Freeze Peach 🍑 (USA)



North Korea has its own OS, devices, and Internet. What’s stopping the Nazi broflakes?




Johnathon Chait is getting amusingly spanked in the comments.


Not to defend them, but the line between “someone should kill them”/“you should kill them” and “I am going to kill them”/“I am going to kill you” is pretty relevant.

We have sanctions against behaviors, not speech. Some behaviors affected via speech are punishable - threats, the passing of state secrets, contact against restraining orders etc.

Blurring the line between speech and behavior isn’t going to fly in the US. It’s one of our fundamentals.


Feel free to start a pro-Daesh newsletter and see how long it takes the FBI to show up.


We’ve already explained this to you.


You’ve presented your position, certainly. I remain entirely unconvinced.


You have some interesting fundamentals, I must say.

  • Let Nazis promote genocide. We’ll keep a close on on those Muslims though.
  • You get a gun! You get a gun! Everybody gets a gun!
  • no one can take your stuff haha just kidding we totally can
  • no booze for anyone fine we take it back

/s, mostly



Denial of a platform to “formulate, state and defend” an opinion is about the most effective form of censorship there is.

Unsurprisingly, I don’t agree that what I said is wrong.

If you have something to say and no one will let you say it, you have been censored. That censorship may be entirely valid and accepted by the community as AOK, but it has happened.

The fact that it is not the government doing it may be what makes it ok in law, but it doesn’t change the fact that you have been denied a platform to express your opinion. The existence of other platforms doesn’t change that. The fact that you could create your own platform doesn’t change that.

Well, that’s where I’ll disagree with you - and so does the UN, oh and officially so does the US government since it is a signatory to the relevant convention.

and the actual report:

Now granted, that’s a convention that the US signed in 1977, only ratified in 1992 and has expressly stated that it won’t follow in several respects:

which does rather beg the question, why the US bothered to sign it in the first place, but hey - the US and human rights have a tricky relationship.

The US does keep signing these things though, like this one:

and not actually doing anything about them…

Not that the US is in any way alone in that (the site has links to various reports on how the US and other countries are doing - it’s a bit shitty to navigate though).

Nevertheless, it is (still, just about) official US policy that businesses have a duty to respect human rights and that the government has to have an effective means for people to obtain redress if companies don’t respect their human rights.

There’s plenty of room to argue about whether what specifically happened to the people running The Stormer or whatever shitty euphemism/crap translation they used (I’m not going to google it) was an infraction of their human rights or whether there is an effective remedy but the fundamental principle that denial of access to the internet can be an infringement of human rights is settled.



You are conflating ISPs and hosting services.


Okay. It’s good to agree, especially since normally we don’t.



I’m sure I am - doesn’t really matter to the general point though.


Of course. The black list was also carried out primarily through the work of private corporations, but with some serious state and popular pressure. But such violations weren’t just aimed at communists and socialists and even in that specific case, it certainly didn’t begin with the Cold War. Don’t forget Eugene Debs and Emma Goldman, who were jailed and kicked out of the country respectively. The war on the left began long before it became understood as an existential struggle between the commies and capitalists as represented by the USSR and the US. I’d also argue that in some cases, being white and male gave a measure of protection for such speech at times.

But overall, what we considered protected speech has changed, culturally and legally, over the course of US history. I think that’s important to bear in mind, especially when it relates to speech in support of white supremacy, which has long, long been allowed to flourish as protected speech.


I don’t know, Melz… to be fair, do we have any legal test of that? I agree that first amendment explicitly deals with the federal government infringing on speech, but what about this case where we have such a powerful institution that can curb any kinds of speech at a whim. Because google (and facebook, honestly) is kind of in a uniquely powerful position to make sure something does not get heard. There was this story I heard this week, about a critic of google getting fired from a google-funded think tank, which they claim is not about his work, but I don’t know:

It’s similar I think to oil companies peddling influence in washington, but google is peddling influence on the dissemination of information.

I do agree that neo-nazi broflakes are welcome to build their own infrastructure, but we still have to figure out the problem of google or facebook and the sort of information stranglehold they tend to have on our culture. Is it enough to just have outlets for unpopular speech? Or is google, etc, defacto curbing speech they don’t like and should they be allowed to do so? I honestly don’t know what the answer to that is or how we work this out.


It absolutely does since @Melizmatic also conflated the two and you are pouncing on that to speak your point. They lost their hosting service, no ISP has been purging customers for their posting habits.


In other words, white supremacists are not losing access to the internet they lost their ability to host their website - so your argument doesn’t follow your own line of logic.


This is the issue, an absolutist stance on free speech is (part) of the sales pitch of the social media platforms to disrupt the way media is dispersed and now that beast is part of the problem for everyone. While we are beyond that point in history now that private corporations own the vast majority of our means of communication, we are now in uncharted territory where the same platitudes of hate speech fixing itself is part of the original problem getting us here. Getting speech out of the government’s control just put it into the hands of private holdings which favors a single company taking over a market in all circumstances.

I don’t think anyone is saying that you can solve “bad speech” with regulation, but we certainly can’t fix the current breakdowns in communication in the current system which favors anyone saying anything no matter how extreme or how factual.


I agree with this.

This too. Like I noted above, we have most certainly had restrictions on speech in the past, which were deemed perfectly constitutional. But as you note, the absolutist stance has gotten more traction with the rise of “disruptive” technologies, like social media. Even here, access to speech is not evenly distributed and not everyone has the same powerful platform, even with access to social media. The groups of people who have historically been given larger platforms to push their agendas STILL have a larger, more powerful platform to push their speech into the public sphere. Social media has not solved the problems of access to places where important decisions are made. It’s eased organizing for mass movements, but people did it well before the current age of mass media and they’ll continue to do it once social media isn’t such a force in our political life.


The basic argument is whether any corporation should purge customers based entirely on the business’s whim.

The issue here is that the method they use to promote their views has been denied them because one of the organisations they use to promote their views decided they didn’t want that.

Whether that’s the ISP or the hosting service is not important to the debate on whether that is something that should be ok or not.

Exactly which company it is and what service they provide may be important when it comes to deciding whether any infringement (if there is one) is material - i.e. if they can easily set up their own replacement or easily find another provider, that may well indicate that any rights there might be have not been materially infringed.

I accept it doesn’t help that there are several slightly different but closely related discussions.

I started by trying to make the point that denying someone a platform to express their views is censorship.

Melz2 disagreed and argued that there is no right to the internet.

I argued that plenty of people think there is and also that it’s not enough to say that it’s not the government doing it, therefore it can’t be a rights infringement.


Now this does require citation, because this is an unsubstantiated claim. There’s a good argument that actual hate groups are on the rise in power in the United States (there’s a huge spike in their growth in size, amount of organizations, and money they hold), and by all appearances they have become messily intertwined with the far-right side of our current politics by their unanimous support for Donald Trump who appears to be cool with them. On the European side there has been a rise in right-wing populism and nationalism, but you yourself speak to it as not being racially motivated.

Unless you believe that supremecists are doing false flags using VPNs, you can simply go to those websites and see the amount of Europeans joining in. /pol/ had a European discord, though I don’t know if that is still open with the events regarding their other discord. StormFront had what amounted to AMAs with European hate group leaders. Europe is all over US-based hate sites.