Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday January 29 2020, @10:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the speak-up-now dept.

The Growing Threat to Free Speech Online:

There are times when vitally important stories lurk behind the headlines. Yes, impeachment is historic and worth significant coverage, but it's not the only important story. The recent threat of war with Iran merited every second of intense world interest. But what if I told you that as we lurch from crisis to crisis there is a slow-building, bipartisan movement to engage in one of most significant acts of censorship in modern American history? What if I told you that our contemporary hostility against Big Tech may cause our nation to blunder into changing the nature of the internet to enhance the power of the elite at the expense of ordinary Americans?

I'm talking about the poorly-thought-out, poorly-understood idea of attempting to deal with widespread discontent with the effects of social media on political and cultural discourse and with the use of social media in bullying and harassment by revoking or fundamentally rewriting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

[...] In 1996, [Congress] passed Section 230. The law did two things. First, it declared that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In plain English, this means that my comments on Twitter or Google or Yelp or the comments section of my favorite website are my comments, and my comments only.

But Section 230 went farther, it also declared that an internet provider can "restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" without being held liable for user content. This is what allows virtually all mainstream social media companies to remove obscene or pornographic content. This allows websites to take down racial slurs – all without suddenly also becoming liable for all the rest of their users' speech.

It's difficult to overstate how important this law is for the free speech of ordinary Americans. For 24 years we've taken for granted our ability to post our thoughts and arguments about movies, music, restaurants, religions, and politicians. While different sites have different rules and boundaries, the overall breadth of free speech has been extraordinary.

[...] Large internet companies that possess billions of dollars in resources would be able to implement and enforce strict controls on user speech. Smaller sites simply lack the resources to implement widespread and comprehensive speech controls. Many of them would have no alternative but to shut down user content beyond minimalist input. Once again, the powerful would prevail.


Original Submission

 
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: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:56AM (58 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:56AM (#950582)

    Don't forget banks and payment processes have the chance to say no too. Both "if you continue to host content from site XYZ we'll close your account" and "you're accepting money for something we've suddenly decided we don't like so now all the money in your account is ours and here's a bunch of fees just because we can".

    Not only can your hosting provider cut you off, the hosting provider's provider can cut them off if they refuse to not cut you off. That's what happened to 8chan after their first move.

    And instead of cutting you off, anti-bot services can harass your users until it's too annoying to use your site. Both Google and Cloudflare engage in that tactic.

    Without a near direct connection to an internet backbone like Reddit has, your site can be easily taken out and the smaller you are the less anyone will care. Yet the greater you are the easier it is to knock you out.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=3, Informative=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:17PM (52 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:17PM (#950588)

    Not to mention the moment you allow uncensored access, everyone censored elsewhere will also flock to your site: religious minorities, political dissidents, conspiracy theorists. Are you going to harbor them? What if you disagreed with their views?

    Still don't think you can become censorship happy? See Hotwheels trying to shut down 8ch. "But that's different!" you say? That's the exact excuse everyone will use as they trample on their own principles squash anything disagreeable to the system.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:10PM (51 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:10PM (#950605)

      Not to mention the moment you allow uncensored access, everyone censored elsewhere will also flock to your site:

      Which is absofuckinlootly idiotic. Every one of them should make their own site, join a web ring and syndicate an indexing service to search for content in their ring.
      No more Google or Facebook to pollute their equation with noise they can't control.
      If they grow large enough, it will be Google to ask them for permission to track the users of the web ring.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:28PM (50 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:28PM (#950613)

        Yeah nah, even federated networks don't want to be associated with your degenerate sicko content, they will drop their principles and force all members to sign some kind of courtesy requirement agreement retroactively just to spite you, just like they did to Gab. This of course, splits the network.

        • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:50PM

          by curunir_wolf (4772) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:50PM (#950622)
          Mastadon is still working. Sure, some servers block other servers, but it's still working as designed, even as the SJWs try to control the whole thing, all they are doing is isolating themselves.
          --
          I am a crackpot
        • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:01PM (23 children)

          by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:01PM (#950648) Journal

          Then establish your own website. Let it sit on the web unindexed. Shout from the public square, "Go to myabsolutelybrilliantthoughtthatissogreatnobodywilllisten.com to hear THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH!!!!!" That way people won't have to go to Fox/The Epoch Times or CNN/MotherJones or WSWS to learn what reality is. (Me, I think The Onion defines reality well enough...)

