Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Monday August 21 2017, @12:20AM   Printer-friendly
from the internet-hate-cycle dept.

Propublica: Despite Disavowals, Leading Tech Companies Help Extremist Sites Monetize Hate

Most tech companies have policies against working with hate websites. Yet a ProPublica survey found that PayPal, Stripe, Newsmax and others help keep more than half of the most-visited extremist sites in business.

Very interesting:

Because of its "extreme hostility toward Muslims," the website Jihadwatch.org is considered an active hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. The views of the site's director, Robert Spencer, on Islam led the British Home Office to ban him from entering the country in 2013.

But either not their job, or they just didn't know:

Traditionally, tech companies have justified such relationships by contending that it's not their role to censor the Internet or to discourage legitimate political expression. Also, their management wasn't necessarily aware that they were doing business with hate sites because tech services tend to be automated and based on algorithms tied to demographics.

ProPublica goes on to say:

The sites that we identified from the ADL and SPLC lists vehemently denied that they are hate sites.

"It is not hateful, racist or extremist to oppose jihad terror," said Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch. He added that the true extremism was displayed by groups that seek to censor the Internet and that by asking questions about the tech platforms on his site, we were "aiding and abetting a quintessentially fascist enterprise."

Business is business. IG Farben said much the same when it had exclusive contracts with the (then current) German government.

See also: After Backing Alt-Right in Charlottesville, A.C.L.U. Wrestles With Its Role

Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has weighed in on the recent controversy surrounding Charlottesville and the effective removal of certain sites from the internet for expressing vile views. This entire incident and our response has an enormous implication on the future of internet freedoms as we know them.

In the wake of Charlottesville, both GoDaddy and Google have refused to manage the domain registration for the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website that, in the words of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is "dedicated to spreading anti-Semitism, neo-Nazism, and white nationalism." Subsequently Cloudflare, whose service was used to protect the site from denial-of-service attacks, has also dropped them as a customer, with a telling quote from Cloudflare's CEO: "Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn't be allowed on the Internet. No one should have that power."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation agrees. Even for free speech advocates, this situation is deeply fraught with emotional, logistical, and legal twists and turns. All fair-minded people must stand against the hateful violence and aggression that seems to be growing across our country. But we must also recognize that on the Internet, any tactic used now to silence neo-Nazis will soon be used against others, including people whose opinions we agree with. Those on the left face calls to characterize the Black Lives Matter movement as a hate group. In the Civil Rights Era cases that formed the basis of today's protections of freedom of speech, the NAACP's voice was the one attacked.

Protecting free speech is not something we do because we agree with all of the speech that gets protected. We do it because we believe that no one—not the government and not private commercial enterprises—should decide who gets to speak and who doesn't.

It's notable that in GoDaddy and Google's eagerness to swiftly distance themselves from American neo-Nazis, no process was followed. Policies give guidance as to what we might expect, and an opportunity to see justice is done. We should think carefully before throwing them away.

It might seem unlikely now that Internet companies would turn against sites supporting racial justice or other controversial issues. But if there is a single reason why so many individuals and companies are acting together now to unite against neo-Nazis, it is because a future that seemed unlikely a few years ago—where white nationalists and Nazis have significant power and influence in our society—now seems possible. We would be making a mistake if we assumed that these sorts of censorship decisions would never turn against causes we love.

Part of the work for all of us now is to push back against such dangerous decisions with our own voices and actions. Another part of our work must be to seek to shore up the weakest parts of the Internet's infrastructure so it cannot be easily toppled if matters take a turn for the (even) worse. These actions are not in opposition; they are to the same ends.

We can—and we must—do both.

