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 c0lo on Monday August 21 2017, @12:30PM (2 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 21 2017, @12:30PM (#556993) Journal

    It means refusing to engage in any sort of debate.

    Mate, believe me, you will grow old enough to be sorry for the time you wasted in pointedly debating some matters.
    The way I'm quite sorry for wasting two minutes of my life watching that incredibly stupid video linked on your other answer.
    True, for the price of the two minutes, I'm better informed now, so good manner indicate that I should be grateful to you (I thank you anyway).
    But, oh God... personal feeling, subjective as it comes, the author of that clip does not worth even booing in a public meeting, s/he should be placed in the type of custodial care for intellectually disabled and stop wasting other people time.

    What's happening is that the wingnuts on the left and the wingnuts on the right are metastasizing together.

    This is unfortunately true. The question is: what is the appropriate reaction?
    And I have a deep feeling sitting along the axis drawn by them (or drawn by others for them to bite from one another) is absolutely more than useless, it's wasteful.
    Aren't there more important things to do with one's life? Like... I don't know... paying off the mortgage, or getting to build something or invent something or... oh, the horror, learn something new instead of pretending "Everybody listen up! I'm the owner of The Truth"?

    Amongst them being the principle that we do discuss our differences. Our society is a conversation.

    Call me pedantic, but there's no conversation if one of the parties doesn't want to participate.
    In this case, both flavors of wingnuts will not hear the other - so what conversation is to be had?
    You point (rightfully) the left wingnuts for no-platforming. It seems a pale reaction in comparison the one the right wingnuts had ("shutting down the conversation by driving a car into a crowd") but, letting aside the matter of the life and limb of the unlucky victims, the result is the same - no conversation!

    A society can function based on "we have enough in common to be able to agree to disagree on the rest of the matters".
    What I don't get: how the (expletive) can the americans forget everything they have in common and focus on the differences?
    And, maybe I'm wrong, but that "everything in common" should be a set rich enough to get them out from the cesspool the "free capital movement" left you in.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Arik on Monday August 21 2017, @01:12PM (1 child)

    by Arik (4543) on Monday August 21 2017, @01:12PM (#557008) Journal
    ""Mate, believe me, you will grow old enough to be sorry for the time you wasted in pointedly debating some matters."

    Lol I'll give that a half-truth.

    Yes, it can get tiresome and beyond at times on certain subjects. There can definitely be a time to say 'I'm not debating subject 'x' anymore for a bit, it's done.' That's not the same thing as saying 'I'm not debating *person* 'x' ever again - she's done, she can't even get a job at mcdonalds, she'll starve to death along with her son and that's good cause nits grow into lice.'

    "The way I'm quite sorry for wasting two minutes of my life watching that incredibly stupid video linked on your other answer."

    The islamists and feminists thing right?

    You know I don't think it's that bad. Obviously if you take it seriously there is plenty of critical ground to be had, but take it for what it was meant to be. A lighthearted parody of two groups that have more in common than they'd want you to think. Islamists (NOT Muslims) and 'intersectional' feminists. I'll admit I laughed - and I laughed because it reminded me of specific people that I think have followed their ideology off a cliff. Not because of any general hostility to either Muslims or feminists (I've never been a Muslim but I called myself a feminist for decades and only hesitate to continue to do so because the popular image of the word has changed dramatically.)

    "This is unfortunately true. The question is: what is the appropriate reaction?"

    To oppose them. With logic. With reason. With humility. The things they do not possess.

    "And I have a deep feeling sitting along the axis drawn by them (or drawn by others for them to bite from one another) is absolutely more than useless, it's wasteful."

    This is absolutely correct and true. If you let them draw the lines, your choice is to be a Nazi or a Communist.

    I think it is a moral imperative to refuse to become either.

    "In this case, both flavors of wingnuts will not hear the other - so what conversation is to be had?"

    No conversation may be had between them. It therefore falls upon the rest of us to ensure the something like civilization survives. Some of us may be somewhat successful in communicating with some of them, however, which in the long term leads to defection and collapse.

    "You point (rightfully) the left wingnuts for no-platforming. It seems a pale reaction in comparison the one the right wingnuts had ("shutting down the conversation by driving a car into a crowd") but, letting aside the matter of the life and limb of the unlucky victims, the result is the same - no conversation!"

    There's absolutely no excuse for the vehicular homicide. But there have been dozens of incidents in the past year where the other side has launched vicious attack with the potential to cause death many times as well. I refuse to condone the initiation of force, for any reason. And I also insist on giving both sides the benefit of the doubt here as well - they have been whipped into such a hysteria they view each other as threats and react accordingly.

    That is not a justification for violence on either side. But again, we must have dialogue. We must have understanding. BOTH SIDES have had people do things that are wrong. BOTH SIDES have what they see as good reason to feel defensive. If they will not speak to each other then we in the middle must demand that they speak through us. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

    "What I don't get: how the (expletive) can the americans forget everything they have in common and focus on the differences?"

    We have the media-industrial complex and the education mafia working overtime to divide us.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 21 2017, @02:01PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 21 2017, @02:01PM (#557025) Journal

      Yes, it can get tiresome and beyond at times on certain subjects. There can definitely be a time to say 'I'm not debating subject 'x' anymore for a bit, it's done.' That's not the same thing as saying 'I'm not debating *person* 'x' ever again - she's done, she can't even get a job at mcdonalds, she'll starve to death along with her son and that's good cause nits grow into lice.'

      Maybe I'm lucky, but until now I managed to stop at "'I'm not debating subject 'x' anymore ever with person 'y'" and that was just enough.
      Actually no, I have to admit at least one occasion when I needed to go to the "I'm not debating *person* 'x' ever again, full stop - I'm done with her, I wish her good luck, let's have a divorce before we get to hating the guts of the other" - turned out OK, no kids in the marriage until then.

      My question: is it the american society... apologies for the term... so fucked up that, like a "field exchange particle", one needs to stay constantly in "debate mode" otherwise the entire system explodes?

      Obviously if you take it seriously there is plenty of critical ground to be had

      I reckon I should be grateful to $deity for not being forced in understanding a background on which projecting the cartoon makes sense.
      Personal point of view: if that cartoon has any anchor in the local reality of some place, we are speaking about insanity.
      (PS:I never got to understand what Gamergate was actually about, and I'm sure I don't want to if I can avoid it)

      But there have been dozens of incidents in the past year where the other side has launched vicious attack with the potential to cause death many times as well.

      On the scale of Some shop windows broken to Oklahoma City bombing [wikipedia.org], just where would you place those incidents provoked by the other side?

      That is not a justification for violence on either side. But again, we must have dialogue.

      Yes.

      We must have understanding.

      Not in all cases. Many times "agree to disagree on X, now let's do something about Y, which we both agree is important" is just enough.
      Not all the things are survival level important - no matter if "media-industrial complex and the education mafia" is trying to manipulate one to believe otherwise.

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