
Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF - dberhane
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40974069
======
sctb
Ongoing discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042367](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042367)

------
corobo
While I definitely don't support the people they're booting off I do have to
agree with the EFF here.

For example, "And music streaming services offered by Google, Deezer and
Spotify have said they would remove music that incites violence, hatred or
racism."

Now these services have put it out there as policy someone has to define
what's violent, hateful or racist in music. Racism? Ok nobody's really going
to bat an eye at that disappearing.

Violence and hatred though? As an off again on again heavy metal listener..
almost literally every track could be described as violent or hateful. That's
the genre. The same could be said for other genres and their sub-genres. Rap
comes to mind. Is Eminem next on the chopping board?

Music was the easy example, there's other examples available for the other
services (registrar, DNS, hosting, CDN) as to why making this policy is a bad
idea. Now anyone needs to do is convince someone at the corresponding target
that a site is similar enough that it should be taken down.

South Park had a two-parter that addressed this exact problem [1][2]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Wars_Part_I](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Wars_Part_I)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Wars_Part_II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Wars_Part_II)

~~~
koolba
> While I definitely don't support the people they're booting off...

A bit off topic but how many bytes are spent on prefaces like this on
responses to this topic?

I assume that the _vast_ majority of people on the planet don't support Nazis
or anything related. I find it interesting that any discussion of them has to
include that line lest the speaker/writer be labeled as one (which happens
quite a bit anyway but that's a different topic).

~~~
psyc
For a long time, it seemed it was only Tumblr types who were calling everyone
nazi. Recently, even people I've known for 20 years, who I thought were
normal, have been posting/tweeting to the effect of either you're loudly
proclaiming your opposition to nazism, or you're on their side.

~~~
MichaelGG
I saw a thread where trolls were rejoicing, saying: they kept calling
everybody a Nazi so some of us actually became Nazis.

While well some people might put disclaimers on everything others are simply
giving up. This started during the Trump campaign where everybody was called
racist. The same with anti-semitism, especially against the current president
who has a Jewish daughter. When people sling these around just as general
insults and as a way to say you're wrong, then they lose their power.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
That's an interesting paradox: I'd argue that anyone who became a Nazi because
someone mistakenly called them a Nazi, wasn't mistakenly called a Nazi.

~~~
13years
It is has support in psychology.

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/intense-emotions-and-
st...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/intense-emotions-and-strong-
feelings/201212/violence-and-shame-the-attack-other-response)

It is why I've argued that the current toxic atmosphere is adding to the
problem.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Interesting, I recently saw a quote from a prison psychologist that suggested
the root cause of most violence was shame.

I thought that was profound, but I struggle to fit overuse of the word Nazi
online into the same framework, indeed I find it much easier to fit the kind
of opinions and behavior that people might refer to as 'Nazi'-like into this
framework:

[https://lakesideconnect.com/anger-and-violence/the-link-
betw...](https://lakesideconnect.com/anger-and-violence/the-link-between-
violence-and-shame/)

 _" Gilligan notes literally dozens of synonyms for shame: feelings of being
slighted, insulted, disrespected, dishonored, disgraced, disdained, slandered,
treated with contempt, ridiculed, teased, taunted, mocked, rejected, defeated,
subjected to indignity; or, experiencing feelings of being weak, ugly,
inadequate, incompetent, a failure, losing face; and being treated as if one
were insignificant or worthless.