          Now, if this was about an ISP prohibiting you from hosting whatever, then I'd be interested. But it ain't. (And even then there are limits as circumscribed by law. Yeah, CP does cut it as one example here whether you like it or not.... I don't mind at all (in general) the thought that people are individually held liable for what they personally write and that a platform provider has the right to muzzle it. (Platform as in website owner, not ISP).

          YMMV.

          --
          This sig for rent.
          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:27PM (22 children)

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:27PM (#950659) Journal

            I don't mind at all (in general) the thought that people are individually held liable for what they personally write and that a platform provider has the right to muzzle it.

            And this is why we have to protect anonymous posting and create a more robust network against interference. You have no right to hold one liable for what they say. You can turn your back and ignore it. You can control the content all you want on your computer and LAN, nowhere else. You DO have the right to sue any audience member for any offensive or illegal reaction they take, if it is a physical reaction, such as assault, or denial of goods and services.

            The client/server model is not suitable for the WAN. It's too easy to control content. We need an ad hoc [mesh?] system that is much more difficult to track and take down. Only bulletproof tech and end this stupid argument. For the time being, it's cat and mouse.

            --
            La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
            • (Score: 5, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 29 2020, @06:14PM (7 children)

              by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @06:14PM (#950758) Journal

              Everyplace I know of has defamation laws. People can indeed sue for destruction of reputation. That's the law and it is fine.
              If person X is paying for a space, person X gets to control what is being said there if they want to. Especially when person Y can pay for their own platform and type away and bear the consequences themselves as both speaker and publisher.
              And I think it is fine that person X provides the digital space they can enjoy protection if person Y posts something unlawful or tortious. So long as person Y can be held liable for it.
              And both such cases are fine.

              YMMV.

              However, I also may believe that if an organization wants to allow anonymous commenting then the organization can bear the liability for what is said by having allowed anonymity. I do know that cuts pretty close to the heart here at SN. And there are plenty of other circumstances (the ability to expose human rights violations, for instance) where anonymity is a good and valuable tool... But in news reporting organizations, for example, that organization can be held liable for defamation in a similar manner for publishing demonstrable lies from anonymous sources. The digital space has the protection that the digital space owner may not be held liable - put the blame on the poster. But then the poster can assume responsibility for what he or she writes.

              You have a right to shout in the public square. That does not necessarily mean you have the right to be anonymous while doing so or that your identity should be protected when you make public utterances. The circumstances when that can occur can be constrained by law. That's also different from whether your identity deserves privacy when you are not shouting in the public square.

              --
              This sig for rent.
              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @07:09PM (2 children)

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @07:09PM (#950781) Journal

                People can indeed sue for destruction of reputation. That's the law and it is fine.

                Argument is pointless. Hopefully there will be tech to circumvent the problem and protect our rights.

                --
                La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 29 2020, @10:29PM (1 child)

                  by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @10:29PM (#950889) Journal

                  And it is still the law. And you can be held responsible for it. Because the rest of us say you will.

                  --
                  This sig for rent.
                  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:20PM

                    by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:20PM (#950903) Journal

                    Well, yeah, popular fascism at work, little I can do about that right now. But it is a work in progress.

                    --
                    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
              • (Score: 2, Interesting) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:06PM (3 children)

                by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:06PM (#950811) Journal

                Since people insist on allowing both anonymous and pseudo-anonymous posting because "muh freedom of speech", even though the only countries that don't limit freedom of speech are failed states that no longer have the infrastructure (and there it's warlords with guns to your head who censor everyone around them), here's an idea:

                Two classes of posts -

                1. those made by verified users, that can be modded by the community, and are permanent;

                2. those made by unverified users and anonymous users, that are deleted automatically after x number of hours, along with all replies, and are deleted earlier if their user moderation falls below a certain threshold.

                Two classes of users -

                1. Verified users, who can moderate;

                2. Unverified users, who can't moderate.

                Problematic posts that are racist, etc., are either automatically "taken down" - deleted - after a set period of time if they are from an unknown entity, or if it's a verified user, the user can be held responsible by law enforcement and the courts.

                Anonymous speech is thus given less weight, because if you're not ready to stand by what you said, why should anyone bother to listen, and if someone does, why should it be granted eternal life (or whatever passes for it on the internet).

