Electric Frontier Foundation: Silencing "The Daily Stormer" Threatens Free Expression - Polidicks

If we are going to be rationally consistent, then we can't just say, "Welp, the line is here, I guess." We need to argue for why the line should be there and not some other place, and if we can't offer real, meaningful, arguments, then the line probably shouldn't be there in the first place. If you can't find a non-arbitrary place to put the line, then you might want to look at the basic tenets of your position. My question would be for what [I]specifically[/I] they are banning these websites. Is it because they are racist? Is it because they use the same name as a horrible regime in history? Etc. What is the line that they are drawing? The risk of continuing down this path without having that discussion of a clear, non-arbitrary, line is that they may be banning these groups simply because they REALLY don't like them. That may be totally legitimate in this case, but what about the next case? If it's just based on how much the executives don't like a group, then what is stopping them from banning, say, a political party that they REALLY don't like? The rationalization would be the same.

[quote]My question would be for what specifically they are banning these websites.[/quote] Incitements to commit mass violence and providing organization, locations, and instructions on who to commit violence on and what to bring is good enough in my book for justification. Also, rewarding violence that they engendered and made possible by providing information and organization with praise and hopes that there will be additional violence. If there was a group out there which specifically was spreading the Black Plague and providing transportation, organization, and technical support to those who wish to help the disease spread in hopes it will kill people I'd feel perfectly happy with said site being shut down. It's bad enough there are groups out there that organize and attempt to spread AIDS/HIV to people just to spread the suffering around; if they started specifically targeting people they felt were 'worthy' of being given the incurable and deadly disease that's the point they've crossed well into attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592438]Incitements to commit mass violence and providing organization, locations, and instructions on who to commit violence on and what to bring is good enough in my book for justification.[/QUOTE] That's fine, I just wish they very specifically said that clear incitement to violence is the line. Instead, all we have is Cloudflare calling them "vile." Have GoDaddy, Google, or Apple put out any statements on the specific reasons they banned them? I can't find anything.

[quote]Instead, all we have is Cloudflare calling them "vile."[/quote] Fair enough - but this isn't an unknown group. Everyone knows what a Nazi is and (hopefully) knows what they stand for. It shouldn't be necessary to bring into context events that occurred less than 100 years ago when they were of world shattering proportion. 'Vile' ought be enough. They are as close to an organization you could actually call 'Pure Evil' as could possibly exist in this world, I feel.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592452]Fair enough - but this isn't an unknown group. Everyone knows what a Nazi is and (hopefully) knows what they stand for. It shouldn't be necessary to bring into context events that occurred less than 100 years ago when they were of world shattering proportion.[/QUOTE] Being specific is always necessary. There are plenty of people who have no problem comparing basically anything they don't like to Nazis all the time. It doesn't seem like to much of a stretch to use that justification to push them out of the internet public square as well.