Based on his research and other expert opinions, Gilligan concludes that “the
most potent stimulus of aggression and violence, and the one that is most
reliable in eliciting this response is not the frustration per se, but rather,
insult and humiliation (page 32).” In other words, the most effective, and
often the only way, to provoke someone to become violent is to insult them."_

~~~
13years
Thanks for the link. I agree about the online use in most cases, unless the
label sticks and people begin to believe it.

------
tgb
I think the hypothetical that people like me on the left need to consider is
the following. Our current vice president is extremely anti-abortion. It's no
stretch of the imagination to see that portion of the country growing in
strength to be there dominant view in power within ten years. In their view
abortion doctors are literal baby killers, websites arguing the benefits of
abortion are literally advocating the killing of babies. In their eyes, this
is literally as bad as Hitler. If you set the standard at "ban everything that
the populace deems to be as bad as Hitler" then today we get rid of Nazi sites
and tell KKK members they can't use our gyms, but tomorrow who will be
condemned? (Note that this isn't even a slippery slope argument: it's saying
that who gets to define the slope changes.)

The other argument is that if Google and co have never ever bowed to political
pressure to remove something except as required by law, that gives them a
great argument to push back against some of the less progressive governments
which they must work with. If Assad starts demanding that internet companies
in Syria ban his political opponents, then Google could reply "we didn't even
ban Nazis, why the hell would you expect us to ban anyone for you?"

And in case this all seems hypothetical, remember that the current US
government recently requested all visitor logs for an anti-Trump website.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
The missing distinction here is between a public utility with monopoly
privileges (more like Google) and _just some business_ (GoDaddy or some gym).

Nazis _should_ be able to use public utilities, but the thing is, if we decide
Google is a public utility, then so should communists, pornographers, drug
dealers, criminal gangs, et al. And in fact, great, let's do that! Let's pass
those statutes, let's break up the internet monopolies, let's decentralize and
encrypt everything we can, all the time.

But let's also make sure that up until the very moment those statutes pass,
we're not giving Nazis special favors.

~~~
leereeves
The problem is what happens in the meantime, when Google is effectively a
public utility but not regulated as one.

~~~
ForRealsies
We're already seeing freedom of speech liberties clashing with social media
'public utilities' (Twitter, Facebook, etc).

------
bedhead
It's increasingly uncomfortable to realize that a handful of tech companies
are in many ways more powerful than the government. I don't like the direction
anything is headed in.

~~~
salimmadjd
Agreed! The initial intent of 1st Amendment was to protect the public against
tyranny of the government.

However, when entities like Google, Apple, FB have such impact on the
population and spread of information, they can become the "great firewall".

This is very dangerous and google should not be in the position to become the
thought police.

~~~
mantas
It's even more frustrating when people supposedly loving freedom say that
freedom of speech was only meant to protect from government and private
companies can discriminate as they wish.

I'm 99.99% certain if freedom of speech was formulated today, it would include
private companies as well.

~~~
cjslep
Yes, like all those conservatives fighting for Hobby Lobby to not provide
contraception support for it's employees because "first amendment" and all
those mom and pop shops that don't want to serve gay people in the South
because of first amendment rights.

Seriously, conservatives in America want to have their cake and eat it too.
"We meant freedom for corporations-as-people but only when it helps us".

~~~
bmelton
> and all those mom and pop shops that don't want to serve gay people in the
> South because of first amendment rights.

Citation? This seems like a clumsy attempt to bash the south. Considering that
the two largest cases for violating public accommodation laws hail from Oregon
(Sweet Cakes) and Colorado (Masterpiece), with other cases from Las Vegas
(Walmart) and Ohio (Take the Cake), it seems ... off.

~~~
ImaMicroService
Yeah we're used to it. It's just assumed that all racism is in the South, and
all Southerners are racists. I believe "whipping boy" is the term.

------
meri_dian
This is how extremism spreads:

1\. A Reasonable Position is expressed, in this case - 'Nazi's are very bad'.
The Reasonable Position often involves an Enemy that must be stopped. Most
reasonable people will agree with the Reasonable Position.

2\. The Reasonable Position becomes the overriding factor in any situation
that involves it. All other factors and considerations are dwarfed by it and
forgotten.

3\. Because the Reasonable Position comes to dominate the thinking of the
Extremist - who often means well - they come to believe one can only ever be
for or against the Reasonable Position. There is no room for moderate
positions that try to balance the Reasonable Position with other important
considerations and values - in this case, freedom of speech.

4\. In order to show support for the Reasonable Position, third parties are
forced to action in accordance with the world view of the Extremist. If they
try to balance other considerations against the Reasonable Position, they are
seen by the Extremist as sympathizing with the Enemy.