                Does anyone really give a shit what some anonymous coward says? It's got extra troll-bait and spam anyway. And why should anonymous users get a vote on moderating posts? Or multiple sock-puppet votes? It's the same as showing voter ID to vote anywhere else. You can't vote 10 times with 10 anonymous identities in real life, so why should you be able to do so online?

                An easy way to get rid of sockpuppets and the paid shills with multiple accounts, as well as bring back some sense of responsibility. And those who want to post anonymously still can - they will still be heard, but not for very long in any one post, so what's the problem? If you don't like it, get verified ... you're not the wizard of oz behind a cheap curtain.

                Far easier for the site maintainers as well - if they get a complaint about an anonymous post, they can just say "it will be deleted within x hours, no problem". And if they get a complaint about a verified post, if they feel the complaint is valide, they can deal with the individual, or if they feel the complaint is not valid, say "no problem, get a warrant ..."

                --
                SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:03PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:03PM (#950899)

                  Wow, what a corporate boot licker. This is such a ridiculous suggestion that I have to ask: Who hurt you so badly that you're actually afraid of anonymous cowards?

                  • (Score: 0, Troll) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @12:07AM

                    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @12:07AM (#950912) Journal
                    I'd reverse the question - is ho hurt you so bad that you're such a precious snowflake that you have to hide behind anonymity even on the Internet? Poor baby, afraid to take responsibility for your own words. Enjoy licking Putin's boots much?
                    --
                    SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                • (Score: 3, Insightful) by fliptop on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:18PM

                  by fliptop (1666) on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:18PM (#951157) Journal

                  Does anyone really give a shit what some anonymous coward says?

                  Sometimes I do. B/c there are times when someone commenting on a particular story actually works for or with or in close proximity to the principles involved. Their comment may offer insight and knowledge that's valuable when considering all sides of an issue.

                  --
                  Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
            • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 29 2020, @06:17PM (13 children)

              by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @06:17PM (#950760) Journal

              I guess one other thing.... This law is not talking about whether the WAN can be censored (AFAICT). Client/server or WAN, I support that one should be allowed access to both publish and read. One can also be held accountable for what one publishes. This is about what protections and rights one has as a publisher. In a day and age where anyone can be. (Although I do understand you disagree with this).

              --
              This sig for rent.
              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @06:50PM (12 children)

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @06:50PM (#950777) Journal

                Of course I disagree with your stand. It is only valid absent the existence of free will. I am assuming we do have free will, that makes the listener responsible for his reaction, no matter what the claimed motivation might be.

                Only technology can resolve this issue when fascist censorship is so popular. It has to be highly resistant against all interference.

                --
                La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:09PM (4 children)

                  by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:09PM (#950814) Journal
                  If the user is responsible for their reaction, surely the poster is responsible for their words in the first place. Responsibility applies to everyone in a civilized society.
                  --
                  SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:19PM (3 children)

                    by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:19PM (#950819) Journal

                    Nope. The listener can turn their back, as most probably would. If one can, they all can. It's all on them.

                    --
                    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                    • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:10PM (2 children)

                      by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:10PM (#950847) Journal

                      Maybe I don't want to go out of my way to turn my back on you because I'm heading in a particular direction and you're blocking me.

                      And if you continue after I tell you to STFU and leave me alone, there are one of two things that will happen, neither of which you will be happy with. Because either way, you will STFU. I have the right not to be harassed by any joker who won't stop talking when I tell them I'm not interested, whether it's a politician in the store parking lot at the corner, the Jehovah's Witness down the street, the satellite TV salesperson who came to my door, or the pervert who exposed himself to me last February.

                      My personal space, my rights. Go get your own personal space instead of interfering with mine.

                      --
                      SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:14PM (1 child)

                        by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:14PM (#950850) Journal

                        Uh uh.. blocking is something else entirely. You can stop a person from talking to you, but if you remain within earshot while he's talking to someone else, or even himself, you're out of luck. Your personal space is inside your skin, not everything you can see or hear.

                        --
                        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                        • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:34PM

                          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:34PM (#950856) Journal

                          You're wrong from a legal standpoint. If you're talking loud enough that you're bothering the people around you, you WILL be censored. Just try being a loudmouth in a restaurant and see how long you last.

                          Or even in a public place.

