US Declines in Internet Freedom Rankings (techcrunch.com)

If you need a safe haven on the internet, where the pipes are open and the freedoms are plentiful -- you might want to move to Estonia or Iceland. From a report: The latest "internet freedoms" rankings are out, courtesy of Freedom House's annual report into the state of internet freedoms and personal liberties, based on rankings of 65 countries that represent the vast majority of the world's internet users. Although the U.S. remains firmly in the top 10, it dropped a point on the year earlier after a recent rash of changes to internet regulation and a lack of in the realm of surveillance. Last year, the U.S. was 21 in the global internet freedom ranking -- the lower number, the better a country ranks. That was behind Estonia, Iceland, Canada, Germany and Australia. This year the U.S. is at 22 -- thanks to the repeal of net neutrality and the renewal of U.S. spy powers. The report also cited "disinformation and hyperpartisan content" -- or fake news -- as a "pressing concern."

Comments

Freedom means content you don't like

[grasshoppa]

Their concerns over "fake news" seems contrary to the notion of "freedom". Freedom means the ability for anyone, anywhere, to do what they will regardless of your opinions.

Their concerns undermine their credibility, although I do agree that the lack of net neutrality and continued surveillance are concerning.

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[ChromeAeonuim]

And since Germany outranks the US here, I wonder how they handled the European 'right' to censorship. Say what you will about Ajit Pai and his corporate cronies, I certainty do, at least here in the US I won't face legal trouble for 'insulting someone's dignity' or 'insulting someone's religious sensibilities' (yeah, blasphemy, of all things) or violating someone's 'right to be forgotten' by continuing to host a factual news article.

Re: Freedom means content you don't like

[Anonymous Coward]

You people make me sick. You co-opt words and act as if you have a right to control other peaceful people. You are the crazy nutter. And while there are crazy nutters on the opposite side of the spectrum as well it doesn't change the fact you're a fucking nut job.

Few people want to hear what you are talking about, but no government has the right to deprive another of speech or a general right to communicate whatever they want. It's up to each individual to listen to or not or access the so-called 'disinformation' or not.

From my perspective what you are saying is disinformation. You co-opted words to mean something other than what they actually mean.

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[UnknownSoldier]

> You shouldn't have the right to offend others.

Bullshit.

That's how you end with idiotic Political Correctness (aka Censorship) which to quote George Carlin "is Fascidm pretending to be manners."

Only cowards censor.

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[ChromeAeonuim]

Censorship offends me. Therefore, you should either act in a logically consistent manner and silence yourself, or you should admit that what you really want is the ability to force people to not say certain things that you don't like, which is a very different thing altogether.

Censorship advocacy is either logical inconsistent, or openly unethical. Pick one.

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[PopeRatzo]

Freedom means the ability for anyone, anywhere, to do what they will regardless of your opinions.

That's not what it means. That's never been what it means.

The philosopher Rudolph Steiner had the most comprehensive discourse on freedom in his book from the late 1800s, The Philosophy of Freedom. He wrote that any definition of human freedom required an "ethical individualism", that required a level of consciousness of self and one's motivations. In other words, taking a shit on the living room floor just because you need to take a shit and happen to be standing in the living room at the time, is not freedom. Your "freedom" in absence of an ethical framework is basically just trolling.

And if you need to ask, "Well derp, who gets to make up what is ethical?" then you're in luck, because this was also pretty well established by about 300 B.C., and the answer is, "We all do, based upon reason and moral behavior".

Now, if you need to ask, "Why should we be moral at all?", then you need more help than I can provide in one Slashdot comment.

This has been another edition of, "Why you should have taken a few Humanities classes when you were working on your Associates degree in Computer Science."

Re: Freedom means content you don't like

[forkfail]

...freedom in the rest of the world includes freedom from disinformation and freedom from propaganda.

Perhaps if the disinformation and propaganda comes from your own government.

But defining freedom as only hearing things from other people that you believe to be true?

That is the exact opposite of freedom.

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[forkfail]

But unless you limit freedom of speech, you don't have it. It's like with tolerance. You have to be intolerant of intolerance in order to be tolerant.

You shouldn't have the right to offend others.

Well, since you're obviously so good at doublethink, I suspect that you'll completely miss the point when I mention that I find this post offensive.

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[grasshoppa]

Well, ok, "Freedom" as a concept is quite a bit more complex than that, and something I was trying to avoid in making my point that "concern" over trolling is contrary to freedom in this context.

