Diaspora social network cannot stop IS posts(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Diaspora social network cannot stop IS posts
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28882042
100 comments
This is like saying "E-Mail cannot stop X mails" or "XMPP cannot stop X chats", which is pretty obvious. The whole point of a decentralized service like Diaspora is that it can't be completely censored. Internet providers could partially block the access to pods that don't censor this kind of content, but then they could setup their own Diaspora pod in a Tor hidden services...
"Bitcoin cannot stop Islamic State transactions"
Nor can 'cash'. Its fungible. But cash requires a physical relationship. BitCoins take it to a whole nother level with virtual payments. So it really is a new thing. And we may not like all the ways BitCoins get used.
Doesn't it operate as a social network, where some content is available publicly? That would make it a bit different than email...
As I understand it, it's a network of federated servers. The Diaspora team doesn't control the servers, so there's nothing they can do.
> Doesn't it operate as a social network, where some content is available publicly? That would make it a bit different than email...
There's no technical reason that email isn't public, just social convention. Emails are like postcards, and the content is visible to all routers that they pass through on the way to their final destination.
In theory, we could have decided that email was an open discussion platform (more like USENET) with almost no technical changes.
There's no technical reason that email isn't public, just social convention. Emails are like postcards, and the content is visible to all routers that they pass through on the way to their final destination.
In theory, we could have decided that email was an open discussion platform (more like USENET) with almost no technical changes.
[deleted]
I think it's a bit weird that instead of using this to promote their values (Decentralization, Freedom, Privacy as mentioned on their landing page [0]) they are essentially pressuring pod admins to take down the content.
I know they could just setup their own Pod but these values are what makes them any different from the likes of Twitter and I would've expected them to stand by them a bit more.
[0] https://diasporafoundation.org/
I know they could just setup their own Pod but these values are what makes them any different from the likes of Twitter and I would've expected them to stand by them a bit more.
[0] https://diasporafoundation.org/
> I think it's a bit weird that instead of using this to promote their values (Decentralization, Freedom, Privacy as mentioned on their landing page [0]) they are essentially pressuring pod admins to take down the content.
Yeah that's probably because the ISIS is known for suicide bombings, cutting off heads, video taping it so that the families and friends of the victim can see how gruesome their loved one died, killing unbelievers and tying multiple women to poles at the Mosul Dam to be raped. Not exactly the kind of thing you want to use to promote your values unless you're a psychopath. What the fuck.
Yeah that's probably because the ISIS is known for suicide bombings, cutting off heads, video taping it so that the families and friends of the victim can see how gruesome their loved one died, killing unbelievers and tying multiple women to poles at the Mosul Dam to be raped. Not exactly the kind of thing you want to use to promote your values unless you're a psychopath. What the fuck.
The whole point of their platform is that it's not controlled by any central authority and is resistant to censorship, control, breaches of privacy, etc. The fact that even some of the most horrific and undesirable content, that which people most adamantly wish to censor, CAN'T be censored, is a strong proof that their network works.
All they need to do to is say, "Censoring this is not possible", as they seem to be doing, and that promotes their software. They don't need to talk about, approve of, or even be aware of the horrific things that ISIS does. It's enough to know that people really, really don't like what they're posting.
On the other hand, by actively attempting to censor the content, as Diaspora also seems to be doing, they're also sending the message that they don't actually truly believe in openness as a value, deep down, even though they designed their software to provide it. That actually hurts them a bit in the long run, I think.
All they need to do to is say, "Censoring this is not possible", as they seem to be doing, and that promotes their software. They don't need to talk about, approve of, or even be aware of the horrific things that ISIS does. It's enough to know that people really, really don't like what they're posting.
On the other hand, by actively attempting to censor the content, as Diaspora also seems to be doing, they're also sending the message that they don't actually truly believe in openness as a value, deep down, even though they designed their software to provide it. That actually hurts them a bit in the long run, I think.
So it's "Freedom of Speech" (but only if we like it)?
Seems like you're confused here. Freedom of speech is about citizens and their government, not citizens and private entities. Having said that, freedom of speech has never meant that you can say whatever you want, and the courts have supported this. Right now there are people in jail for threatening politicians on Twitter. So yes, freedom of speech is a limited right. It's not a right to encourage people to rape, murder and pillage, is that really so shocking to you?
Free speech is about humans expressing their thoughts, whether they be love or hate. That in many countries free speech is limited to prevent propaganda for 'dangerous' causes like rape, pillaging and terrorism is an evil deemed necessary by most.
So yes, for a true believer in basic human rights it can be shocking that we have restricted ourselves (as voters in democracies) in our right of free speech, and can feel that when trying to aid universal free communications ( by hosting pods).
Note that I myself support the restrictions on free speech as they are although I am keenly aware of the danger and evil of it.
So yes, for a true believer in basic human rights it can be shocking that we have restricted ourselves (as voters in democracies) in our right of free speech, and can feel that when trying to aid universal free communications ( by hosting pods).
Note that I myself support the restrictions on free speech as they are although I am keenly aware of the danger and evil of it.
> So yes, for a true believer in basic human rights it can be shocking that we have restricted ourselves (as voters in democracies) in our right of free speech, and can feel that when trying to aid universal free communications ( by hosting pods).
The video being "suppressed" is of the gruesome, intimidating murder of James Foley, a journalist who risked his life for a profession dedicated to 1st amendment principles. Being intolerant of intolerance is perfectly ok for me. Maybe not you, because you're kind of extreme and not really thinking through things in my opinion, but ok whatever floats your boat.
The video being "suppressed" is of the gruesome, intimidating murder of James Foley, a journalist who risked his life for a profession dedicated to 1st amendment principles. Being intolerant of intolerance is perfectly ok for me. Maybe not you, because you're kind of extreme and not really thinking through things in my opinion, but ok whatever floats your boat.
So perhaps it's best to, at his death, not destroy the principles he lived for.
I don't think his principles were to terrify people and intimidate journalists from reporting the news. If people like him weren't risking his life there all you'd have would be official government propaganda.
Freedom of speech has always meant that you can say whatever you please, in the sense that the speech cannot be rightfully prevented. Just because someone cannot gag you does not mean they can't slap you in the face after hearing what you say.
The freedom is about lack of prior restraint. It does not absolve you from the consequences if your words cause another to be harmed.
You can shout "Fire!" in a crowded club, if there is a fire in it. You can even shout "Fire!" in a crowded club if there is a bomb in it, hoping for a more orderly and less panicked evacuation. You can also shout "Fire!" in a crowded club if you like the Ohio Players or P-Funk. But if you make a false alarm and someone gets an injury in the resulting panic--even if it's just fewer sales at the bar because everyone left--you'd better be prepared to accept the consequences. And it isn't enough that your words could have caused harm, there has to be some actual harm and some actual intent to cause mischief.
So if you stand before a crowd and encourage people to run riot and sack the city, the consequences you face are going to be a lot different if that crowd is a rotary club meeting or if it is an unruly mob with pre-sharpened pitchforks. It is absolutely your right to do it, but if you do it with criminal intent, expect to be punished for the damage that you caused.
The freedom is about lack of prior restraint. It does not absolve you from the consequences if your words cause another to be harmed.
You can shout "Fire!" in a crowded club, if there is a fire in it. You can even shout "Fire!" in a crowded club if there is a bomb in it, hoping for a more orderly and less panicked evacuation. You can also shout "Fire!" in a crowded club if you like the Ohio Players or P-Funk. But if you make a false alarm and someone gets an injury in the resulting panic--even if it's just fewer sales at the bar because everyone left--you'd better be prepared to accept the consequences. And it isn't enough that your words could have caused harm, there has to be some actual harm and some actual intent to cause mischief.
So if you stand before a crowd and encourage people to run riot and sack the city, the consequences you face are going to be a lot different if that crowd is a rotary club meeting or if it is an unruly mob with pre-sharpened pitchforks. It is absolutely your right to do it, but if you do it with criminal intent, expect to be punished for the damage that you caused.
>> Right now there are people in jail for threatening politicians on Twitter.
Do you have a source for that? I would be very interested in seeing the details.
Do you have a source for that? I would be very interested in seeing the details.
Yes, http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/obama-twitter-death-thre...
Just google "Secret Service twitter" or follow the @SecretService at https://twitter.com/SecretService They're not shy about this. It's probably illegal to threaten anyone's life or really any kind of violence on Twitter, not just politicians. I doubt threats of violence are protected speech.
Just google "Secret Service twitter" or follow the @SecretService at https://twitter.com/SecretService They're not shy about this. It's probably illegal to threaten anyone's life or really any kind of violence on Twitter, not just politicians. I doubt threats of violence are protected speech.
To reiterate:
* Freedom of speech is freedom of restriction from government.
* Calls to violence and videos of murder are not covered by the 1st amendment.
* Freedom of speech is freedom of restriction from government.
* Calls to violence and videos of murder are not covered by the 1st amendment.