                          "Hello, 911? There's a crazy guy screaming to himself that the world is about to end and we're all going to die of coronavirus. I have videos. People are getting pissed off. You might want to arrest him for his own protection."

                          Even the public commons has rules and regulations. Disturbing the peace is a real thing. So is public mischief. This is both.

                          --
                          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                • (Score: 5, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 29 2020, @10:27PM (6 children)

                  by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @10:27PM (#950886) Journal

                  And it is no way fascist censorship. We are not talking about what government can or cannot allow you to say.

                  Your argument is akin to, "I'm free to swing my fists wherever they want and if they intercept your nose then it's your fault for feeling the pain and/or not getting out of the way."

                  And you're right. We are on such diametric poles on this that there will be no agreement. Only presentation of where we differ to let others who read decide.

                  But it all comes back to whether or not you think your rights are unlimited. And I think we've been down this road before: I believe rights have limits and responsibilities. You do not. So yeah, there won't be any way to bridge that little gap.

                  --
                  This sig for rent.
                  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:15PM (5 children)

                    by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:15PM (#950902) Journal

                    Some rights do have limits, never said otherwise. And the article is about government censorship, and how it uses the civilian marketplace to enforce it. Anyone that acts as an agent of the government should be under the same constitutional constraints as the government itself. So, it is up to us to demand the same from the ISPs. They are acting under and by the authority of the government. Our failure to overcome this problem necessitates the creation of technology to do it for us, to mechanize the process, like any other machine. We had to invent airplane in order to temporarily free us from the bonds of gravity. Now we need something to free us from the shackles of censorship and all forms of fascism.

                    Poetry, baby!

                    --
                    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                    • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday January 30 2020, @07:54PM (2 children)

                      by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Thursday January 30 2020, @07:54PM (#951373) Journal

                      Interesting. I disagree, because there is nothing in this law that renders Facebook or Twitter to be an agent of the government. They do not "have authority of" nor do they act for the government. They have laws they must obey and protections they are afforded under the law. That is nowhere near "being" government. If they did they would, for example, be able to do things like arrest copyright violators or append fines directly to your account for violations. (And no, not in favor of that....)

                      (It also calls up the argument of whether censorship is limited to government or if it is censorship at all when private entities enforce their own policies, but that's been argued to death).

                      I'd also very much doubt that you will ever find a technology which will give the freedom you seek. One can't use technology to fix a problem with human nature. (IMO). And if it could.... then the other side would employ a counter exploit to get their way. Which is scarier. But being wrong about that would also be interesting.

                      The other thing... People are free to be fascists, socially or voluntarily. Companies are free to enact certain (but not all) fascist policies. Just as they are free to be Antifa. Or you run the risk of biting your own tail of liberty. I think you confuse social fascism with allowing government to be fascist or take fascist actions, which is something one must indeed guard against, especially when they gain the reins of government leadership.

                      --
                      This sig for rent.
                      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 30 2020, @10:17PM (1 child)

                        by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 30 2020, @10:17PM (#951458) Journal

                        If the government tells Facebook to take something down or put something up, and yes, even when answering a warrant. Facebook's action is an act of the government. And, let's not forget all those NSLs that we can only speculate about. Secret letters and secret laws do exist.

                        I'd also very much doubt that you will ever find a technology which will give the freedom you seek.

                        Maybe yes, maybe no, but it sure can't hurt to keep looking, and to reduce the authorities' advantage as much as possible. So, it's going to be an eternal arms race until people quit stomping on each other. The biggest problem right now is obedience. We are supposed remind the government it is there to serve, not command

                        --
                        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                        • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday February 03 2020, @05:43PM

                          by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday February 03 2020, @05:43PM (#953193) Journal

                          Secret letters exist. Secret laws.... well, the trouble is that you'd have to find one to know it is there. I'm much more worried about administrative regulations (that carry the force of law). And from your perspective I'd see that as a meaningless distinction.

                          When a business complies with a subpoena or a letter or something else from government it just doesn't make them a government agent, but as I suspected there's no way we can reach agreement on that.

                          But I'll walk back what I said a little: We know that things like end-to-end encryption and drive locking is possible. I still don't believe in a foolproof system that could not be hacked or compromised by technology, although I hear Apple is getting close. ;) Even if one could do so, the powers that be will not allow that to stand. Even if the technology stands there is always the wrench problem [xkcd.com]. Government's most noble purpose is to serve, yes. But to serve whom and why are the million dollar questions. Anyway, thanks for sharing!