We all give up measures of our freedom to participate in society; that's the cover charge, as it were. At it's most basic, this can be considered a viable definition of "evil" btw; the deprivation of freedom. No one would argue that we should all have absolute freedom, of course, which is where the notion of "necessary evil" comes from.

That said, I get extremely weary when it comes to applying restrictions on freedom of expression of thought, regardless of the reason. I've seen examples of fake news that were more dependent on the interpretation of the content than the actual content itself. Freedom of speech has been universally recognized as being so critical precisely because of the damage curtailing it causes to society's health.

That means "fake news" must be allowed, even celebrated, in any society who holds freedom of expression and thought to be a high ideal.

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[Ichijo]

Is censorship the opposite of free speech?

Is shouting down your opponent a form of censorship?

Does censoring such shouting down make speech more free or less free?

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[geggam]

Simply horse kaka

No one man defined the moral compass for the planet.If it is your room you are free to shit in the middle of it

That is freedom. Your freedoms end where others begins.

Problem being other people want their freedoms to invade your space

Re: Freedom means content you don't like

[mrclevesque]

Freedom “to” vs. Freedom “from” -

https://www.open.edu/openlearn...

Re: Freedom means content you don't like

[forkfail]

Negative vs Positive Liberties.

Negative Liberties are those things that can only be taken away, such as speech.

Positive Liberties can only be given, usually by taking something from another person. Such as health care.

"Freedom to" and "freedom from" follow the same pattern.

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[radarskiy]

Not every statement is an opinion.

If the only factual statements you have are incorrect you cannot make any valid decisions.

If you cannot make any decisions you are not free.

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[PopeRatzo]

Well, ok, "Freedom" as a concept is quite a bit more complex than that, and something I was trying to avoid in making my point that "concern" over trolling is contrary to freedom in this context.

Oh, come one. Here is what you said, in a direct quote:

"Freedom means the ability for anyone, anywhere, to do what they will regardless of your opinions."

If you were trying to avoid the complex concept of freedom, trying to simplify it to, "the ability for anyone, anywhere, to do what they want" was not the way to do it.

The fact is that freedom is not such a complex concept at all, unless you're trying to twist it into some novel shape in order to accommodate some negative behavior.

That means "fake news" must be allowed, even celebrated, in any society who holds freedom of expression and thought to be a high ideal.

It is allowed, but your freedom doesn't come with some special superpower that requires private businesses to help you do it. And there is no concept of freedom that requires society not to demonstrate the consequences of your lying. Freedom is not a suicide pact for society. It's why there are no laws about lying privately, but there are laws against lying publicly (libel, slander, etc). A free society gets to protect itself from those who would do it harm.

 

Re: Freedom means content you don't like

[forkfail]

And - should have read your link before making my answer - thought it was a sig at first... ;-)

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you need to ask, "Well derp, who gets to make up what is ethical?" then you're in luck, because this was also pretty well established by about 300 B.C., and the answer is, "We all do, based upon reason and moral behavior".

Good morning. Ethics professor here. Let's unpack that statement.

Moral behavior is ethical. What is ethical? Moral behavior. Remember, from your humanities classes, that ethics and morals are greek and latin words with the same meaning from "about 300 B.C."

Steiner's rationalization is that freedom is a subset of ethics, which clearly is political science, not an ethical concept. He confused prescription for description. Which is the reason why no professional philosopher takes Steiner's freedoms as anything more than a curiosity. The former is ethics, the latter is best served by science.

Freedom is an ability. Specifically, and most famously from the humanities courses you seem to feel as an authority, liberty of spontaneity and liberty of indifference. The ability to do as one chooses and the ability to not do as one does not choose. If and only if a person has both, can they be said to have freedom.

Finally, if one is to take advice on ethics, perhaps do not do so from someone that is unethical in the first place, demeaning and insulting his way as if ethics is about winning arguments rather than cogent ones:

This has been another edition of, "Why you should have taken a few Humanities classes when you were working on your Associates degree in Computer Science."

Philosophy has contributed a great deal to Computer Science. Even critical tools such as truth tables and function-argument forms. Computer Science also has contributed a great deal to humanities such as abstractions, large-scale analytic methodologies, and topological breakthroughs. Do not look down on specialists. They contribute just as much as those of us lucky enough to be interdisciplinary.

