Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
by leereeves on Friday August 18, 2017 @11:42AM
(#15047158)
And would you draw that line so far toward censorship that you would ban a platform merely for not practicing censorship? (Gab)
Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
by ZeroGravitas on Friday August 18, 2017 @12:26PM
(#15047572)
Unless the platform that hosts it, has made the same uncompromising decision, then of course. It would be like hosting an app that freely declares it will host viruses on your platform that scans for viruses. They're telling you upfront that they have no intention of following your platform rules.
Not accidentally letting a few slip through, not being overwhelmed by scale and doing a crappy job, but as a point of principle not following the rules you are trying to enforce.
Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
by smokeyj on Friday August 18, 2017 @01:12PM
(#15047961)
What about links to archive.org? Surely they're not an extremist organization.
Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
by mcbruiser3 on Friday August 18, 2017 @01:33PM
(#15048130)
the difficulty with shades of gray wrt to free speech is that what is intolerable is a matter of opinion and I don't trust ANYONE to make that decision for me.
free speech must be absolute, so yes, in this case it is black and white, sorry you don't see it that way.
Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
by mcbruiser3 on Friday August 18, 2017 @02:11PM
(#15048447)
um, why is this being downvoted? does anyone seriously want to live in a censored world? seriously? man, we're more doomed than I thought :(
Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
by leereeves on Friday August 18, 2017 @02:11PM
(#15048450)
Certainly, a lot of people want to live in a censored world, as long as they agree with the censors.
Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
by mcbruiser3 on Friday August 18, 2017 @03:21PM
(#15048991)
because... they can't handle being offended? are people really that delicate?
Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
by ameister14 on Friday August 18, 2017 @11:03AM
(#15046803)
Not necessarily evil, but attempting to abridge their rights.
Apparently the concept that providing your services to Nazi's could be thought of as evil totally escaped their thoughts.
It seems like quite a lot of people have deeply internalized the opinion that "Free Speech" is an unalloyed good, and are confused by anyone who sees this as a matter of shades of gray.
I'd argue, the people looking at things in black and white are the ones' being ridiculous here. Is child porn free speech? Is a direct threat free speech? Is copyright infringment? etc. No matter how hardcore a free speech advocate you find, there's going to be a line for them. But apparently anyone who draws their line one step to the side of that is evil and/or stupid because that is the point where the slippery slope starts, conveniently just to the side of their own line, which is on firm and solid ground.