[quote]There are plenty of people who have no problem comparing people to Nazis all the time. It doesn't seem like to much of a stretch to use that justification to push them out of the internet public square as well.[/quote] It has less weight when it's an accusation rather than the person calling themselves a Nazi and others stating 'no, they can't be!'. If someone calls themselves a Nazi, I don't see the problem in going 'OK, I believe you'.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592455]It has less weight when it's an accusation rather than the person calling themselves a Nazi and others stating 'no, they can't be!'. If someone calls themselves a Nazi, I don't see the problem in going 'OK, I believe you'.[/QUOTE] You aren't quite responding to what I'm saying. I get that real, actual, Nazis are easy to recognize. You can do it, I can do it, Google can do it, Cloudflare can do it, etc. It's not hard when a person calls themselves a Nazi to recognize them as such, but clearly, this ban isn't just about them being Nazis. It's about them being "vile," as the Cloudflare CEO has said. So what else do they think is vile? Is being against gay marriage vile? I'm certain there's a huge number of people who would answer with a resounding "Yes!" Does that mean we now need to start banning every traditional Christian and Islamic website because they hold and actively espouse that view? It probably depends on who's answering the question. Why would one group get banned because they are "vile," but another group, who is also "vile" doesn't get banned? What makes one more "vile" than the other? What level of vileness is necessary to not be allowed a platform to speak? These types of questions lead back to me previously saying that we need specifics, being "vile" isn't enough.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52592460]You aren't quite responding to what I'm saying. I get that real, actual, Nazis are easy to recognize. You can do it, I can do it, Google can do it, Cloudflare can do it, etc. It's not hard when a person calls themselves a Nazi to recognize them as such, but clearly, this ban isn't just about them being Nazis. It's about them being "vile," as the Cloudflare CEO has said. So what else do they think is vile? Is being against gay marriage vile? I'm certain there's a huge number of people who would answer with a resounding "Yes!" Does that mean we now need to start banning every traditional Christian and Islamic website because they hold that view? I don't know, because being "vile" is super subjective. Why would one group get banned because they are "vile," but another group, who is also "vile" doesn't get banned? What makes one more "vile" than the other? What level of vileness is necessary to not be allowed a platform to speak? These types of questions lead back to me previously saying that we need specifics, being "vile" isn't enough.[/QUOTE] Because they advocate violence?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52592463]Because they advocate violence?[/QUOTE] Right, that's why I asked for specifics like that. The problem is that the big names who banned this website didn't say anything about violence. All they said was that it's "vile." It's far too open ended a metric for me to feel comfortable.

I think they intended to get across that they feel Nazis are vile and, therefore, since the site in question is run by Nazis they don't feel compelled to host vile content of that calibre. I think it's safe to say that Nazis are about the top of the top of the pile as far as 'things that are considered universally evil worldwide'. [quote]So what else do they think is vile?[/quote] Apparently, nothing else rises to such levels of visceral hatred to them that they'd otherwise wouldn't restrain themselves, as the dude who ensured the site got taken down stated in an internal memo that was sent around the company. They specifically do not want this to be a 'precedent' and thus this is a one-off event that they don't hope to repeat and aren't going to make a part of their hosting policy. [quote]"My rationale for making this decision was simple: the people behind the Daily Stormer are assholes and I'd had enough," Prince wrote. "Let me be clear: this was an arbitrary decision." Prince wrote that he "woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet. It was a decision I could make because I'm the CEO of a major Internet infrastructure company." In the same e-mail, Prince argued that it is "dangerous" for that kind of power to be concentrated in any one person's hands. "It's important that what we did today not set a precedent," Prince added. "The right answer is for us to be consistently content neutral."[/quote]

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592471]I think they intended to get across that they feel Nazis are vile and, therefore, since the site in question is run by Nazis they don't feel compelled to host vile content. Apparently, nothing else rises to such levels of visceral hatred to them that they'd otherwise wouldn't restrain themselves, as the dude who ensured the site got taken down stated in an internal memo that was sent around the company.[/QUOTE] Doesn't that quote strike you as worrying? He just decided, based on his gut feeling, that they should get kicked off the internet. He can call it dangerous all he wants... but it still happened. [editline]19th August 2017[/editline] I'm not arguing that what they did is inherently wrong, but that they seem to have done it for the wrong reasons, and not with nearly enough thought behind it.

[quote]Doesn't that quote strike you as worrying? He just decided, based on his gut feeling, that they should get kicked off the internet.[/quote] No. There aren't many groups sticking around that started a world war and killed millions in pursuit of an ideology that could come straight from a Marvel Comic - and in fact is [B]tamer[/B] than the fiction often put in said comics to justify ridiculous evils that therefore must be quickly and violently dealt with. When we're swamped with many groups online which have a kill count of 60,000,000+, then we can have a conversation about being worried about so many groups' speech being censored. If you don't want people to not associate with you at all cost: Don't hold values so evil and repulsive, have a history of violence so grand, and commit such hubris and public indecency that people simply can not stop themselves from not wanting you or your ideas anywhere near them or their businesses. Or, in other words: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-mnYLPxwtc[/media]