We're at a very fortunate point in history where most of society is still reasonably just, but people forget how rapidly change can come. Rosa Parks chose to not yield her seat in the United States just 62 years ago. Legally enforced racial segregation ended only 53 years ago. Living at a time with overt segregation feels like a time centuries past. However, many living today were still alive when it was the status quo. And things going in the opposite direction just as rapidly is entirely possible as well. Actions and policies should not be guided by the here and now, but by the justness of said policy. In other words policy should be decided based not on who it effects, but on the justness of the said policy. Is it more just to live in a world where people have the right to say things that others may find distasteful, or where people can be effectively removed from society by the [transitory] powers that be? We should answer these questions in a period of just times, not when we desperately need them resolved to restore justness.

As the EFF's statement reminds us, if certain groups are successful organizations such as Black Lives Matter may end up being characterized as a hate group. Radical left organizations such as Antifa have already been declared a domestic terrorism group by at least one state. And this is just on a government level. Nestle, Bayer, BMW, General Electric, Coca Cola (rebranded just for Nazi Germany as Fanta), Standard Oil (now Exxon/Chevron/BP ), IBM, Random House Publishing, and many more are some companies that cooperated and collaborated with the Nazis. To think that the supercompanies of today somehow would never possibly consider going down the wrong path is simply naive. And in a world where just a handful of companies now have a practical monopoly on information access - that's something that I think should give people pause before jumping to silence even the most vile of speech.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2Original Submission #3

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday August 21 2017, @11:03AM (11 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday August 21 2017, @11:03AM (#556967) Homepage
    > You're expressing a viewpoint that is so ultimately hostile to religion in any form that it might well be called militant atheism. If they try to apply their book in a crude way, you call them barbarians, if they do it in a more sophisticated way, you call them cherry-picking morons.

    Not OP, but what's wrong in being hostile to something which you consider to be at best useless and outdated and at worst positively dangerous? Isn't the lesson from your above paragraph the simple conclusion that they should throw their scriptures in their current form in the bin, where they belong? If they were prepared to throw out everything which was clearly false, fabricated, or evil, and adopt that as their new gospel, then many atheists would have less of a problem with them.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @11:26AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @11:26AM (#556971)

    I dunno, many seemingly intelligent people seem to still like BIOS compared to UEFI.

    And only a few use coreboot despite its lack of legacy nastiness and cruft.

    Booting up humanity certainly was messy but there were a fair number of successful boots.

    See also: http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.html [newsweek.com]

  • (Score: 2) by Arik on Monday August 21 2017, @11:56AM (5 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Monday August 21 2017, @11:56AM (#556984) Journal
    "Not OP, but what's wrong in being hostile to something which you consider to be at best useless and outdated and at worst positively dangerous?"

    What's wrong is that this is something your neighbors, your fellow citizens, in many cases find sublime and inspiring and at best positively liberating, so if you insist on being hostile to it you are creating hostility within the body politic.

    And completely unnecessarily. Look, I'd never ask you to pretend you believe, or to pretend you find it believable.

    But you should show the same respect to your fellow citizens that you would want them to show to you. They find your belief, or lack thereof, equally absurd and indefensible.

    Discuss the difference rationally, debate it openly, respect the difference of opinion and understand that you might both be half right. That's how a free society works, how it functions, how it improves.

    It's expected that the process may sometimes get heated but open 'hostility' is a definite sign you've gone too far.

    "If they were prepared to throw out everything which was clearly false, fabricated, or evil, and adopt that as their new gospel, then many atheists would have less of a problem with them."

    There's really no need to 'throw out' anything. None of it is false or evil, in proper context. Fabricated? Aren't people that are good at that in other contexts, oh say impressionist art, in that context you'd say they were "inspired" wouldn't you?

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday August 21 2017, @12:58PM (2 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 21 2017, @12:58PM (#557000) Journal

      Discuss the difference rationally, debate it openly, respect the difference of opinion and understand that you might both be half right.

      Or just agree to disagree and do something useful for both: like patch that pothole in the road that the fucking local council does nothing for years on end.

