Why you should care that a Neo Nazi website got shut down
Comments
-
The real threat here is not a ragtag group of dumbass Nazi sympathizers that poast rubbish on a fringe message bored. If you don't like their message, debate their ignorance or ignore them. The real threat is from these tech companies that have too much power and have already proven they are willing to suppress free speech. In Facebook's case they even take it a step further and work with governments to stifle it. In Germany, not only do they remove anti government views and ban users who are critical of the lady fuhrer's immigration policies, but police often pay these users a visit afterwards. Mark Cuckerberg was even caught on tape colluding with Merkel on this subject.
-
lolBearsWiin said:
They would drive themselves to the gas chambersTurdBuffer said:
But what if they were Gay Nazis?BearsWiin said:
I agree that social media companies wield a lot of influence. I don't agree that any of them constitute monopolies at this poont. There are multiple browsers, multiple search engines, and multiple social media sites. If a bunch of companies are refusing to let Nazis use their products to spread hateful content, perhaps the problem lies with the hateful content and not with the companies. And private companies reserve the right to refuse service based on what they see as inappropriate customer behavior all the time. Try going into your neighborhood Olive Garden and start spewing Nazi epithets, and see how quickly you get told to leave. Your local newspaper runs ads for fucking Presidents Day Auto sales deals, but I doubt you'll see them running ads for the local NaziPalooza. Media companies can refuse service; it doesn't necessarily constitute a legal infringement on free speech.TurdBuffer said:oregonblitzkrieg said:You need look no further than Canada to see the end result of this kind of totalitarianism. It's still in its infancy here and needs to be aborted before it escapes the womb. You can be fined there for telling the wrong kind of joke, and jailed if you can't pay. They have 'tribunals' that basically decide what is offensive and what isn't, what kind of speech is allowed and what kind of speech will be silenced. Fight the system there and you will pay the price and even have your career/livelihood stripped away from you.
Not sure I agree with you on this. Heavily regulated industries are quasi governmental for various purposes. They often have the choice of either bowing to government regulator demands, or they get deemed a monopoly and get broken up. It's been a long time since the Supreme Court has heard one of these cases, but it's a lot like when Microsoft was facing anti-trust lawsuits for bundling it's browser with Windows.BearsWiin said:No state institution involved so no First Amendment issue, no aggrieved status, no protected class. Looking at any case involving denial of service to Nazis, a court would rule on rational basis and find for the company, if they deigned to take the case at all. NeoNazis want to get The Word out, they can stand on fucking streetcorners and hand out flyers like the Original Gangsta Brownshirts did.
It will be interesting to watch, because Google and Social Media companies have far more influence over politics and daily life than Microsoft or Netscape ever did.
I just realized something. I'm getting fucking old.
Nobody is keeping Nazis from spewing their hateful content. They're free to say their stupid shit until their faces turn PrussianBlue. They just don't get to use a private company's platform to spread it. If they owned their own ISP company, there wouldn't be any problem.
That's some solid fucking work right there. -
Piss off, faggot. Find a worthy cause to argue for.oregonblitzkrieg said:The real threat here is not a ragtag group of dumbass Nazi sympathizers that poast rubbish on a fringe message bored. If you don't like their message, debate their ignorance or ignore them. The real threat is from these tech companies that have too much power and have already proven they are willing to suppress free speech. In Facebook's case they even take it a step further and work with governments to stifle it. In Germany, not only do they remove anti government views and ban users who are critical of the lady fuhrer's immigration policies, but police often pay these users a visit afterwards. Mark Cuckerberg was even caught on tape colluding with Merkel on this subject.
-
This may be the most touching letter I've ever seen written by an algorithmRaceBannon said:Uber cares
We were horrified by the neo-Nazi demonstration that took place in Charlottesville, which resulted in the loss of life of a young woman as well as two Virginia State Troopers responding to the protest. There is simply no place for this type of bigotry, discrimination, and hate.
As the country braces for more white supremacist demonstrations, we wanted to let you know what we are doing for the Uber community:
We will act swiftly and decisively to uphold our Community Guidelines, including our policy against discrimination of any kind—this includes banning people from the app.
