Google says it will ban Neo-Nazi site after domain name switch

[Biggerboot]

Just now, bomerr said:

First I never said.

It's what I gathered, so sorry if I misinterpreted.

Your suggestion that the internet should be considered a utility has merit, but I think if it was a government controlled entity, they would be even more strict.  So I don't think the solution is that easy, for a problem that arguably has many work-arounds.

[Syntaxvgm]

4 minutes ago, Biggerboot said:

It's what I gathered, so sorry if I misinterpreted.

Your suggestion that the internet should be considered a utility has merit, but I think if it was a government controlled entity, they would be even more strict.  So I don't think the solution is that easy, for a problem that arguably has many work-arounds.

the idea of having the internet as a utility is pushed by people who want those private companies in control of the ....pipelines oh god I can't believe I said that  to treat what flows through them neutrally- they only sell access. 

Those same people forget the government puts fluoride in water. Not that it's bad or anything, but it's in the public interest of preventing tooth decay and NOT to make the water safer or taste more neutral or anything. And tooth decay is not caused by water. 

[Biggerboot]

2 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

....pipelines oh god I can't believe I said that

You mean... tubes?

But yeah, good points made.

[FakeNSA]

On 8/16/2017 at 2:18 PM, AshleyAshes said:

Does anyone else fondly when THIS was how Nazi's were properly dealt with?

 

Sorry for old quote, but I think this is how Nazi's should be dealt with, as amphibious assault incurs massive casualties.

[bomerr]

12 minutes ago, Biggerboot said:

Your suggestion that the internet should be considered a utility has merit, but I think if it was a government controlled entity, they would be even more strict.  So I don't think the solution is that easy, for a problem that arguably has many work-arounds.

What are the work-arounds?

 

This is the reality today.

 

1. ISP + Search Engines dominate the supply of information.

2. Google has the power to redirect search result to their curated content and they are implanting this today. 

3. The number of popular search engines are very limited (Yahoo, Bing, Google... few more) so they are not a free market, it's an oligopoly situation.

4. Available information. You and me may know that google is restricting content or redirecting searched or taking down content but the general public does not. For them google is still a trusted source. 

 

So what are the options today? I see 2 options.

 

1. Use a different search engine. First a new search engine would have to complete with the existing oligopoly and break into the market which is very difficult. But if it does, then it could end up filtering content as well. In other words this is not a real solution but simply switches hands for the hot potato. 

 

2. Regulate as a utility. This would prevent co. like Google from blocking content that complies with law. 

 

 

 

[Syntaxvgm]

7 minutes ago, Biggerboot said:

You mean... tubes?

But yeah, good points made.

the internet is a series of tubes. Of rubber. Containing bundles of wire. 

[Trik'Stari]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

The argument actually started when someone suggested google should be considered a utility.  I would argue that the internet itself  (network of connections from ISP's to backbone, etc) should be a utility, however the devices and services that plug into it (website hosting, banking services,  file storage, etc) should not be, they are private services that use the internet, they are not the internet itself. 

 

In this case, google is just refusing to provide services, there is nothing stopping them or another company from hiring rack space and hosting it themselves.

One could make the argument that it's discrimination.

 

I would argue that they should only be able to deny service for a reason like criminal activity, calls for or organizing violence, harassment campaigns, etc.

 

which knowing these morons they probably qualify, although if my rule were in place Google would be required to first alert the customer and inform them that if they do not ban people calling for violence or other illegal things, they will be kicked off of the service, then if nothing is done you kick them off the service.

 

That way, morons calling for violence or being jackasses can get banned, but those willing the behave in a civilized manner can have free speech.

 

My biggest problem is that Communists get a free pass, despite all the people they killed the f**k out of.

[Biggerboot]

13 minutes ago, bomerr said:

What are the work-arounds?

 

This is the reality today.

 

1. ISP + Search Engines dominate the supply of information.

2. Google has the power to redirect search result to their curated content and they are implanting this today. 

3. The number of popular search engines are very limited (Yahoo, Bing, Google... few more) so they are not a free market, it's an oligopoly situation.