                          --
                          This sig for rent.
                    • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday February 03 2020, @03:49AM (1 child)

                      by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 03 2020, @03:49AM (#953005) Homepage Journal

                      Canadian law asserts certain rights, and also recognizes that rights may be in conflict.

                      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday February 03 2020, @04:43AM

                        by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday February 03 2020, @04:43AM (#953020) Journal

                        My whole point is that any law limiting free speech, no matter what country, has to be rendered moot by any means we can dream up. Since free speech isn't very popular, we are totally dependent on finding/creating a technology that no authority can control or shut down. Untethering from the ISP will go a long way

                        --
                        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @04:20PM (24 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @04:20PM (#950696)

          they will drop their principles and force all members to sign some kind of courtesy requirement agreement retroactively just to spite you, just like they did to Gab. This of course, splits the network.

          And punches the Nazis in the face!

          Maybe, if you do not want to be deplatformed, you should stop being a criminal? Otherwise, you will be ostracized for your stupidity (aka, "polticial incorrectness").

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @04:59PM (23 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @04:59PM (#950715)

            Here is a person completely subverted by the system, believing that thoughts can be criminal. By merely pulling a few strings, he can be trained on someone he believes to be a nazi, the target doesn't even have to be one in reality. How very convenient!

            Let me get you a truck driving job while you're at it.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @07:37PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @07:37PM (#950793)

              Obviously, AC, you are of an inferior race, based on your performance on the intelligence test that is SN. You will be liquidated, exterminated, genocided, and all like you. I like to call it "The Penultimate Solution". But this is just my thoughts, so nothing illegal about it, except violating the International Convention Against Genocide. Which means it is illegal. But in any case, you firken Nazi, you will be endeadened. After you are dead, we will allow you to have all the free speech you want.

            • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:12PM (21 children)

              by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:12PM (#950816) Journal

              Mere thoughts aren't criminal, no matter how warped, perverted, etc., they are. Putting them into either word or deed, on the other hand, can be. Try posting a death threat against POTUS and see what happens. If you're in the US or any other member 5 Eyes country, you have no such thing as "anonymity" on the internet anyway. If your VPN passes through any of those countries, same caveat applies.

              But give it a try ... we'll get the popcorn.

              --
              SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:22PM (20 children)

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:22PM (#950820) Journal

                Word and deed are two separate things. Word control is thought control, very evil.

                --
                La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:29PM (9 children)

                  by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:29PM (#950827) Journal
                  Word control is NOT thought control. Unless, of course, you're a mindless idiot who immediately says everything that comes to mind. People who do that just aren't credible outside crazy Pentecostal "speaking in tongues" events.
                  --
                  SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:48PM (8 children)

                    by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:48PM (#950837) Journal

                    Sorry, wrong again, you shall not prohibit people from writing what they are thinking. You just don't have that kind of right. Our opinions mean nothing. Censorship is always evil. We have to defeat it by any means necessary.

                    --
                    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                    • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:59PM (7 children)

                      by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:59PM (#950844) Journal

                      If it's my writing materials (for example paper, printer, ink) I certainly CAN prevent you from writing anything at all. Go buy your own.

                      Same as if you then post your manifesto on public property, like a bus shelter. Not your property, either get the owner's permission, or screw off.

                      You can always use your wifi to set up a mesh network host. Then you're free to broadcast, and anyone nearby can pick it up - and if they judge it worthy, they can pass it along. And if they judged it crap, they would just delete it. And if you posted too much crap, they'd ban your node. Worked with FidoNET.

                      If I;m in a public place and you start telling me that I need Jesus in my life and won't stop even after I've told you a dozen times I'm an atheist, your right to your religious beliefs and freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to harass me. Though you can try to tell it to the judge after you're arrested for harassment.

                      --
                      SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:43PM (6 children)

                        by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:43PM (#950861) Journal

                        If it's my writing materials

                        Again that's not the issue. I can find my own material.

                        Defacing public property is not a speech issue. Doesn't apply here.

                        And as far as networking is concerned, I have always advocated for a way to bypass the service provider. But when somebody has the only provider in town, they shall only be allowed to limit bandwidth, content shall remain untouchable, no matter who takes offense.