5\. The fervor of extremism charges through society, trampling on other values
and considerations.

~~~
tyrw
Some examples would help here. Reading this did not bring any real world
situations to mind for me.

~~~
meri_dian
>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution)

>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism)

>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials)

------
apatters
It seems to me that the right to exclude certain types of speech from your
privately owned platform is in itself a form of expression, and important to
preserve. Where we get into trouble is when one entity obtains monopoly or
near-monopoly control over a means of spreading information, and thus gains
the power to tell everyone what they can and can't know.

And Google is not that far off. They have a monopoly in at least one market
and the EU has already found them guilty of anti-competitive practices. The US
government has not brought an anti-trust case against Google, and you could
argue it's failing to do its job--the ties between Google and the US
government run disturbingly deep, with Google allegedly serving as an arm of
US foreign policy in many ways: [https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-
seems/](https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/)

Either way, the most important point is simply that monopolies are dangerous.
And the best solution is to weaken them, whether through regulatory action,
consumers voting with their feet, or other companies introducing competition.
I think the most interesting project in this space is Searx, which allows me
to aggregate results from Google and other search engines, and flip a switch
to turn each engine on or off. Searx is a great step in the direction of
breaking Google's monopoly and thus hindering its ability to severely limit
free speech.
[https://github.com/asciimoo/searx](https://github.com/asciimoo/searx)

------
undersuit
I don't think private-sector companies have any obligation to host anything.
The problem is we in the tech community have watched with only minor concerns
as the web grew increasingly centralized and left the power to these
companies. The Daily Stormer has no right to an domain name or search results
or ad revenue, no site does. The Daily Stormer has every right to exist, but
it doesn't have a right to be served fast and conveniently(no, I'm not
advocating against net neutrality, any host for the Daily Stormer should treat
it exactly as they treat all their other customers). I think despicable sites
like the Daily Stormer have a right to exist, but I'd rather they be hosted on
a personal computer with a non-static address and every now and then the dial
up connection get's interrupted when the site admin has to call David Duke
about when the next Klan rally is.

~~~
yoavm
I'm confused. Are you saying no site should have a domain name?

~~~
eli_gottlieb
He's saying no site is _entitled_ to a domain name from a privately-owned
registrar.

~~~
yoavm
Ah, agreed. I was confused by the use of the word _right_ in "has no right to
an domain name", but English isn't my first language.

I agree that a private company does not have to host any neo-nazi materials
(or anything really, for that matter). I would do the same if it was my
company and I would rather work with such a company as a customer.

------
nxsynonym
>"Because internet intermediaries, especially those with few competitors,
control so much online speech, the consequences of their decisions have far-
reaching impacts on speech around the world."

Maybe it's just me but I think enabling hate-speech and bigotry is much worse
than failing to maintain 100% neutrality.

There's nothing stopping these maniacs from starting their own intermediaries
to host the content(trash) they want to peddle.

~~~
vowelless
Where I grew up, websites used to be blocked by my government because of
blasphemy and morality reasons. Criticism of Islam, pro secularism, and yes
also porn. I used kazaa to get "God delusion" and "satanic verses", books that
would have gotten me into serious trouble.

Please don't let that happen in America. Making up hate or blasphemy reasons
is very easy.

~~~
randomstudent
Not saying that I agree, but some people say that the best way of making sure
what you describe doesn't happen to America is by stopping the Nazis right
now. Yes, you loose the high ground of supporting absolute free speech but
supposedly you gain a more restricted form of free speech that is more likely
to stand the test of time.

~~~
devmunchies
This is assuming that there is some nazi uprising, but the thing is, there
aren't any powerful nazi groups in the US. There is no point in wasting your
time in "stopping the Nazis". Everyone keeps shouting about nazis but its such
a small threat, and is only gaining traction because people are obsessed.

------
danblick
I recently finished Tim Wu's "The Master Switch", which is a history about the
early radio/telephone/television/film industries, consolidation in those
industries, and the effects on free speech.