24/7 in-app support is available to answer questions and address concerns. You always have the right to end your trip if you feel uncomfortable or disrespected.
Now more than ever we must stand together against hatred and violence. Thank you for making our community one that we can all be proud of.
On behalf of all of us at Uber,
Meghan Verena Joyce
Regional General Manager, US & Canada Cities -
Go suck a cooger's poledflea said:
Piss off, faggot. Find a worthy cause to argue for.oregonblitzkrieg said:The real threat here is not a ragtag group of dumbass Nazi sympathizers that poast rubbish on a fringe message bored. If you don't like their message, debate their ignorance or ignore them. The real threat is from these tech companies that have too much power and have already proven they are willing to suppress free speech. In Facebook's case they even take it a step further and work with governments to stifle it. In Germany, not only do they remove anti government views and ban users who are critical of the lady fuhrer's immigration policies, but police often pay these users a visit afterwards. Mark Cuckerberg was even caught on tape colluding with Merkel on this subject.
-
Facebook sucks and is slowly dying anyways because the old users are scaring off the younger ones. Anybody using Facebook should be censored. Just a bunch of people sharing baby pics, posting highlight reel photos of their shitty lives or the worst kind of political commentary.oregonblitzkrieg said:The real threat here is not a ragtag group of dumbass Nazi sympathizers that poast rubbish on a fringe message bored. If you don't like their message, debate their ignorance or ignore them. The real threat is from these tech companies that have too much power and have already proven they are willing to suppress free speech. In Facebook's case they even take it a step further and work with governments to stifle it. In Germany, not only do they remove anti government views and ban users who are critical of the lady fuhrer's immigration policies, but police often pay these users a visit afterwards. Mark Cuckerberg was even caught on tape colluding with Merkel on this subject.
-
"The internet had done without statutory neutrality before then" is such a horseshit argument because right before the 2015 regulations was when the proposal for internet "fast lanes" and "slow lanes" came out. The entire point is to prevent ISP's from ever being free to create a pay-to-play system for data on the internet. No way smaller and startup companies could compete with mainstream internet giants like Google in that case... and that in a way could lead to content censorship by preventing alternative sources from effectively getting their content out.GrundleStiltzkin said:
FCC 'Net Neutrality' is bits, bandwidth and routing tables, not words. The pro-side politically outmaneuvered the opposition out of the gate by adopting the Neutrality mantle, and let everyone think this was idea-content neutrality. It's really out protecting distribution channels and physical plant investment.NEsnake12 said:Agree that corporations like Google shouldn't have that level of control over what information we view. But it starts with net neutrality.
Google has a lot of control over the flow of information on the internet but at least there are easily accessible alternatives to it. Kill net neutrality and it'll open a door for ISP's to have free reign to regulate what content you get... but the difference is some of whom have virtual monopolies on internet service in some areas of the country. OBK you talk about slippery slopes... that's a massive one.
Trump's FCC chair has made it abundantly clear he's anti-net neutrality, and they're moving toward killing it. It's a blatant move against free speech on the internet. For all of you who hate the mainstream media... you'll hate it more when they can afford to pay Comcast more $$ for faster speeds while smaller alternative news sources get screwed because they can't afford to compete on that level.
And fuck off to anyone who is pro-open internet and isn't worried about this... there's a reason why ISP's are spending ridiculous amounts of money lobbying for this.
The internet had done without statutory 'neutrality' from chinception to 2014 or whatever, and I'm not aware of content censorship in this country on any scale without customer request (parental locks, institutional firewalls, etc).
It would be one thing if ISP's were widely available and free market competition was able to take shape, but that's simply not the case because cable lines are essentially a utility, and therefore should be regulated as such. That was the whole purpose of the 2015 regulations that Ajit Pai's FCC is now trying to overturn... to regulate ISP's as title II common carriers so they could be regulated as such and prevent any fuckery from ever happening. -
Seems like we? are giving Facebook a run for their money thoRedRocket said:
Facebook sucks and is slowly dying anyways because the old users are scaring off the younger ones. Anybody using Facebook should be censored. Just a bunch of people sharing baby pics, posting highlight reel photos of their shitty lives or the worst kind of political commentary.oregonblitzkrieg said:The real threat here is not a ragtag group of dumbass Nazi sympathizers that poast rubbish on a fringe message bored. If you don't like their message, debate their ignorance or ignore them. The real threat is from these tech companies that have too much power and have already proven they are willing to suppress free speech. In Facebook's case they even take it a step further and work with governments to stifle it. In Germany, not only do they remove anti government views and ban users who are critical of the lady fuhrer's immigration policies, but police often pay these users a visit afterwards. Mark Cuckerberg was even caught on tape colluding with Merkel on this subject.