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[butchersong]

In other words, taking a shit on the living room floor just because you need to take a shit and happen to be standing in the living room at the time, is not freedom

Yes it is. If you are unable to perform certain bodily functions in certain areas you are restricted in your freedom. I don't care if Rudolph Steiner would disagree with me or not. We sacrifice freedoms to live in a society but pretending that curtailing freedom is not restricting freedom because someone deemed the curtailment necessary strikes me as complete nonsense.

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[PopeRatzo]

Moral behavior is ethical.

Not always. This is why reason and self-awareness are important.

Steiner's rationalization is that freedom is a subset of ethics

Not at all. He posited that freedom required ethics. It would be like you're saying, "a hot dog is a subset of relish".

Finally, if one is to take advice on ethics, perhaps do not do so from someone that is unethical in the first place, demeaning and insulting his way as if ethics is about winning arguments rather than cogent ones:

I did not demean or insult his "way". Remember, instruction requires correction.

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[PopeRatzo]

No one man defined the moral compass for the planet.If it is your room you are free to shit in the middle of it

I want you to really think about this. Yes, you are free to shit on the floor in your own room, but that does not mean you shitting on the floor in your own room is the same thing as being free.

You mistake the ability to do something with human freedom. They are not the same thing. They're not even in the same realm.

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[Freischutz]

Simply horse kaka

No one man defined the moral compass for the planet.If it is your room you are free to shit in the middle of it

That is freedom. Your freedoms end where others begins.

Problem being other people want their freedoms to invade your space

No you are not free to shit in your room. I used to live in a house where there was a hoarder who actually did shit on the floor in the middle of his apartment, at least judging by the smell. That and the files and the maggots crawling out from under his door and out the windows, up the walls of the house and into our apartments. It took quite a bit of doing but eventually we managed to make an intervention happen with the help of county social worker some bailiffs and the cooperation of his family. They had to bring in a professional cleaning crew that specialised in crime scene cleanups to make the place habitable again. Your freedoms are strictly limited by the amount of assholery people are willing to put up with from you. The problem with most people who harp on about limitless freedom is that they tend to think themselves entitled to more assholery, selfishness and greed than those around them think is fair and appropriate.

Re: Freedom means content you don't like

[Anonymous Coward]

unless all the channels are in control of a wealthy few of course - like in the us.

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[asdfman2000]

Does restricting someone from shitting in their own room have a zero-effect on their freedom? I don't understand the point you're trying to make, and I have a minor in philosophy.

For example, if someone wanted to stay cooped up in their basement all day and read books, are you saying locking said person in a basement and forcing them to read books would not be a restriction on their freedom? Or are you saying actions as a result of unexamined motivations are not a question of "freedom"? Are you saying animals or even low-IQ people can't be "free"?

It honestly sounds like you're just applying your personal beliefs about ethics without having taken any of those humanities courses you were talking about. Hint: there has been a lot philosophy about meta-ethics since Sokrates.

Re: Freedom means content you don't like

[Stolovaya]

What the writer calls "freedom from" is what most people call "security". And while we can wax philosophical, you're speaking in newspeak in this situation. It's disingenuous to call it "freedom" because it actively removes freedom from others. This is fine in some cases...I'm fine having the security of not being murdered in that people don't have the freedom to murder. When it comes to words and information, no.

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[Stolovaya]

That's not what it means. That's never been what it means.

Yes. Yes it is. On one end you have freedom, and on the other, you have security. There're trade-offs. We never want pure freedom; you can end up with the Wild West if so. You don't want pure security, because then you get Big Brother.

And if you need to ask, "Well derp, who gets to make up what is ethical?" then you're in luck, because this was also pretty well established by about 300 B.C., and the answer is, "We all do, based upon reason and moral behavior".

That's not a very good answer, since while most people agree on certain moral behaviors (don't murder, don't steal), there are others that are vastly controversial (homosexuality, drug use). A lot of Christians decided that homosexuality isn't moral, but by your logic, it is moral?

You're making the assumption that there is a universal set of morals, that is 100% "right". There's not.

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[PopeRatzo]

For example, if someone wanted to stay cooped up in their basement all day and read books, are you saying locking said person in a basement and forcing them to read books would not be a restriction on their freedom? Or are you saying actions as a result of unexamined motivations are not a question of "freedom"? Are you saying animals or even low-IQ people can't be "free"?