One of my favorite examples from the book is the story about Hollywood and the
Production Code in the 1930s. This was a _voluntary code_ that the major
studios obeyed for their own commercial interests (they wanted to avoid
boycotts by groups like the National Legion of Decency). Because the film
industry was centralized (with a small number of companies controlling all
film production and distribution and most of the national theaters), this
private decision by a handful of companies _led to effective censorship in
nearly all film in the US for ~20-30 years_ , all without any government
action whatsoever.

I think we're in the same boat here with Google and other major internet
infrastructure providers. Because a huge amount of power over the internet is
concentrated in the hands of a few companies, those companies need to be very
careful about the way they handle censorship.

"In an information industry the cost of monopoly must not be measured in
dollars alone, but also in its effect on the economy of ideas and images, the
restraint of which can ultimately amount to censorship."

"The story of Daniel Lord and the Legion of Decency goes to a central
contention of this book: in the United States, it is industrial structure that
determines the limits of free speech."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code)

~~~
leereeves
> Hollywood and the decency code in the 1930s

Hollywood suffered again under corporate censorship during the second Red
Scare (the Hollywood blacklist). History should have taught us the dangers of
the attitude that "free speech doesn't apply to private companies".

------
eeks
I'm glad to see the EFF making the point I'be been trying to make all week; at
the cost of multiple downvotes: "Because internet intermediaries, especially
those with few competitors, control so much online speech, the consequences of
their decisions have far-reaching impacts on speech around the world."

~~~
tchaffee
It's not really a free speech issue. It's a monopoly issue. Google should be
protected from government interference in their right to exercise free speech
just like every other individual and company in the US.

The fact that they are a near monopoly is a problem that has side effects, but
the real issue to focus on is the monopoly.

~~~
Chaebixi
> Google should be protected from government interference in their right to
> exercise free speech just like every other individual and company in the US.

If Google wants those rights, it could surrender its monopoly (through a
voluntary break-up).

~~~
dragonwriter
> If Google wants those rights, it could surrender its monopoly (through a
> voluntary break-up).

Google is not a monopoly on domain registration.

------
tyingq
_" And music streaming services offered by Google, Deezer and Spotify have
said they would remove music that incites violence, hatred or racism."_

That sounds like a big job, and one filled with ambiguity. Classifying forum
posts is one thing, but trying to determine intent with music is going to be
tricky.

~~~
devmunchies
Its a roundabout way of saying _" music that engages in far-right conservative
thought."_ Its definitely a political issue.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
There's never been anything conservative about the _far_ -right. Comparing
Chesterton and Pinochet is an insult to Chesterton, _let alone_ comparing him
to Hitler!

------
mikeash
Why don't people get upset like this when companies refuse to carry
pornography? That's been really common for a long time, even if not universal,
and I don't recall ever hearing a peep about it from the likes of the EFF.
Maybe I missed it?

~~~
lagadu
I agree with your sentiment but I only realise it now after having given it
some thought.

The reason I disagree with the silencing of nationalist speech but didn't
consider porn to be effectively suffering from the same issue is because I
simply never considered censoring porn to be a speech issue. I had never
thought of it as an idea, which is what I think of when it comes to political
ideologies.

I think the difference here is more related to whom is doing the censoring.
Google or MS don't censor porn on their products, Facebook only partially
removes some related imagery so I don't see it as a concerted attempt to
blocking the people's access to it, which is what I see as being the current
trend when it comes to these more controversial topics. It's all my bias of
course.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
So to be clear, you think "Heil Hitler! Enslave the blacks and exterminate the
Jews!" is a more socially important sort of speech than, "Fuck me harder, I
love it!"?

