News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF by tomp on Friday August 18, 2017 @09:21AM (#15045817)
> There's nothing stopping these maniacs from starting their own intermediaries to host the content(trash) they want to peddle.

Why couldn't you say the same about net neutrality?

Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF by CamTin on Friday August 18, 2017 @09:26AM (#15045863)
Without ISP-level neutrality, the opposite would be true. Here's the scenario in that case:

1) Google, Facebook, Twitter, CloudFlare, GoDaddy, and a few other actors ban a certain flavor of hate speech.

2) The pro-hate-speech crowd tries to start their own "Facebook for white nationalism" but can't, because they don't have "premium" peering arrangements with all the eyeball ISPs.

3) There is no step 3, it's game over.

Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF by justadeveloper2 on Friday August 18, 2017 @10:02AM (#15046238)
When you say pro-hate-speech, do you include Marxist rhetoric in there? I only ask because anyone who has suffered through communism will tell you who the truly brutal and destructive monsters in this world are. I can think of no fascist regimes in the world today, but I can name quite a few far left ones where I would not want to reside.
Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF by CamTin on Friday August 18, 2017 @01:43PM (#15048208)
Whether or not something is really hate speech is beside the point of my argument. The big tech companies could decide to block speech that disparages Bugs Bunny and the point would still hold. Without ISP-level neutrality, competition doesn't provide a check on the existing "big tech" companies foisting their moralism users who disagree with it.
Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF by lawless123 on Friday August 18, 2017 @09:22AM (#15045822)
Are we all incapable of discerning what is and what isn't acceptable?
Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF by danarmak on Friday August 18, 2017 @09:25AM (#15045854)
We are all incapable of coming to a consensus about what is acceptable. This is pretty much the same as saying there are always disagreements in politics.

Whatever you permit to be used against your opponents is certain to be used against your friends as well.

Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF by protomyth on Friday August 18, 2017 @09:24AM (#15045848)
Well, since YouTube deleted evidence of war crimes, I would say yes we are incapable.
Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF by MBCook on Friday August 18, 2017 @09:40AM (#15046003)
> Why couldn't you say the same about net neutrality?

Starting your own ISP can require MASSIVE capital investment if you want to have a hope of competing and take years. There's a reason there are only a handful of really competitive ISPs in the US.

Changing DNS hosts is a mild inconvenience. They can find someone who will host their records. Google shouldn't be forced to do it.

But if I don't like the only ISP in my town blocking some stuff I don't the kind of money Google had to waste to start a new ISP for me and others in my town.

Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF by tomp on Friday August 18, 2017 @10:09AM (#15046305)
Google also removed the Gab app from it's app store. Setting up a DNS host is simple, but starting your own Google/Android/CDN requires an equally massive investment.