I understand your confusion. The concept of human freedom is distinct from whether or not you are "free" to do something (they spring from different definitions of the word. Doing something because no one will stop you is not the same thing as freedom. No one will stop you from shitting on the floor in the living room in your perfect platonic cave. This does not mean that shitting on said floor will make you free or even demonstrate your freedom.

In the immortal words of a noted ethical philosopher, "freedom ain't free".

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[PopeRatzo]

there are others that are vastly controversial (homosexuality, drug use).

Considering the totality of human history, neither of those is particularly controversial.

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[AmiMoJo]

They were looking at things like net neutrality and private companies obtaining censorship orders to protect their copyrights. Governments upholding local laws didn't factor very highly (why would it, when most reasonable definitions of freedom include the rule of law as a protection for that right) although things like blocking VPN services are a big issue for privacy reasons.

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[AmiMoJo]

Freedom to do what you like is one type of freedom. But the guy bleeding to death in the gutter is free to do what he likes, so there is another type of freedom - the opportunity to be free.

An example of the latter would be education. Without education you have fewer opportunities to exercise your freedom to act how you like, because the range of actions you are able to take is more limited. So education enhances you freedom.

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[grasshoppa]

Ah, we're playing semantics now are we? Count me out. The moment we start playing the semantics game the conversation is over; it's now a game of egos.

I've got better things to do with my time.

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[PopeRatzo]

he moment we start playing the semantics game the conversation is over

Semantics is the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. Semantics is at the heart of every philosophical discussion, and critical to developing understanding.

If you're "out" every time semantics enter into a discussion, then you're going to have trouble using logic and language. Don't be that guy. You have a strongly-held position, you should be prepared to defend it using your words.

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[terrycarlino]

I absolutely should have the right to offend others. If you don't have the right to offend others then you don't really have freedom of speech.

It's easy to defend the speech rights of people with whom you agree, but unless you defend the right of free speech of people with whom you don't agree then you really don't believe in freedom of speech.

Re: Freedom means content you don't like

[mjwx]

Freedom “to” vs. Freedom “from” -

https://www.open.edu/openlearn...

Good article, The problem is to an extremist "freedom" means the ability to spew whatever bile they like and shout "FREEZE PEACH" when ever someone criticises them or dares to point out the flaws in their argument, this is the favoured tactic of the so-called "alt-right", they don't want free and open discourse, they want their point of view to be the only accepted one. This is the kind of thing that is actually killing freedom of expression in western countries across the globe. If we lose the right to criticise, we've lost the right to express ourselves.

Re:Freedom means content you don't like

[nightfire-unique]

You shouldn't have the right to offend others.

The good news is that this is in fact impossible.

"Offense" is taken, not given. You cannot give someone offense. They must take it from you.

I'd say more but...

[3seas]

With shadow banning, FB jail, twitter censorship, deleted accounts due any number of excuses. And lets not forget the spy vs spy MAD Mag comic of the deep state. Julian Assange last interview he talked about those being born today will be the last generation to be free... I'm trying to get a head start of my unfreedom. May I be marked a troll for this.

Re:I'd say more but...

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole shadow banning thing highlights the problem with private enterprise and capitalism. We are quickly depending on these corporations to serve the needs of our society, but they have no transparency in the process and there is little recourse when we disagree with their behavior.

The right to petition is fundamental in all free societies, and is the fundamental basis of the 1st Amendment. But we have ruled that corporations are not subject to review and do not have to abide by petition. The EULA is the most anti-democratic and anti-social contract in modern times.

Re:I'd say more but...

[forkfail]

We've handed the Town Square to a few powerful individuals and corporations.

And the denizens that are allowed to live in said Town Square loves their unilaterally declared regulation and iron fisted control.

What that those inside the town square should be wondering about is what is going to happen when there are more that have been pushed out of the town square than are allowed into the echo chamber it is becoming.

Re:I'd say more but...

[mujadaddy]

We've handed the Town Square to a few powerful individuals and corporations.

The trick is recognizing the cause and what to do about it. Mostly-one-way-tubes is what caused that precondition. The average internet subscriber's *right-to-publish* must be taken back from ISPs.

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is the US behind countries that have actual laws on the books that jail you for saying offensive things? Germany and Canada BOTH have âoeanti-hate,â where hate is as liberally defined as using the wrong pronouns for someone, laws in place.

Also, how is censoring âoefake newsâ increasing freedom of speech? Doesnâ(TM)t matter whether itâ(TM)s crap or not. Censorship is censorship.

Re:Huh?

[fazig]

The (German) laws have nothing to do with something as silly as using the wrong pronouns for someone. That is protected speech. You can also hate people as much as you want and tell everyone about it. That is protected speech as well.
There's a law against speech that incites the masses called "Volksverhetzung", which is usually applied when speech contains calls for violence and or other arbitrary actions against groups of people. You can read about it accurately enough on Wikipedia.

Then there's laws against slander, which exist in pretty much any civilized nations, of course including the US. Cases rarely hold up in court, because of their difficult nature.

Germany

[Jarwulf]

Where you can be arrested for posting a video of a dog with an up raised paw or for making an offensive comment online. Sounds very free to me!

RTFS

[rsilvergun]

None of that was cited as a reason. It's Net Neutrality and Government Spying that cut us down a notch. Facebook bans aren't the risk to your freedom. Losing Net Neutrality OTOH is.

Re:RTFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Their concerns over "fake news" seems contrary to the notion of "freedom"

None of that was cited as a reason.

Are you pretending you actually read this work? Because if you had you might have noticed that "Fake news" is cited IN THE FUCKING SUBTITLE where even groupthinkers like yourself can be expected to spot it.

Re: RTFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Net neutrality going away has nothing to do with personal freedom. It does mean Netflix is going to have to charge more and give cable companies a cut. And it means YouTube may be totally broken and hopefully Google can put the pieces back together into a new business model.

Re:RTFS

[jedidiah]

> Facebook bans aren't the risk to your freedom. Losing Net Neutrality OTOH is.

Your total lack of self-awareness here is hilarious.

Corporate censorship is as much a threat to your freedom as government surveillance.

You are quite literally manning the barricades on behalf of Robber Barons.

Re:RTFS

[mujadaddy]

You realize, of course, no one is forced to use closed protocols like Facebook.

Re:RTFS

[butchersong]

Sure, you are only forced to use private platforms if you wish to be heard. In practice, if I live say in North Korea, I am free to say whatever I want as long as it is in my own room but this does not mean I'm free. The problem is that every venue you can use to communicate online that has any real audience is privately owned. I'm not saying I know what the solution is but I can definitely appreciate the people voicing concerns.

Re:RTFS

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree net neutrality is the only solution on the table, but it's a terrible solution to the problem. What we need is for "internet" service providers to stop lying to customers about the services that they offer. If you censor, manipulate, block ports, nating traffic, or otherwise fuck with the traffic in some other way (like bandwidth limits, throttling or shaping) that isn't providing users access to the internet. It's better described as an intranet more akin to AOL or Comuserv back in the day connected via the internet because ultimately at the end of the day you aren't getting access to the actual internet service promised because there are blocks or other manipulation of access to others on the real internet.

A better solution to the problem would begin with eliminating the artificial government created barriers to entry for ISPs to supply customers with interne access. This and somehow breaking down the advantage incumbent providers got as the result of government regulations early on (back in the cable TV days of the late 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s when cable TV was being rolled out). Back then cable TV providers were granted monopolies over the areas they laid cable TV lines. Regulations were suppose to limit prices and so forth. Those limits were removed sometime in the last 10 years and yet we still have no competition. I wonder why? Well, I can answer that question. The reason is because laying cable is expensive, but the companies that have an entrenched monopoly today can undercut the pricing of any new entrants into the market. If you have a loan to repay you can't charge less than what it takes to re-pay your creditors. If you do you'll go bankrupt. Your entrenched competitor won't because he's already paid off his loan. You would have to be crazy to start an ISP today. This and other regulatory barriers still exist to running new lines. Even where governments have subsidized the costs of running fiber it can be near impossible to get access. I paid $3,000 to have fiber run and I'm on a street that has fiber laid already. The junction box was half a mile a way. You might be thinking that is awesome! I was quoted $60,000 for a handful of poles. Well, guess what. The reason it was only $3,000 was because the poles were already licensed from the city. So it was the cost of the physical line and the cost of the labor to install. Had this not been fucked up due to government bureaucracy there would be junction boxes at regular intervals along the street and it wouldn't have cost anywhere near $3,000 to get connected. At the same time I had a friend who attempted to get his building connected and he was just a few poles a way from multiple junction boxes. Want to know what it was going to cost him? $17,000. Why? The poles had to be licensed from the city. Basically it's a ridicules tax to ensure new service providers can't setup shop.

Re:RTFS

[mujadaddy]

No, you can do what everyone else who wants to be heard does: buy airtime/webtime/magazine-space.

And in North Korea, you fucking moron, you'll be SHOT for attempting to buy that airtime. Not in Freemerica.

Re:RTFS

[butchersong]

Well you seem a particularly lovely person. Your argument is completely in-cohesive. Initially you stated that private platforms were free to censor (they are) but it was your choice to use those private platforms. Now, you appear to have abandoned that tact and instead are claiming that you are still free because you can pay private platform to air your content. You cannot however pay private platforms to air content they do not wish to air so I am unsure what point you are trying to make. You've already acknowledged previously that speech is restricted on those platforms.

Re:RTFS

[mujadaddy]

You've conflated the platforms which will kick you off with the entire universe of broadcast, the internet, and publishing.

Perhaps I was too generous before.

Re:RTFS

[swillden]

You are quite literally manning the barricades on behalf of Robber Barons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jh4Mpgbi4A

Re: RTFS

[astrofurter]

Disagree. Corporate censorship is a direct affront to personal freedom of speech and conscience. Lack of net neutrality is a financial threat to web publishers, and therefore an indirect threat to freedom of speech.

Both are important. But our first priority must be reducing censorship on the de facto public squares of the internet.

What a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia has ISPs filtering out websites at the behest of copyright owners. How are they better than the USA?

Re:What a crock

[PopeRatzo]

Australia has ISPs filtering out websites at the behest of copyright owners. How are they better than the USA?

Any place with koala bears is by definition better.

Re:What a crock

[Oswald McWeany]

Australia has ISPs filtering out websites at the behest of copyright owners. How are they better than the USA?

Any place with koala bears is by definition better.

But they also have drop bears.

Re:Tor

[desdinova 216]

you think that the NSA doesn't focus on exit nodes?

propaganda does not encourage freedom

[junkgoof]

Repeating the same statements with the support of purchased news organizations and paid shills and astroturfers does not make a country more free.

Restricting speech is bad. Restricting a company's ability to purchase media like Fox, Sinclair, and Clear Channel is good. The consolidation of media in the US is making propaganda very effective and good government harder.

On the Contrary

[SmaryJerry]

I believe the problem with "disinformation and hyper partisan content" is who is deciding what qualifies as such. Major platforms Facebook, Youtube, Google, and Twitter have come under intense criticism for the way they decide what is fake news, whether through algorithms, hiring third parties (that could be partisan), or having real people do the job who mislabeling without consequence and thus preventing people from seeing the news, real or fake. Many reporters believe their real news is being mistakenly called fake or being included in a vague undefined definition of hate speech. The corporations try to use an excess of caution on the subject of hate speech that results in even preventing real statistics from being published by organizations if the statistic includes ethnicity or race in any negative light. While it is not the government doing the limiting, there is an only a handful of large tech corporations that decide how many people you can reach with your message and/or whether your message is appropriate. People can create their own websites but it is a bit like shouting in an empty room, you have free speech but no one can hear you.

Re:On the Contrary

[mujadaddy]

People can create their own websites but it is a bit like shouting in an empty room, you have free speech but no one can hear you.

This is a feature, not a bug. If you want to talk to people, you have to go where the people are.

Numbers, how do they work?

[JTD121]

Not unexpected, especially with this Administration. But I have to ask; how does 'still in the top 10' and 'dropped to 22' make sense?

Re:Numbers, how do they work?

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes as much sense as "a lack of in the realm of surveillance". TechCrunch apparently uses the same editors as Slashdot. If you want sense, you'll probably have to read the actual report.

Re:Numbers, how do they work?

[dryeo]

Lots of ties? 5 countries are tied for 1st, likewise for second and third, then the 22nd is at #10.

What about "hate speech"?

[mi]

The report also cited "disinformation and hyperpartisan content" -- or fake news -- as a "pressing concern."

Freedom of speech must — in a society without the Ministry of Truth — include the freedom to lie.

But the targeting of "hate speech" ought to be a "pressing concern" — and for the same reasons. No one lamenting the demise of the "Net Neutrality" would agree, that the regulation would've prevented the persecution of Gab.com, for example. On the contrary, these same people claim "free speech" has become a very lazy excuse to tolerate hatred and the ignorance".