I don't want to live on this _planet_ anymore, with the bizarre reversals in
_basic sense of priorities_ here.

~~~
lagadu
I feel they are both socially important.

------
ameister14
If anything, this makes the argument for ISP common carrier status stronger,
which is a good thing.

------
narrator
Even more disturbing to me is that youtube has started banning UFO research
channels like Steve Greer's CSETI. I don't really bother watching these
channels and consider the UFO thing a bit of a quasi-religion, but they aren't
inciting violence or hate against anybody.

Has Google decided they are now the truth police? Is Google taking it upon
themselves to be like the Chinese censorship bureaus except for the whole
world?

------
fatjokes
I disagree with the EFF on this one. I don't think free speech needs to be
absolute. You can draw the line at Nazis. These companies didn't draw the line
at Breitbart, or Alex Jones, or any number of far-right sites, but at a site
that proudly traces its ideology to a group that successfully executed
genocide. Germany and South Korea (among others, I'm sure) still have vibrant
democracies and economies despite stricter online and offline speech controls.
I feel like Americans have an odd obsession with absolute freedom, e.g.,
they're more "free" because they can own assault rifles.

------
ultim8k
I personally believe we should not only block those ideas on the web, but also
everywhere else. Those ideas supporters should see that their opinions lead
them outside of the society and make them suffer of loneliness and no support
from anyone. Then and only then, they will understand they are wrong. It's
another thing to allow the freedom of speech and another thing to make it
easier for people to promote those ideas. We are not free to walk out with a
gun, so we shouldn't be free to advocate violence.

------
ollybee
"Dark web network Tor has said it has no plans to stop the Daily Stormer from
using its technology." This straight after having talked about various other
services having banned Daily Stormer. It implies Tor is a service controlled
by the Tor project who could actually kick Daily Stormer if they wanted. While
it could be accidental incompetence I worry this is a deliberate attempt to
paint tor negatively in the public’s mind.

------
norea-armozel
I agree but only in part. The real problem isn't that Google is able to
shutdown a site as a registrar it's the fact DNS as designed needs a hierarchy
to make it scale. This is the real problem with DNS and trying to shame Google
to not cover its bottom line on such matters isn't going to work when you have
a government that may decide they're too big for their britches and decides to
go after them.

Instead, I wish EFF and other organizations would fund the development of a
replacement for DNS rather than trying to legislate its use. Computers aren't
like other kinds of technology where the implementation has to follow the
physical structure, especially when considering the idea of domain names which
are human readable to bind to IP addresses (which aren't human readable
enough). That way, you get around corporate and government interventions
entirely.

------
kingmanaz
Google's recent crackdown on alternative viewpoints appears to have also been
coordinated across other tech monopolies. From American Renaissance:

"""

Since the Charlottesville rally last weekend, American Renaissance has been
under attack. Internet giants from PayPal to Facebook are trying to squeeze us
out.

PayPal has cut us off, which means for now we can no longer take donations or
sell books by credit card or any electronic means. All our recurring monthly
donations—which are the predictable cash flow we count on and plan around—have
stopped.

Facebook has blocked the AmRen account for seven days with a warning that if
we violate their vague “terms of service” it will close us down for good.

MailChimp, which is the service we use to reach supporters by email, has cut
us off completely. Our Twitter accounts—with a total of more than 60,000
followers—could be next, and our YouTube channel, with 35,000 subscribers and
millions of views, is just as vulnerable.

As you know, American Renaissance had nothing to do with Charlottesville, and
for all its 27 years, AmRen has consistently repudiated violence. This doesn’t
matter. Corporate America is stamping out our revenue sources and trying to
block our access to the public.

If this continues, AmRen.com could be kicked completely off the internet.

We cannot go back to the pre-internet days. With your help, we will find
alternative platforms and, if need be, take legal action.

This is a historic moment in our movement. We are being silenced because we
are winning. We are winning because we cannot be refuted. We cannot be refuted
because we are right!

Please, give us the means to keep our voice heard.

At this point we can take only checks, money orders and cash; no electronic or
credit cards.

Please send your donation made out to:

<snip>

"""

------
nohat
In at least a few cases most of terrorism's damage to a society is from the
auto immune response.

------
jasonlotito
It's interesting considering how this is related to Net Neutrality (they
aren't the same, but they are related). While I agree with the EFF, that this
is happening, I hope, raises awareness around the importance of Net
Neutrality.

------
AaronFriel
Would the EFF defend private companies hosting ISIS recruitment?

That's the question that matters.

------
tradesmanhelix
While I definitely don't support these people, I do have to point out:

The problem with the approach taken by Google & Co. is that it criminalizes
beliefs, regardless of whether or not adherents have taken illegal actions
based on their beliefs.

If people 1) believe something, and 2) perform illegal actions based on their
beliefs, a free society can punish #2. However, a free society can neither
outlaw nor punish #1 without sinking into some form of despotism.

Liberty need not approve of all that she protects, and the best way to combat
bad ideas is with better ideas, not censorship. Kudos to the EFF for raising
an important point.