      (then, jointly, send the council a bill for forcing you doing it and deduct the amount from the next council taxes. I'm only half joking here - if the governance let you down, you should be able to bill it for solving the problems yourself - seems to me as a right as important as freedom of speech)

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @01:52PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @01:52PM (#557021)

        I'm only half joking here - if the governance let you down, you should be able to bill it for solving the problems yourself

        I take it you're not in the USA. That said, if you've ever had a chance to listen to some "talk radio" broadcasts from there, you will likely notice a high percentage of ads stating something akin to "Do you owe the IRS money? Call us and we'll get you and the IRS sorted out!".

        It didn't become apparent to me until quite some time after I started hearing those, but if many private companies are spending money to advertise, that must mean there's a market consisting of people not doing what the IRS wants them to do. Depending on the motivation, some might call it "voting with the wallet".

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 21 2017, @02:15PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 21 2017, @02:15PM (#557032) Journal

          I'm only half joking here - if the governance let you down, you should be able to bill it for solving the problems yourself

          I take it you're not in the USA.

          Indeed I'm not.

          It didn't become apparent to me until quite some time after I started hearing those, but if many private companies are spending money to advertise, that must mean there's a market consisting of people not doing what the IRS wants them to do. Depending on the motivation, some might call it "voting with the wallet".

          Personal opinion: I consider the immediate relocation to another state as the only sane reaction to $3B subsidies to Foxconn [soylentnews.org] - if they want it, let them have it with the full consequences.

          If IRS is equally absurd, then Ubi bene, ibi patria [wikipedia.org] is the way to go. I've done it (not starting from US) - it's pretty much having a cold reboot of your entire life, but it's worth it.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday August 21 2017, @07:50PM (1 child)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday August 21 2017, @07:50PM (#557203) Homepage
      Not pretending to find that bollocks believable is seen as hostility - to a level punishable by beheading or other easily executed execution - by some of the god-loons.

      So you're telling me to not be hostile but also telling me to be hostile.

      Did you write the bible?
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday August 22 2017, @04:39AM

        by Arik (4543) on Tuesday August 22 2017, @04:39AM (#557384) Journal
        If I said yes would you believe me?

        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 21 2017, @12:48PM (3 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 21 2017, @12:48PM (#556997) Journal

    then many atheists would have less of a problem with them.

    Because, everybody knows, the atheists are the undeniable standard the entire world must adopt.

    (I can't believe that I'm saying this, but... gosh, I really hate people that pretend their view of the world is The Truth)

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday August 21 2017, @07:53PM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday August 21 2017, @07:53PM (#557205) Homepage
      > Because, everybody knows, the atheists are ...

      the group of people whose views were, quite unambiguously by name, being put under the microscope upthread.

      > the undeniable standard the entire world must adopt.

      Nobody said that. Apart from you just now. Google "straw man".
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @09:35AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @09:35AM (#557444)

      I really hate people that pretend their view of the world is The Truth

      So I suppose you think the Time Cube guy just sees things differently from you and isn't a nut job? Or do you only apply this to religion for some reason?

      At any rate, I don't see how believing in things without good evidence that they are true will make it more likely that you will find the truth. It's less of a matter of always being right and more about actually trying to find out what is true and what is not; religious thinking is an obstacle to that.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 22 2017, @01:51PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 22 2017, @01:51PM (#557504) Journal

        I don't see how believing in things without good evidence that they are true will make it more likely that you will find the truth

        I know as true that Vegemite and jazz are good and "Alien:Convenant" and most wanna-be-John-Coltrane-saxophonists are really crap. If you want to find scientific evidence for or against, feel free to waste your time.

        My point: there are heaps of things in this world one can hold true without evidence. You should try some of them from time to time.
        There are also some things that aren't simply demonstrable - because you can't afford to experiment with them. Until evidence to the contrary emerge, the most one can do is to advance hypotheses, build models, construct theories and hold the belief - granted, an educated one, based on how many things they are explaning - that all of those are true. If you need an example, take the today's "social sciences" or "economy".

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford