This is a brilliant response. We must value Privacy and Security above all else. Once we open the door to oppress a group's voice we unanimously despise: we allow our own voices to be oppresssd in the future.
It's not quite so simple. A tool that can protect privacy and provide security can be used to take privacy and security away from someone else. For example doxxing someone on a hidden service protects the doxxer's privacy but removes the target's privacy.
I'm not trying to make a moral judgement about Tor. I just feel it's important to acknowledge the best way to protect privacy is not always obvious and is rarely if ever simple.
I had to ban all Tor exit node IP's from my service because of a single bad actor causing problems for a large group of people on a small service I maintain.
The Daily Stormer moving to Tor has very little to do with Privacy and Security.
And who are the 'we' that are oppressing a groups voice, they simply find it hard to get commercial entities to provide them with a vehicle for their hateful bits. Note that Aurenheimer is the guy who single handedly managed to drive a very large number of people away from Slashdot and who tends to come across as a man who relishes to watch the world burn.
Providing a service to such a character or not is the kind of decision a company should be allowed to make.
Although I agree in some ways, I don't think "oppress" is the correct word when companies and others are choosing not to implicitly support a particular viewpoint and exercising their own right to free speech to oppose it in an organized fashion. Oppression suggests actions more authoritarian, and targets much more vulnerable, than what we're seeing. I think it is inaccurate to say that white supremacists are being oppressed.
I think the argument would be that TDS is operating at a scale where they cannot have the same reach they do without a CDN service. So a CDN to terminating their accounts is effectively silencing them. It would be the similar if Google decided to censor their results.
Every expansion of "just for terrorists and child porn" to "well drug cartels too" to "well maybe drug users" and "people that have the wrong opinion" seem to disagree with you. Asset seizure is "ok" with people as long as it was only going to target Scarface-like people. But now you can be stopped and have your cash taken. Slippery slopes are alive and well.
And really, these TDS morons do more harm to their cause than support. Acting like idiots in public, hijacking a pro-white demonstration to start going off on the disproportionate representation of Jews in in the US -- it's a bad tactic. Silencing these low-credence trolls isn't gonna help, only make crappy martyrs.
Blocking TDS will probably be a net benefit for white nationalism and will do exactly nothing to stop "hate".
White supremacists talk about killing jews and blacks, but so far it's only talk. The few which actually did kill somebody, like the car driver, got arrested. So why not let the police deal with the problem at hand instead of talking about how the
white supremacists will kill many in the distant future.
Why is it not a slippery slope to say that allowing marches today will lead to genocides tomorrow?
Total non-sequitur, but here's a great example of the problem with AMP. Instead of linking to slate (the original source), dragonwriter linked to google. Slate loses a backlink, and I can't even tell who the publisher is without following the truncated URL.
Yeah, I try to remember not to use the AMP link (I don't see this as fundamentally an AMP problem as a UI problem with using bare hyperlinks in text that is exacerbated by AMP, but we use the message boards we have, not the message boards we wish we had.) I've corrected it.
It's because Nazis have already declared war on the US and committed to acts of violence. As a response, America literally declared war against them, and killed them wholesale.
Remember, we're talking about self-declared Nazis, not your average racist.
How else would you deal with a group that says "I'm going to kill you"?
Don't be the idealistic engineering nerd that only acts on theory. Be the practical socialized person that knows how the real world works.
If you want to be practical, why do you think they have such a huge swell of their ranks?
I never in my life had watched a neo-nazi talk before last week. Since last week I've watched about an hour of their talk, first on Vice and then searching for one of the guys on Youtube. Streisand effect. How many vulnerable minds will be turned by this exposure? If they had their little march
and the left ignored them, or even better, laughed at them for how silly they look with their nazi flags, they wouldn't be on all TV's and we wouldn't be discussing them.
Not to mention the paid violence anti Trump protests/riots executed by members of the Democratic left. The recent case is in the realm of 3rd degree murder. The premeditated paid violence is far more troubling.
edit
I mean troubling at a social/political level. The death of a non-violent protester is no less sad or serious.
How about you you go back and reassess your bad previous assumption about what book I was referring to. I'm not into conspiracy stuff at all and don't understand how you think a crackpot book about 9/11 is relevant to this thread at all. IMO you're trying to find reasons to vilify me because I'm expressing a dissenting opinion.
Far more blacks died to state (or any other) violence during free democratic South Africa than during apartheid South Africa. It is simply dishonest to categorise apartheid South Africa with Nazi Germany.
It's not about who died it is about why people died.
Your argument is roughly analogous to people saying that Hitler had the trains running on time.
Sure under apartheid there was less overt violence and you could easily argue that South Africa was safer and altogether a better place to live back then than it is today. But that would be entirely missing the point of why Apartheid is wrong.
I was just applying their argument against their own logic.
The world is not what it was 70 years ago.
Today when a genocide happens somewhere on Earth the UN quickly intervenes. The US is not some weak-ass state like Germany was in the 30s, even if Trump would order some sort of genocide today it would quickly be blocked at many levels.
Indeed, it is worse in many respects, better in others.
For instance: 70 years ago it took a couple of days to organize something involving ten thousand people. Now you can do that in 10 minutes with a social media post in the right spot.
> Today when a genocide happens somewhere on Earth the UN quickly intervenes.
You do realize that the largest participant in such peacekeeping missions has decided to abdicate?
> The US is not some weak-ass state like Germany was in the 30s
You are significantly under-estimating the strength of pre-war Germany in spite of having been beaten in World War I. In fact, you could easily argue that it was specifically this kind of under-estimation that directly led to World War II.
> even if Trump would order some sort of genocide today it would quickly be blocked at many levels.
It would never play out like that. Trump is not going to order some sort of genocide directly. He'll simply stand aside while others do the dirty work and he'll lament at how terrible it is that they are resisting causing violence on both sides.
One of my theories about why the GOP does not want to throw Trump out is that they are - rightfully - scared of what kind of backlash that will cause and that they hope against hope that they will be voted out in 2018 so others will be seen as responsible for throwing the lit fuse into the armory.
> It would never play out like that. Trump is not going to order some sort of genocide directly. He'll simply stand aside while others do the dirty work and he'll lament at how terrible it is that they are resisting causing violence on both sides.
I think you'll agree that a systematic genocide like the ones you mention where you go into a city and round people up cannot happen. That would require the police, national guard, army to stand down and allow it.
So we are left with small scale attacks, the kind terrorists do. We need to fight and guard against those, infiltrate the cells and arrest anyone actually planning such thing, but they are not in the category of genocide, especially because in a genocide the killers walk away with nothing happening to them (because they are protected by the state), but in a terrorist attack you either die or are quickly caught.
> Today when a genocide happens somewhere on Earth the UN quickly intervenes.
No, it doesn't, and it only intervenes, at all, in fairly weak states, or where geopolitical interests of the sole superpower align with the intervention.
> The US is not some weak-ass state
Which is why a violent racist faction rising to power in the US is particularly frightening, globally as well as locally.
I'm not trying to make a moral judgement about Tor. I just feel it's important to acknowledge the best way to protect privacy is not always obvious and is rarely if ever simple.