It immediately follows, US still has "too much" freedom — unlike the enlightened and sophisticated Europeans.

Re:What about "hate speech"?

[mujadaddy]

Yeah, I'm pretty uncomfortable with them being deplatformed, too. I don't think that you can on the one hand say you support the principles of free expression and on the other say "Oh, well, that makes me uncomfortable."

On the other hand, no one has to pay for the bits which make up your speech, and the government isn't involved, so I'm not sure this is the exact hill on which to die.

Re:What about "hate speech"?

[mi]

no one has to pay for the bits which make up your speech

Gab.com pays its own bills. They get persecuted anyway...

and the government isn't involved

No government is involved in Net Neutrality either — not any more, much to the chagrin of the folks pretending to be concerned for the "Internet freedom". And yet, they cite this withdrawal of government as a concern.

Can't have it both ways, can they?

I'm not sure this is the exact hill on which to die.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." — remember that grand-standing ditty?..

Re:What about "hate speech"?

[mujadaddy]

Yes, they have been persecuted in the commercial space, but I didn't think that's what we were talking about: that content wouldn't even have a chance of being hosted in Germany.

What I was saying is that a private entity which does not support Gab does not support the principles of free speech. That is, as you say, having it both ways.

However, preventing a private entity from terminating business arrangements or not entering into them does not strike me as a remedy. The current cycle of shaming and naming makes certain opinions completely, commercially-speaking, toxic. This is freedom, too.

Re:What about "hate speech"?

[mujadaddy]

Heh.

Still, this is market forces saying that something is toxic. I don't for a second believe that there won't be a successor to Gab soon.

In fact, I'm looking forward to trolling nazis on it very soon.

Re:What about "hate speech"?

[dryeo]

Net neutrality is about stopping your ISP from routing gab.com to /dev/nul. Freedom of association is about not having to deal with gab.com if you don't want to.

Re:What about "hate speech"?

[mi]

that content wouldn't even have a chance of being hosted in Germany.

Exactly! And yet, Germany is rated higher than the United States in that report... According to the report-publishers, TFA, and the other so-called "Liberals", America's freedom of speech — what's left of it — is detrimental to "Internet freedom". Which tells you all you need to know about this report...

preventing a private entity from [...]

The report — and TFA — both mention pure-private concerns like "fake news" and absence of "net neutrality" as valid. That means, they disagree with you regarding the role of private entities — and what can and cannot be done with them by government to improve "Internet freedom" (as they define it).

certain opinions completely, commercially-speaking, toxic

As I argue elsewhere, providing a forum for the despicables is not — should not be — any more toxic, than defending same in court. If a private Internet-company is toxic over allowing Robert Bowers to speak his mind before he committed his atrocity, a private law-firm defending him in front of a jury after it ought to be toxic as well — their bank-accounts closed (Paypal did stop accepting Gab's payments), the lawyers involved disbarred (GoDaddy not hosting their domain-name).

Heck, the private doctors treating him for wounds sustained in a firefight with police must be toxic too, by the same logic... Would you have approved of such boycotts too? Probably not...

Re:What about "hate speech"?

[mi]

No one is forced to read Gab's content, if they don't want to. Its users, whatever you think of them, are no no longer free to associate with the site. That ought to concern anyone claiming to worry about "Internet freedom"...

Re:What about "hate speech"?

[dryeo]

Are they too stupid to set up a web server? is their ISP blocking them from serving content? Is the American government refusing them a domain name? I haven't really been paying attention, but it seems that a bunch of people are trying to get others to host their content whether they want to or not.

Re:What about "hate speech"?

[mujadaddy]

As I argue elsewhere, providing a forum for the despicables is not — should not be — any more toxic, than defending same in court.

Here, we are in complete agreement. People who are crying for Gab's deplatforming are ignorant, short-sighted, slope-slippers. If you believe in free speech only for some, you don't believe in it at all.

That being said, you don't have to enable anyone else's speech. That is freedom, as well.

Re:What about "hate speech"?

[mi]

That being said, you don't have to enable anyone else's speech. That is freedom, as well.

Absolutely, yes. Which means — must mean — that the abolition of "net neutrality" rules is a good thing, improving freedom. If Verizon can be compelled — by government — to treat Netflix, Russia Today, and Yahoo! the same, then GoDaddy can be compelled to continue hosting Gab.com too.

