  I find it baffling that so much of the public is content with ostracizing despicable people when it's precisely "racists and bigoted users". The only reason that those are despicable nowadays is precisely because minorities and their supporters, which were considered despicable at the time, exercised their freedom of speech.

goodluckchuck 3y ago

Allowing speech is not an endorsement of the restrictions others may try to impose.

ocdtrekkie 3y ago

Yeah the EFF has gotten ridiculously radical into pro-corporate and pro-free speech positions. Generally anything that protects a company's ability to willfully harm society for money is worth protecting for the EFF. The EFF is so detached from humanity it doesn't mind innocent people dying for it's radical free speech cause. And that's really pretty sad.

hnbad 3y ago
You're disagreeing with the comment you replied to. That comment said the EFF is bad because it actually wants the government to intervene, not ISPs. Your comment says the EFF is bad because it wants companies to be allowed to do what they want. Did you misread the comment or did I misread yours?
- chonkerz 3y ago
  I think the EFF is just giving us all whiplash
didntcheck 3y ago
Having the ~~clergy~~ ~~nobility~~ bourgeoisie decide what is "harmful to society" and unilaterally censor it is far more harmful. The fact that "pro free-speech" is considered something to sneer at makes me want to facepalm. People will say unpleasant things, but it's far less unpleasant then being told what we're "allowed" to hear "for our safety". The idea that they're "detached from humanity" and killing people by this is ridiculous

metalspot 3y ago

I don't have to imagine. Instead on censoring speech why not provide tools that lead to better speech? This is perfectly possible from a tech stand point but companies would rather have the power that comes from censorship. 1. Get rid of anonymity/pseudonymity. Free speech is a right. Anonymity is not. If people had to post everything in their real name you would get rid of all of the fake b.s. and people would be much more civilized in their speech. 2. Provide content filtering tools based on user voting with a public record of user votes and the option for people to turn off the filters so that they can see what is filtered. With these 2 mechanisms you can create a public square with absolute free speech where hate speech is filtered and suppressed, if people choose that, but the records are clear and people who want to audit the filtering can do so as they please.

woofcat 3y ago
That is a hot take. So if you post asking about abortion access as a 16 year old that should have your name plastered next to it. The internet has saved many people by opening up questions you wouldn't ask your doctor.
- metalspot 3y ago
  its a free market so people are always welcome to run services that allow pseudonymity (nothing is actually anonymous on the internet, everything is logged and tracked and traceable) and people are free to use them. the most popular services (facebook/instagram, twitter) are the ones that have the most real people posting stuff under their real names. those companies continue to allow fake users for a variety of financial reasons but the fake users are actively degrading the experience. twitter is working on KYC now, but it is a cheap AI version that is easily exploitable, so it won't make much of a difference (as i understand it so far).
  - bobsmooth 3y ago
    Facebook, Instagram and Twitter are proof that having your real name next to your posts does not mean people will behave better.

Levitz 3y ago

The corporation is either responsible for its content or it's not. If they can pick and choose whatever message they like with absolute discretion, then that's effectively the corporation's speech and should be treated as such, with full responsibility over it. If they don't want to bear the responsibility for what they publish, then it's easy, don't pretend to have the legitimacy to choose. That the same social media platform can have as big of a change in views as Twitter/X did is insane to me. That's not "the public changing opinion". That's a corporation exercising speech. Full stop.

chonkerz 3y ago
It's a consequence of freedom. If companies aren't allowed to make the decision, then you're saying the government should make the decision instead. It's one or the other. There is no functional world where no one is allowed to moderate abuse, because in that world the Internet ceases to function. You don't have to like the results, but someone has to do it.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  Luckily both law and politics can distinguish between conventional internet abuse like spam or hacking, and ordinary political speech.
  - chonkerz 3y ago
    A fair amount of that is orchestrated on Kiwifarms, where hackers share leaked personal information of their victims and dissect it in creepy detail
    - dmatech 3y ago
      This is actually completely legal in the USA. It might be illegal if you are doing it with the stated intention of facilitating targeted harassment, but just posting personal information isn't a crime. If it were, the media would be in a lot of trouble.