                        People yelling into your ear is another thing entirely.You have no right to stop the Jesus dude from preaching on the corner. You can complain about and regulate the decibel level, and the bright lights, but nothing else. What makes you think you have a right to control everything within earshot? That's insane. But, yeah, Canada, no 1st amendment there, anything can happen.

                        --
                        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                        • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @12:50AM (5 children)

                          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @12:50AM (#950928) Journal
                          You don't have wifi? If you do, set up your own wifi node as part of a local mesh network and let your neighbours know. So you won't reach as far, and it's more work. But a laptop with wifi and a web server (or even a Telnet server) works for your neighbours. Unless your neighbours aren't interested, but you have no right to an audience. -

                          Same as you can get your own printer and print up pamphlets and distribute them. Internet access is not a right, and isn't needed for you to exercise your right to freedom of expression. Or you can make yourself a sandwich board sign and walk around town with your message in plain public view.

                          Of course if you're a lazy keyboard warrior, all that is too much to ask. Slacktivists deserve to be ignored.

                          --
                          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:15AM (4 children)

                            by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:15AM (#950934) Journal

                            You are being repetitive. Those aren't even the things I'm discussing.

                            --
                            La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                            • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:58AM (3 children)

                              by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:58AM (#950952) Journal

                              Yes they are part and parcel of the discussion. You're complaining about censorship. I'm pointing out that if you want to be uncensored, create your own mesh network using the wifi available on every laptop. You can run your own frt, http, telnet, and Usenet nodes, no censorship. You can also express yourself in other more traditional ways. You have no right to demand that others provide you with any censor-free platform. Make your own and quit crying - others have done it, and some of them have no other choice.

                              If you have either a laptop with a wifi adapter or a desktop with a wifi router you can have your own network. Free of all censorship. What you can't do is expect anyone to support your point of view. You need to make your case, and you haven't. You haven't proposed any sort of solution to the main topic. I did. It allows for anonymous posts, takes the burden off site owners since all anonymous posts disappear after a set time, and gives a way to have non-anonymous users accountable.

                              You just don't want accountability. In other words, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Instead of whining, why not try to come up with a solution?

                              --
                              SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:03AM (2 children)

                                by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:03AM (#950956) Journal

                                Yes they are part and parcel of the discussion.

                                And I already covered it. No need to do it again.

                                --
                                La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                                • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:31AM (1 child)

                                  by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:31AM (#950975) Journal
                                  So quit your whining and propose a .solution already . TFA lays the problem out pretty clearly. Or at least point out why my solution doesn't work for anyone. (Just because it doesn't work for you isn't my problem - all anyone can expect is something that works better than the status quo.
                                  --
                                  SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                                  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 30 2020, @04:40AM

                                    by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 30 2020, @04:40AM (#951031) Journal

                                    So quit your whining and propose a .solution already

                                    Already have, many times. The solution has to come from the voters. They have to vote for an open internet, free of all meddling. The technical solutions to censorship will have to come from the people with the means. They don't need me to know which direction to take.

                                    --
                                    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:05PM (9 children)

                  by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:05PM (#950845) Journal

                  Word and deed are two separate things. Word control is thought control, very evil.

                  Make up your mind. Either words and deeds are separate things, or they aren't. Words are not thoughts. Thoughts are what goes on inside your skull. Words are a means to communicate thoughts to others, and only as they're put into expression. Words you keep in your skull are never censored. Your thoughts are still your own. And sometimes others would like to keep it that way because they are bored with the same flawed arguments over and over.

                  Even the cavemen knew the difference between their drawings and the actual real-world object.

                  --
                  SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:21PM (8 children)

                    by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:21PM (#950851) Journal

                    If you don't like the words don't read them. You have no right to stop a person from writing them.

                    Even the cavemen knew the difference between their drawings and the actual real-world object.

                    Exactly, the words are just drawings, not the object. They are recorded thoughts which nobody has a right to obstruct from people who want to see.

                    I'm afraid you are the one making the flawed argument. Only technology can actually settle it. Something to make censorship impractical if not impossible.

                    --
                    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                    • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:30PM (7 children)

                      by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:30PM (#950854) Journal

                      I have every right to tell people not to spew their nonsense around me. It's called personal space for a reason. Violate it, pay the consequences.