4. Available information. You and me may know that google is restricting content or redirecting searched or taking down content but the general public does not. For them google is still a trusted source.

I would prefer breaking up the information companies over completely de-privatizing them, but that's really grey area stuff, so I won't say it's wrong.  I'm avoiding that argument because it'll go full political.  (which believe me, we're not there yet)

 

Quote

 

So what are the options today? I see 2 options.

 

1. Use a different search engine. First a new search engine would have to complete with the existing oligopoly and break into the market which is very difficult. But if it does, then it could end up filtering content as well. In other words this is not a real solution but simply switches hands for the hot potato. 

 

2. Regulate as a utility. This would prevent co. like Google from blocking content that complies with law. 

 

The thing is... I think most people don't want to see really outlandish things in their normal search engine.  You kind of have to balance that power - which is why I favor either of those things in the present day.  But search engine will continue to have their bias.

[Trik'Stari]

8 minutes ago, Biggerboot said:

I would prefer breaking up the information companies over completely de-privatizing them, but that's really grey area stuff, so I won't say it's wrong.  I'm avoiding that argument because it'll go full political.  (which believe me, we're not there yet)

 

The thing is... I think most people don't want to see really outlandish things in their normal search engine.  You kind of have to balance that power - which is why I favor either of those things in the present day.

Create rules for when companies can and cannot deny service that match with acceptable rules for breaking up a protest/riot/gathering, consider them as a necessity for being allowed to do business within the United States.

 

Edit: What I was going to suggest next wouldn't be easily doable and is not within the context of this discussion.

[Biggerboot]

3 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Edit: What I was going to suggest next wouldn't be easily doable and is not within the context of this discussion.

Oh, but I thought it was funny.  (VPNs to get around the great firewall)

[bomerr]

22 minutes ago, Biggerboot said:

I would prefer breaking up the information companies over completely de-privatizing them, but that's really grey area stuff, so I won't say it's wrong.  

What difference would that make? It would be the equivalent of getting rid of Google and having Yahoo and Bing compete. It's still the same situation where the industry leaders will set the rules and ban content they don't like 

Quote

The thing is... I think most people don't want to see really outlandish things in their normal search engine.  You kind of have to balance that power - which is why I favor either of those things in the present day.  But search engine will continue to have their bias.

This is another strawman. 

[Biggerboot]

2 minutes ago, bomerr said:

What difference would that make? It would be the equivalent of getting rid of Google and having Yahoo and Bing compete. It's still the same situation where the industry leaders will set the rules and ban content they don't like 

The idea is just to have more choices, but my prediction would be an overload of information and a consequentially less useful search engine if you de-privatize it.  Google's also a pretty big R&D powerhouse in the data scene, kinda making it hard to stop them.

Honestly, I'm not uber passionate on where the topic is heading, but I appreciate getting to hear your ideas. 

[Trik'Stari]

20 minutes ago, Biggerboot said:

Oh, but I thought it was funny.  (VPNs to get around the great firewall)

Honestly I just dislike China because they're communist.

 

And their government murdered more people than any other regime in history. You know, detail stuff. No big deal right? I just really can't stand how they get a free pass and are considered legitimate.

[Biggerboot]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

Honestly I just dislike China because they're communist.

 

And their government murdered more people than any other regime in history. You know, detail stuff. No big deal right? I just really can't stand how they get a free pass and are considered legitimate.

I guess the rationale is that we all have skeletons in the closet, but I getcha. 

[Trik'Stari]

3 minutes ago, Biggerboot said:

I guess the rationale is that we all have skeletons in the closet, but I getcha. 

We do, but they are the worst.

 

They're Nazi's, with even bigger delusions of grandeur and an identity crysis. They argue that they're for the greater good, (whilst the nazi's would claim to be superior and therefor entitled).

 

The nazi's are natural selection at its worst (perhaps unnatural selection is a better term), the communists are militant oppressive religion without an actual God.

[Biggerboot]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

We do, but they are the worst.

 

They're Nazi's, with even bigger delusions of grandeur and an identity crysis. They argue that they're for the greater good, (whilst the nazi's would claim to be superior and therefor entitled).