~~~
Tomte
Strange. Quite a few countries manage to outlaw and punish (expressions of)
Nazi beliefs, without "sinking into despotism".

Actually, the country many people are very concerned about now happens to be
the country that is a free-for-all when it comes to Neo-Nazism and White
Supremacy.

~~~
tradesmanhelix
Isn't punishing beliefs (right or wrong) a characteristic of despotism?

~~~
Tomte
In the same way that eating bread is a characteristic of a circus clown.

------
abritinthebay
Slippery slopes are a fallacy for a reason.

I understand the _concern_ \- and it’s totally reasonable to point out
concerns - but let’s fight when they actually start sliding down that slope
rather than hand-ring over Nazi’s, hmm?

------
mungoid
I think a lot of people, me included, play on both sides of this fence too
often. Where we shun companies that host this content, but will also blame
them for restricting freedom of speech if they remove it.

I definitely see both sides to this argument, but how extreme does a website
have to be in order for it to be OK by everyone for companies to remove the
content? If it were my company, I wouldn't want to be associated with content
like this either. So if it's lose-lose either way, I would probably do the
same thing as these companies.

------
HumbleGamer
I hear the arguments for and against. I've noticed its always easier for
people to argue these type of things when they feel they aren't the target of
the harrassment. People who can take a "not me" position can reason that the
site deserves a voice. That said, if the site was spouting ideologies that did
target you, would you continue to argue for its existence? Were this an Isis
site, would you argue it deserves a voice as well? Just wondering.

------
ptasci67
I think an important aspect that is often missed here is how conservative most
tech companies are when it comes to legal boundaries.

I would posit that each of these companies is arguing internally (at least in
part) in favor of removing neo-Nazi and other violence inducing content from
their services to distance themselves from fault when that content results in
legal harm.

------
tytso
There are a huge number of DNS registrars. So the fact that GoDaddy and Google
chose not to act as their DNS registrar doesn't follow that they can't find
_anyone_ to be a DNS registrar. (And indeed, they were able to find a DNS
registrar in Russia.)

Similarly, there are a large number of ISP's and hosting partners. So if
Amazon were to choose not to want to host their web site, on the theory that
they were going to get huge numbers of DOS attacks, and they don't want to do
deal with the PR blowback of supporting an extremely unpopular group --- is
that really censorship?

This seems to be another variant of "freedom of the press" doesn't mean "free
presses" issue. To say that the owner of a printing press should be _forced_
to print Racist materials seems to be... morally dubious. It's true that the
owner of an apartment isn't allowed to choose not to do business with someone
based on their race, gender, religion, etc. Unfortunately for the Alt-Right,
the neo-Nazi's aren't a protected class. If they think it should be, they
should feel free to lobby to change the law. If President Trump thinks there
are "very fine people" who belong to the Alt-Right, maybe he would even be
willing to sign it....

------
ponco
Slippery slope fallacy applies here I feel.

~~~
MBCook
Given we fought a literal world war over this... is it really that slippery?

~~~
ponco
What? Aren't you making the opposite argument?

------
013a
Thank you EFF; You've earned a recurring donor. I will also be removing all of
my domains from GoDaddy and Google Domains.

If you support net neutrality, you fundamentally _cannot_ support the actions
of these companies. These two ideals are in direct conflict.

------
cuckcuckspruce
More discussion here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042367](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042367)

------
gggdvnkhmbgjvbn
I find it odd that websites seem to either harbor a slowly growing extreme
right wing, or choose to seek and destroy it.