                      Technology can't make censorship impossible, because anything technology can do, other technology can undo. Or, in the case of you insisting that other people listen to your views, a couple of cops with a harassment complaint. Can't beat low tech.

                      And if you're depending on my resources to disseminate your words, I can certainly stop you. My printer, my ink, my paper, go buy your own.

                      --
                      SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:52PM (6 children)

                        by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:52PM (#950865) Journal

                        Now you're just repeating yourself. I have addressed all that.

                        Any law regulating content is unjust. We have to use whatever we have to defeat it.

                        --
                        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                        • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @12:41AM (5 children)

                          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @12:41AM (#950924) Journal
                          No we don't. We regulate other content all the time. Like what goes into food, spectrum allocation, etc. You're free to set up your own system; but you're not free to demand that I design and write and host it. And you're the one repeating yourself, day after day, year after year. Look, I get that you're an anarchist, but anarchists are self-defeating / they can't even organize themselves because, well, anarchy.
                          --
                          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:19AM (4 children)

                            by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:19AM (#950936) Journal

                            they can't even organize themselves because, well, anarchy.

                            :-) The machine will do all the work

                            --
                            La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                            • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:01AM (3 children)

                              by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:01AM (#950954) Journal
                              Dream on. You expect anarchists to be able to code? That requires organizational skills, something anarchists don't have, because they're anarchists.
                              --
                              SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:05AM (2 children)

                                by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:05AM (#950960) Journal

                                Such bigotry! That's not true at all. Evidently you don't understand the concept of cooperation. You disappoint me

                                --
                                La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                                • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:26AM (1 child)

                                  by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:26AM (#950973) Journal

                                  I understand the concept of cooperation just fine. I also understand that anarchies are failed states. We have a few of them floating around right now - go live in Somalia and you won't have to worry about censorship because you'll have far bigger things to worry about.

                                  Anarchists are seriously immature. But that's okay - they can't really get their shit together to be taken seriously. It's a self-limiting problem.

                                  --
                                  SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                                  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 30 2020, @04:21AM

                                    by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 30 2020, @04:21AM (#951027) Journal

                                    anarchies are failed states

                                    Amusing thought, but obviously you don't understand the concept of anarchism. Let us know when you figure it out.

                                    --
                                    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:23PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:23PM (#950591)

    Oh? You'd like to see adult products to adults? We've closed your bank account. Fuck off you sickos. Bank somewhere else.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:43PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:43PM (#950594)

    Don't forget banks and payment processes have the chance to say no too.

    Are we in the topic of freedom of speech, or the topic of "the fucking right to bullshit people and take their money"?
    Because if it is the former, "banks and payment processes (sic)" are irrelevant.

    If howevs we are in the latter case, then get the fuck out and go join the fucking former army major, currently a hypocritical whiner [time.com] who cries crocodile tears "for the people" and gets paid for it, your comment is just as nonconsequential to the "freedom of speech vs the Powers" as his whining.

    • (Score: 2) by EEMac on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:03PM (2 children)

      by EEMac (6423) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:03PM (#950650)

      > Because if it is the former, "banks and payment processes (sic)" are irrelevant.

      Sorry, but no. All web sites need an internet connection, any controversial web site soon needs DDoS protection, and the whole thing runs on electricity. Money has to change hands somewhere.

      Some of these things you may be able to pay for with cash. But probably not all. That's why banks and payment processors are involved. If they say no, your operation shuts down.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:43PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:43PM (#950671)

        Sorry, but no. All web sites need an internet connection, any controversial web site soon needs DDoS protection, and the whole thing runs on electricity. Money has to change hands somewhere.

        See? The very reason MDC was a superhuman by your standards [soylentnews.org], as he managed to maintain 2-3 personal sites even when he was homeless. Yet you need banks and they'll sure censor you, yea? You poor poor wanker, go hide yourself within the herd, there will be bleating reassurances you are unhappy-with-a-rational-reason.

      • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:16PM

        by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:16PM (#950817) Journal

        Sorry, but no. All web sites need an internet connection, any controversial web site soon needs DDoS protection, and the whole thing runs on electricity. Money has to change hands somewhere

        No, they don't need a connection to the Internet. Never heard of mesh networks? Peer to peer still works.

        Laptop with wifi? Check. Phone with wifi? Check. Desktop connected to a wifi router? Check. Countries that shut down "the Internet" find that they can't.

        --
        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.