-
You broached FCC Net Neutrality in context of ideas-content, not bits-content. Netflix wants their packets delivered to subscribers no differently than anyone else's packets, and Comcast on the other side might want to prioritize their streaming services or originally programming. Each side of this has made massive investments, and their interests in FCC Net Neutrality are to protect or maximize those interests. Free speech is at best a secondary concern to the commercial.NEsnake12 said:
"The internet had done without statutory neutrality before then" is such a horseshit argument because right before the 2015 regulations was when the proposal for internet "fast lanes" and "slow lanes" came out. The entire point is to prevent ISP's from ever being free to create a pay-to-play system for data on the internet. No way smaller and startup companies could compete with mainstream internet giants like Google in that case... and that in a way could lead to content censorship by preventing alternative sources from effectively getting their content out.GrundleStiltzkin said:
FCC 'Net Neutrality' is bits, bandwidth and routing tables, not words. The pro-side politically outmaneuvered the opposition out of the gate by adopting the Neutrality mantle, and let everyone think this was idea-content neutrality. It's really out protecting distribution channels and physical plant investment.NEsnake12 said:Agree that corporations like Google shouldn't have that level of control over what information we view. But it starts with net neutrality.
Google has a lot of control over the flow of information on the internet but at least there are easily accessible alternatives to it. Kill net neutrality and it'll open a door for ISP's to have free reign to regulate what content you get... but the difference is some of whom have virtual monopolies on internet service in some areas of the country. OBK you talk about slippery slopes... that's a massive one.
Trump's FCC chair has made it abundantly clear he's anti-net neutrality, and they're moving toward killing it. It's a blatant move against free speech on the internet. For all of you who hate the mainstream media... you'll hate it more when they can afford to pay Comcast more $$ for faster speeds while smaller alternative news sources get screwed because they can't afford to compete on that level.
And fuck off to anyone who is pro-open internet and isn't worried about this... there's a reason why ISP's are spending ridiculous amounts of money lobbying for this.
The internet had done without statutory 'neutrality' from chinception to 2014 or whatever, and I'm not aware of content censorship in this country on any scale without customer request (parental locks, institutional firewalls, etc).
It would be one thing if ISP's were widely available and free market competition was able to take shape, but that's simply not the case because cable lines are essentially a utility, and therefore should be regulated as such. That was the whole purpose of the 2015 regulations that Ajit Pai's FCC is now trying to overturn... to regulate ISP's as title II common carriers so they could be regulated as such and prevent any fuckery from ever happening.
As being the same agency that brought us Equal Time, Fairness Doctrine, Nipplegate fines, 7 Dirty Words/Pacifica case, and so forth, I am skeptical of the FCC's commitment to wide-open free speech. It is a regulator. They regulate. And regulation is not openness.
But Net Neutrality is almost certainly a red herring with regard to Storm Front & Cloudflare. Cloudflare's CEO chose to break his own company policy and boot them from his company's services.
If you can show me that FCC Net Neutrality regs would require companies to maintain hosting accounts for unsavory content, I'll be happy to see it. -
Even the Cloudfare asshole that took them down admits his actions have negative consequences for free speech:
"Over the course of the next few months, there was just a series of other events that caused them to be a massive distraction to us and our team," he said. "I made the determination on Wednesday morning that life was too short to deal with jerks like this."
Prince has said previously he terminated the website because he was in a "bad mood" and admitted it could be dangerous for the future of free speech on the internet.
On Friday, Prince said people should shift the conversation away from the First Amendment and free speech to instead about "due process."
https://cnbc.com/2017/08/18/cloudflare-ceo-we-terminated-a-neo-nazi-site-after-it-became-a-distraction.html -