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592481]No. There aren't many groups sticking around that started a world war and killed millions in pursuit of an ideology that could come straight from a Marvel Comic - and in fact is [B]tamer[/B] than the fiction often put in said comics to justify ridiculous evils that therefore must be quickly and violently dealt with. When we're swamped with many groups online which have a kill count of 60,000,000+, then we can have a conversation about being worried about so many groups' speech being censored. If you don't want people to not associate with you at all cost: [B]Don't hold values so evil and repulsive, have a history of violence so grand, and commit such hubris and public indecency that people simply can not stop themselves from not wanting you or your ideas anywhere near them or their businesses.[/B][/QUOTE] You seem to have more trust in the moral strength of corporate execs than I do. I have zero faith, whatsoever, in these companies to stick to that. As our politics get more and more heated, they will be pressured to ban more groups, and I don't see them holding strong against public outcry.

[quote]As our politics get more and more heated, they will be pressured to ban more groups, and I don't see them holding strong against public outcry.[/quote] It is many-fold times easier to decide to (edit:) [B]not[/B] ban any group that is not Nazis because I dare you to find me a group that is anywhere near as against the very concept of society that we live in, who presents more a universal public threat, than Nazis. If you can find me a group whose mission statement is more indefensible than "Kill all non-whites and all undesirables - and start with the Jews" where undesirables is an insanely long list that covers likely more than 95% of the entire population of this planet earth, I welcome you to submit it and I hope that said websites, should they present anywhere near as credible and historically-backed a threat as the Nazi party, do get shut down. Edit: Also, worth pointing out that the pressure came from within, not externally.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592486]It is many-fold times easier to decide to ban any group that is not Nazis because I dare you to find me a group that is anywhere near as against the very concept of society that we live in, who presents more a universal public threat, than Nazis.[/QUOTE] You say that at the same time as shutting down public speaking engagements at universities has become a fairly normal occurrence. There are LOTS of people who would love nothing better than to shut out those they disagree with from the public square, totally and completely. I'm glad that you see a clear and stark different between the Nazis and someone like Ben Shapiro, but I don't think everyone else does. They see the right, the regular, normal right, as no better than slave owners who deny basic human rights and oppress the poor. If someone like that were to get in one of these power positions, then the precedent has been set: banning "vile" people is just fine.

[quote]You say that at the same time as shutting down public speaking engagements at universities has become a fairly normal occurrence[/quote] Recently, and in particular context to Nazis: Typically out of concerns for the safety of those present - concerns which have recently been [B]thoroughly[/B] justified. [quote]I'm glad that you see a clear and stark different between the Nazis and someone like Ben Shapiro, but I don't think everyone else does.[/quote] If they can't see the difference they're mad (as in insane) or trolls and are willing to justify literally anything anyway. In either case, not a trustworthy source. The Nazis would love Breitbart and Trump, they invented lugenpresse after all, but news organizations that claim their fake news is real and shield themselves from criticism by claiming they're actually Entertainment organizations while doing all their subject matter with absolute sincerity do not rise to the level of problems that Nazis ideology presents. They are certainly things that should be shut down, regardless, but there are other avenues than simply taking their megaphone away that we can use to shut them down and improve our media discourse in general: such as writing up new laws. [quote] If someone like that were to get in one of these power positions, then the precedent has been set: banning "vile" people is just fine.[/quote] We've already seen the precedent for if we allow the Nazi Party to grow unopposed and without sincerity. It was a precedent set by the blood of tens of millions of people.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592502]Recently, and in particular context to Nazis: Typically out of concerns for the safety of those present - concerns which have recently been [B]thoroughly[/B] justified. If they can't see the difference they're mad (as in insane) or trolls and are willing to justify literally anything anyway. In either case, not a trustworthy source. The Nazis would love Breitbart and Trump, they invented lugenpresse after all.[/QUOTE] Yet they are actually getting people shut out of speaking. It's happening. Whether they think these people are equivalent to Nazis in ever way, or only equivalent enough, doesn't matter. Their goal is to take away their platform to have their speech heard. The concern is that of so called "protestors" violently trying to shut down the speech. They are getting their goal without even having to come out. [QUOTE]We've already seen the precedent for if we allow the Nazi Party to grow unopposed and without sincerity. It was a precedent set by the blood of tens of millions of people.[/QUOTE] I would say equating modern day American with 1930s Germany is either insane or trolling, but I digress... Not being banned from the internet is nowhere near equivalent to being "unopposed." There's massive opposition from every side of the political spectrum.