It seems like the extreme rights' method of gaining control is to be
provocative while the extreme left lobbies admins to remove the provocateurs
(see: reddit, youtube). This ends with the tech companies complying with the
left. Why isnt it the other way around?

Edit: apparently today okcupid banned a nazi as a publicity stunt. Maybe im
looking too much into this

~~~
pjc50
The far-right is trying to be "counterculture", in an effort to make hate
speech "cool". The people lobbying for the removal of the hate speech and its
enablers are far more mainstream than "extreme left". People who are victims
of hate speech don't have to be extreme anything to prefer that sites choose
not to enable harassment.

I'm not even sure who counts as "extreme left" any more, there are very few
people trying to do revolutionary communism or actual Maoism in the West.

~~~
saalweachter
I'm not sure about "extreme left" as a movement but there are definitely
positions I'd attribute to the "extreme left". Universal Basic Income.
Replacing the police force with a comparably sized and empowered army of
social workers and therapists. Outlawing fossil fuels. Banning GMO.

~~~
pjc50
> Universal Basic Income

Seriously considered and nearly implemented by famous leftist Richard M.
Nixon: [https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/richard-nixon-ubi-
basic-i...](https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/richard-nixon-ubi-basic-income-
welfare/)

> Outlawing fossil fuels.

A fossil fuel phase out _eventually_ is a requirement, both to deal with
depletion and global warming. It's just the schedule that's reasonable to
argue over. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/08/g7-leaders-
agr...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/08/g7-leaders-agree-phase-
out-fossil-fuel-use-end-of-century)

> Banning GMO.

Mainstream position in the EU:
[https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28283-more-than-
half-...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28283-more-than-half-of-
european-union-votes-to-ban-growing-gm-crops/)

------
yoavm
I have to disagree with the EFF on this one.

"Sometimes standing on the wrong side of history in defense of a cause you
think is right is still just standing on the wrong side of history."

[https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opinion/aclu-first-
ame...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opinion/aclu-first-amendment-
trump-charlottesville.html)?

------
averagewall
Why are big companies banning this? Surely Google, GoDaddy and Cloudflare,
even Spotify aren't going to be hurt by any public backlash. GoDaddy is
already widely despised as a bad actor. I can understand a small startup at
risk of being destroyed by an internet mob for supporting Nazis, but not
these.

Are they afraid of legal consequences? Aren't they safe to just wait till the
police asks them to take it down before doing so?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Why are big companies banning this? Surely Google, GoDaddy and Cloudflare,
> even Spotify aren't going to be hurt by any public backlash

Because they are owned and run by humans with moral values, not financial
return maximizing automatons?

~~~
pyroinferno
The Stormfront is a well known FBI honey pot. Why would people with "moral
values" try to interfere with the FBI trying to infiltrate and arrest nazis?

------
timwaagh
if you want to give a better world a chance you have to give a worse world a
chance.

------
thinkingemote
Please don't flag this submission, fellow users, there's already been one
direct from the EFF even when it was at number one and one hour.

------
TheKIngofBelAir
The Pandora's box just opened

------
etaty
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_..](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_..).

~~~
justadeveloper2
I used this same quotation back in the '90s for something. It's become kind of
trite, like the Ben Franklin quote about liberty and safety. Yes, we know the
Jews suffered, it's been drilled into your psyches over and over again. Not
the blame the victims, but Germany's Jews are the perfect example of why you
don't believe in government benevolence and why you never let anyone conduct
mass civil disarmament.

Stalin proved that the Germans were right to go after the Socialists who were
trying to undermine Germany. Not defending what the Germans did, it was
horrifying. Both sides ended up being brutal and completely evil. Look at the
Spanish Civil War, no real winners there and that was the prototype for WWII--
fascism rose as a counter to communism. Again, not trying to excuse it, it's
just reality.

~~~
timecube
Are you seriously doing "both sides are bad" with the actual Nazis right now

------
gthtjtkt
It also had the opposite of its intended effect.

Millions of people had no idea Daily Stormer existed until GoDaddy, Google,
and CloudFlare kicked them out. Each one only added to their growing pile of
free publicity. I guess Google never Googled "Streisand Effect"? First Damore
and now this.