But the report's authors, TFA, and the majority of /. disagree — counting the demise of the neutrality rules as diminishing US' rating...

Re:What about "hate speech"?

[CanHasDIY]

Are they too stupid to set up a web server?

That's not the problem.

is their ISP blocking them from serving content?

Basically, yes.

Is the American government refusing them a domain name?

That's not how domain name distribution works.

 

I haven't really been paying attention,

Yea that's pretty obvious.

but it seems that a bunch of people are trying to get others to host their content whether they want to or not.

Well then, by all means point us to the US government-run web hosting service that's available to all Americans, regardless of what opinions we hold. I can wait.

Re:What about "hate speech"?

[mujadaddy]

the report's authors

Europeans often smell themselves when it comes to the abstract idea of Liberty; in the concrete I prefer America's.

the abolition of "net neutrality" rules is a good thing, improving freedom.

Here though, we part company. Why is it Verizon's business that I have requested HTTP from Gab.com? Verizon and I have a contract to fulfill my HTTP requests for a certain charge per month. They have no business with Gab.com that I care about when making an HTTP request, and throttling my request makes the business relationship with Verizon much less worthwhile.

GoDaddy is not involved in Net Neutrality. I don't have a contract with GoDaddy to deliver HTTP to me.

Re:What about "hate speech"?

[mujadaddy]

I have been paying a bit of attention. Help me out. GoDaddy was providing which service for them, and why can't they just hop on CrisisHost or something?

Re:What about "hate speech"?

[CanHasDIY]

I have been paying a bit of attention. Help me out. GoDaddy was providing which service for them, and why can't they just hop on CrisisHost or something?

Because CrisisHost is another private company that has no more legal compulsion to honor the First Amendment rights of it's customers than GoDaddy? Private platforms are private platforms.

Why can't they sign up with the Government-provided domain hosting service, that would guarantee the right to free expression? Because nobody has that option.

Re:What about "hate speech"?

[dryeo]

Are they too stupid to set up a web server?

That's not the problem.

Well whatever type of server they use.

is their ISP blocking them from serving content?

Basically, yes.

Well with no net neutrality, ISP's can route anyone they don't like to /dev/nul. I'd be pissed if I payed for a business connection and my ISP blocked my content, which is illegal here.

Is the American government refusing them a domain name?

That's not how domain name distribution works.

Well whoever is in charge of the .us domain. What I really meant is, has the US government confiscated their domain, something they're known to do if they don't like someones content, usually because some business doesn't like it.

I haven't really been paying attention,

Yea that's pretty obvious.

but it seems that a bunch of people are trying to get others to host their content whether they want to or not.

Well then, by all means point us to the US government-run web hosting service that's available to all Americans, regardless of what opinions we hold. I can wait.

Up to you to tell your government how to run things. Seems right now the people don't want their government doing things like that.

Re:Not sure how "More Freedom" is "Less Freedom"

[forkfail]

Freedom is slavery...

"you might want to move to Estonia or Iceland"

[mujadaddy]

"you might want to move to Estonia or Iceland", said no one, ever, to no one in particular.

Re:"you might want to move to Estonia or Iceland"

[kaur]

I live in Estonia; I quite like it here.
I have had colleagues from all over the world, from Australia to Brazil to USA, all major European countries included. They have also liked it here.

Re:"you might want to move to Estonia or Iceland"

[Tough Love]

Iceland, ranked #2 in the Democracy Index.

I hear they get a lot of sex.

Re:"you might want to move to Estonia or Iceland"

[J053]

Iceland is beautiful. Good beer, too.

Re:Tor

[desdinova 216]

according to Mr. Kristofferson

Re:Not sure how "More Freedom" is "Less Freedom"

[dryeo]

True, now your ISP has the freedom to censor your speech, to limit which sites you go to, and limit who you associate with over their network. Definitely a move to more freedom for the ISP and that is what is important.
In my crappy country, my ISP got in shit for blocking sites it didn't like, such as the unions site during a strike. Imagine that, stopping a business from blocking sites it has decided its customers shouldn't see.

Flawed democracy

[Tough Love]

Land of the free not so much.

Re:Flawed democracy

[CanHasDIY]

Democracy is not freedom; democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner.

Freedom is a properly-armed sheep contesting the vote.