[quote]Yet they are actually getting people shut out of speaking.[/quote] If they actually cared, which they don't, but if they did: Then maybe they should stop committing acts of violence, promising acts of violence, and bringing with them weapons to commit said violence. It is literally their own fault. [quote]I would say equating modern day American with 1930s Germany is either insane or trolling, but I digress...[/quote] I'm not comparing America with Germany. I'm comparing Nazis with Nazis. Surprise: they're both Nazis. The 'new' message is just yet another trojan horse. The old Nazi Party didn't actually care about the social programs they promised - it was just a shield and a cloak they buried their agenda under. The moment they came into power they killed the socialists they brought onboard even though they kept the name. Nazis are more than keen to change their messaging to attract the audience they want. People think Mexicans are the cause of the world's problems? Cool, we'll promise to kill them first and then the Jews.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592518]If they actually cared, which they don't, but if they did: Then maybe they should stop committing acts of violence, promising acts of violence, and bringing with them weapons to commit said violence. It is literally their own fault.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure who you're talking about. I'm talking about normal right wing speakers like Shapiro. Someone who doesn't advocate violence, speaks strongly against any form of white supremacy, but still gets shut down at universities. Those who want to shut people like him down don't make a clear distinction between Nazis and the normal right. They see both as unnacceptable in the public square.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592502]We've already seen the precedent for if we allow the Nazi Party to grow unopposed and without sincerity. It was a precedent set by the blood of tens of millions of people.[/QUOTE] The KKK collapsed in on itself pretty much on it's own when it was at the height of it's popularity in the 20s and 30s and the Nazis grew the way they did mostly for reasons other than their racial policies. I don't really think banning their websites is going to be what keeps them from becoming a major force. If you're that worried about preventing another Nazi party from taking control you'd have to start targeting populist groups.

[quote]I'm talking about normal right wing speakers like Shapiro.[/quote] If the norm is to lie and invent in an attempt to intentionally deceive, where the speaker wishes to speak to an audience who, were they to engage in the same behaviors, would be kicked off campus and denied their credit hours: It is no surprise they're denied entry. [quote]and the Nazis grew the way they did mostly for reasons other than their racial policies.[/quote] It absolutely greatly assisted them. Most Germans hated the folks they told them they also hated - much like you can get lots of people in America to agree with you about how 'we all hate the immigrants and Mexicans; they're rapists, murderers, and thieves!' It was the sugar that made the poison pill go down easier.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592527]If the norm is to lie and invent in an attempt to intentionally deceive, where the speaker wishes to speak to an audience who, were they to engage in the same behaviors, would be kicked off campus and denied their credit hours: It is no surprise they're denied entry.[/QUOTE] So all that stuffy about violence was just BS, then? You seem to be just fine with taking away speech as long as you don't like it.

I don't see how the slippery slope/"it sets a precedent" argument even works considering these companies have always had the ability to deny service through their respective platforms. We haven't entered uncharted territory here, or are on the edge of the Internet Holocaust or anything. These companies are practicing the first amendment rights that they have always had; that who uses their platform is up to their sole discretion. If we do get to the point where people (not just conservatives) are being unjustly censored by a cabal of powerful internet platform providers/service providers then maybe the solution is to create a more free platform. People have done that for social media already.