Edit: Also kind of ironic that my comments are now being buried on HN because
I posted some unpopular opinions. Maybe we should throw HN in the mix too.

Edit2: Aaaaand now I'm not even allowed to post. HN is at least predictable in
their censorship tactics, if nothing else.

~~~
lallysingh
Why do you think that's why you're being buried?

~~~
gthtjtkt
Because it happened almost immediately.

HN has always had trigger-happy moderators who abuse their power to silence
people they don't like, including PG himself. Just Google 'Hacker News
Shadowban' sometime.

------
gormo2
If recent events have shown anything, it is that we need to do a lot MORE to
stop neo-Nazism. I'm not saying doxx all neo-Nazis and whites, supremacists.
But we need to name them. Make them known.

Don't support their businesses. Don't let them have domains or websites. Kick
them off Google platforms, Facebook, even OKCupid. All private companies need
to take action now and make sure none of them can use the internet to spread
their hate, or really use any service.

I think it is time to organize contacting car dealerships working next to deny
selling any automobiles to them. Eventually we can get the DMV to deny
licenses to these dangerous individuals, or at least put them on a registry so
the feds can check in on them.

~~~
Quarrelsome
I feel like love is a better tool than hate in trying to affect social change.
Remember its not "them" we need to convince and get back onto the straight and
narrow, its the people listening, the children and those waiting to make their
own decisions on the subject. To give those people a persecuted underdog to
sympathise with isn't going to improve the next generations ways of thinking.
Racism isn't like polio, we can't eradicate it because its the natural
condition of homogeneous communities.

Oh and the false positives for the solution you offer are terrifying by
putting the judgement into the hands of everyone. Imagine being wrongly
accused of being a neo-nazi?

~~~
randomstudent
> I feel like love is a better tool than hate in trying to affect social
> change.

Please do not argue for this position based on "feelings"... In my own
country, most social change was the result of war, credible threats of
violence and technological progress. Natuarally, I "feel" the opposite.

Since we're discussing the US, I'd wager that's probably true there too: white
culture became dominant over Native America culture because the Native
Americans were wiped out, and the survivors were sent to barren reservations.

Slavery was brought to an end because its supporters were defeated in a
literal war. Also, the social change that gave rise to salvery was based on
the forceful kidnapping of people, too.

Worker rights are the result of strikes and often literal violence.

Were I familiar enough with the History of the US I think I could bring up
other situations.

(If I'm wrong on any of these historical points I'll be happy to be corrected)

~~~
justadeveloper2
I'm not at all comfortable talking about 18th and 19th century social issues
through a 21st century lens. It's not going to be productive at all.

Slavery ended in the Northern US states without any war. It's an
oversimplification to say the US Civil War ended slavery--it ended the
southern plantation culture that supported slavery, but that's about all it
did and the effects lingered until at least the early 1960s! Had there been no
war, the abolitionist argument probably would have eventually won out and
social change may have been more rapid.

As far as Native Americans go, they were not viewed as noble savages as they
are today. Again, in a 19th century struggle for resources, the more
technologically advanced culture won out. We are looking at the actions of
whites and trying to apply 20th and 21st century principles to their behavior
and I don't think you can.

I just visited The Little Bighorn and did a lot of reflecting on these issues.
If nothing else, I am not to blame for whatever several generations past did
to others and I feel no guilt over it whatsoever. I can only control my own
behavior. As an intellectual, I value the diversity of ideas as superior to
the identity diversity being promulgated by those with a political axe to
grind.

If anyone wants to wage war against me or my family, expect to receive an
equivalent amount of force applied in response.

~~~
randomstudent
Where am I looking at this through a 21st century lens?

I'm just saying that in all of these cases, the strong won and imposed their
will on the weak, thus suppressing their ideas and culture... Love doesn't
seem to have been very important in any of this.

I don't understand your criticism, sorry.

> Had there been no war, the abolitionist argument probably would have
> eventually won out and social change may have been more rapid.

Maybe, I'm not comfortable speculating about such things. I don't know nearly
enough to even start :)