 

The nazi's are natural selection, the communists are militant oppressive religion without an actual God.

I don't want to nitpick the details too much, I think the hope we hold with the communist super powers is that they'll eventually realize they're oppressed and need to change.  Maybe it'll happen incrementally and we can avoid the deaths on both sides.  The internet could be a powerful tool in this regard.

[Trik'Stari]

1 minute ago, Biggerboot said:

I don't want to nitpick the details too much, I think the hope we hold with the communist super powers is that they'll eventually realize they're oppressed and need to change.  Maybe it'll happen incrementally and we can avoid the deaths on both sides.  The internet could be a powerful tool in this regard.

I'm talking about the "revolutionaries" in colleges, not just students but professors etc. To me, they represent the biggest threat to our nation at the current moment in time.

 

Communism, socialism, is ALWAYS subversive, almost more so than religion.

[Biggerboot]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

I'm talking about the "revolutionaries" in colleges, not just students but professors etc. To me, they represent the biggest threat to our nation at the current moment in time.

Sorry if I lost track of the convo.

Yeah, nazis are bad.  Everyone should be concerned with what's happening in our borders.

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, Biggerboot said:

Sorry if I lost track of the convo.

Yeah, nazis are bad.  Everyone should be concerned with what's happening in our borders.

All extremes are bad, and they are festering within us.

[bomerr]

34 minutes ago, Biggerboot said:

The idea is just to have more choices, but my prediction would be an overload of information and a consequentially less useful search engine if you de-privatize it.  Google's also a pretty big R&D powerhouse in the data scene, kinda making it hard to stop them.

Honestly, I'm not uber passionate on where the topic is heading, but I appreciate getting to hear your ideas. 

 

Do you notice how you keep going onto tangents rather than concentrate on topic at hand? It's very annoying.

 

Breaking up the search providers wouldn't do anything nor would it even be practical. How do you breakup a search algorithm or series of algorithms? It's a misapplication of monopoly/oligopoly economics concepts to completely different situation/problem. 

[Biggerboot]

9 minutes ago, bomerr said:

Breaking up the search providers wouldn't do anything nor would it even be practical. How do you breakup a search algorithm or series of algorithms? It's a misapplication of monopoly/oligopoly economics concepts to completely different situation/problem. 

I'm thinking you would break up the companies financially in order to decrease their fundings to support said algorithms actively, thus they would have to let the search engine crash and burn a little (or spend less on other sectors which would hurt their market share).  It's not a solution that would be felt immediately though and yes, there's not much way to split up search algorithms.  My thought is that there are other search algorithms out there that would succeed if they had the market presence that google did, and it could introduce people to alternatives.
 

Quote

Do you notice how you keep going onto tangents rather than concentrate on topic at hand? It's very annoying.

Um, sorry?  You can ignore me if it's bothering you.

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

One could make the argument that it's discrimination.

 

I would argue that they should only be able to deny service for a reason like criminal activity, calls for or organizing violence, harassment campaigns, etc.

 

which knowing these morons they probably qualify, although if my rule were in place Google would be required to first alert the customer and inform them that if they do not ban people calling for violence or other illegal things, they will be kicked off of the service, then if nothing is done you kick them off the service.

 

That way, morons calling for violence or being jackasses can get banned, but those willing the behave in a civilized manner can have free speech.

 

My biggest problem is that Communists get a free pass, despite all the people they killed the f**k out of.

State Control and forced wealth redistribution often results in authoritarian regimes like those of Mao or Stalin. But it's not the stated objective. Neo-nazis however, do state their objective as basically "Fuck non-whites, they need to be expelled by force and possibly exterminated" That's their stated objective, forcing a confrontation based on race.

 

No sorry but there's no moral equivalency in redistribution of wealth + closed central economies, and genocide.

[W-L]

This has gone quite far off-topic from the original post, political discussions are still not allowed but it's nice to see we can have a reasonable debate once in a while. 

 

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/965477-community-standards/

Quote

No Trolling

• This includes flame wars such as NVIDIA vs AMD, political or religious debate.

-Locked-