[quote]So all that stuffy about violence was just BS, then? You seem to be just fine with taking away speech as long as you don't like it.[/quote] Depends on what you're talking about. I originally assumed you were talking about the various Nazi groups not being allowed to protest at various campuses throughout the US. I'm fine with people who lie or run organizations who routinely lie being ostracized because they are liars. I do not bemoan that the National Enquirer would not be allowed on a college campus anymore than a former Editor-in-Chief of Breitbart. There are good conservative/republican-leaning organizations that actually do the work and don't make shit up for their news stories. Those should be the ones allowed to make their points; not those who abuse their position as a news organization to knowingly divest people from reality in an agenda that makes them more or less dependent on them.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52592515]Their goal is to take away their platform to have their speech heard. [/QUOTE] I mean, it might be, probably not in Cloudflares case but hypothetically it could be all three's goal. But we don't know that. The only goal we know for sure is that they don't want their platform to be the one they use to speak from. The difference is quite important.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592527]It absolutely greatly assisted them. Most Germans hated the folks they told them they also hated - much like you can get lots of people in America to agree with you about how 'we all hate the immigrants and Mexicans; they're rapists, murderers, and thieves!' It was the sugar that made the poison pill go down easier.[/QUOTE] Well considering Trump lost the popular and is at an all time low approval rating apparently that message didn't resonate with people that much. Hell the Nazi's LOST the election of 1932 and Hitler only became chancellor because Hindenburg appointed him to the position so I don't think their racial policies resonated as much as you think they did. This "if we let the Nazis speak then we'll slide into racism!" slippery slope has as much credibility as the "if we ban the Nazis then all free speech is at risk!" slippery slope.

[quote]Well considering Trump lost the popular and is at an all time low approval rating apparently that message didn't resonate with people that much. Hell the Nazi's LOST the election of 1932 and Hitler only became chancellor because Hindenburg appointed him to the position so I don't think their racial policies resonated as much as you think they did.[/quote] The Nazis won the election as much as they needed to. Hitler was in just the right position to take advantage of and influence the politics he needed to take utter power - and so he did successfully. 46.3% vs 49.6% is awful close to our election results; we're pretty much already in the 'strike zone' that way. If he hadn't gone hard racism he wouldn't have gotten to the point where he just barely managed to get the Presidency through the electoral college. Similarly, if Hitler hadn't done as well he wouldn't have made it to the position of Chancellor. [quote]This "if we let the Nazis speak then we'll slide into racism!" slippery slope has as much credibility as the "if we ban the Nazis then all free speech is at risk!" slippery slope.[/quote] It isn't that we shouldn't let them speak. It's that we should classify all threats of violence as threats of violence and not 'beliefs'. It shouldn't be valid logic to state that you're exercising your 'freedom to threaten the lives of everyone nearby you while you whip a crowd up into a frenzy' and yet we forgive it because we feel we must. It isn't that we'll slide into racism besides - it's that those who were racist might become pumped up enough and feel supported enough that they feel they can commit the violence the group they're in so desperately wants.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592556]The Nazis won the election as much as they needed to. Hitler was in just the right position to take advantage of and influence the politics he needed to take utter power - and so he did successfully. 46.3% vs 49.6% is awful close to our election results; we're pretty much already in the 'strike zone' that way. If he hadn't gone hard racism he wouldn't have gotten to the point where he just barely managed to get the Presidency through the electoral college. Similarly, if Hitler hadn't done as well he wouldn't have made it to the position of Chancellor.[/QUOTE] Do you actually have any evidence that Trump won due to racism to back up your claims?

[quote]Do you actually have any evidence that Trump won due to racism to back up your claims?[/quote] [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/04/17/racism-motivated-trump-voters-more-than-authoritarianism-or-income-inequality/?utm_term=.f43147aeb1e9]Nothing so overt, but it's pretty close to evident that a lot of his voters were racist.[/url]

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592572][url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/04/17/racism-motivated-trump-voters-more-than-authoritarianism-or-income-inequality/?utm_term=.f43147aeb1e9]Nothing so overt, but it's pretty close to evident that a lot of his voters were racist.[/url][/QUOTE] Using your logic from this article McCain and Romney's voters were all racist considering the "positive" number of racist answers is lower for 2016 than 2012 and in some cases 2008. Some of them are even roughly the same as far back as 1992.