Freedom of speech is clearly enshrined in the US Constitution as freedom of restriction from government, but freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. It's kind of an academic distinction if a multinational corporation like Twitter is restricting it or a government.
Legally you are extremely wrong.
You could mean either :
1) US freedom of speech, which is only freedom from government interference with political speech, and obviously US-only.
2) UN "international" freedom of speech. Has 2 major problems
* cannot actually be used to sue anyone for denying it, unlike the US law
* has been repeatedly judged to not even cover "muhammad is an asshole", despite that obviously being political speech in a third of the countries that signed it. Same goes of Chinese and EU politicians, EU royalty, Thai royalty, and a myriad of other cases.
You could mean either :
1) US freedom of speech, which is only freedom from government interference with political speech, and obviously US-only.
2) UN "international" freedom of speech. Has 2 major problems
* cannot actually be used to sue anyone for denying it, unlike the US law
* has been repeatedly judged to not even cover "muhammad is an asshole", despite that obviously being political speech in a third of the countries that signed it. Same goes of Chinese and EU politicians, EU royalty, Thai royalty, and a myriad of other cases.
In political philosophy (at least the standard USA political philosophy I learned in school) rights are things that we agree in principle people should be allowed to do. Laws are made to protect rights, but they are not the source of those rights. Rights are founded in our collective moral beliefs.
Says who? If you believe the Supreme Court, calls to violence are core political speech (Brandenburg v. Ohio, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware). I'm not even sure what law distributing videos of murder would break.
"Fighting words" are not protected speech (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire).
Calls to violence are generally not protected; though Brandenburg v. Ohio ruled that the call to violence must be likely to actually incite violence.
Calls to violence are generally not protected; though Brandenburg v. Ohio ruled that the call to violence must be likely to actually incite violence.
Obscenity, right? That's not just about sex.
[deleted]
I'll admit I'm somewhat conflicted. You can arrive at similar conclusions thinking about it as child pornography. In both cases it does seem like censoring the material is the right thing to do.
However, my conflict comes from the fact that censorship doesn't really solve the root problem. In child molesters, the problem is better treated in psychiatric care and in extremism the problem is better treated through education, peace, and tolerance.
However, my conflict comes from the fact that censorship doesn't really solve the root problem. In child molesters, the problem is better treated in psychiatric care and in extremism the problem is better treated through education, peace, and tolerance.
My comment was specifically a criticism of the idea that diaspora should use its inability to remove ISIS murder videos as a promotional opportunity. Having said that, if I owned a diaspora pod and there was a mechanism for it, I'd remove ISIS content.
Sounds like a good argument for letting them vent on the internet instead, then.
They're not venting, they're recruiting and spreading fear.
And radical Christian groups in the US aren't?
Maybe, I don't know, how is that relevant? What is your argument? You think if a radical Christian group posted videos of murders online Twitter wouldn't ban it? What? Who are these people commenting today? Where did they come from?
I don't think anyone really takes issue with Twitter pulling down content -- they are a private company (as-in not controlled by the govt) -- but when a government starts censoring material (like in the UK were linking-to, or even viewing of this sort of material is considered illegal), that's where things get not-OK.
What I find more outrageous was that the reporter apparently was held captive for 2 years... without anyone (in the public) knowing. Bergdahl was held captive for 5 years and luckily was returned in a controversial exchange. What is going on that we are not able to protect and/or recover our people?
Seems to send a clear message that if you get captured by an extremists group like ISIS, the government won't come running in to save you, nor will the public even know you are missing -- fore the government doesn't want to stir public opinion into favoring some sort of military action. So, in essence -- you are all alone out there, potentially for years, or worse. -- That is outrageous to me.
What I find more outrageous was that the reporter apparently was held captive for 2 years... without anyone (in the public) knowing. Bergdahl was held captive for 5 years and luckily was returned in a controversial exchange. What is going on that we are not able to protect and/or recover our people?
Seems to send a clear message that if you get captured by an extremists group like ISIS, the government won't come running in to save you, nor will the public even know you are missing -- fore the government doesn't want to stir public opinion into favoring some sort of military action. So, in essence -- you are all alone out there, potentially for years, or worse. -- That is outrageous to me.
Yeah the threats about being arrested for viewing the video struck me as weird too. It's a horrific video and I have no intention of viewing it but watching it makes you a criminal? Then again I'm totally OK with people being arrested for watching child pornography so there's some kind of gray line where even consuming content is no longer OK and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to figure out what goes in what bucket, but I probably wouldn't have put the ISIS's videos in the "going to jail for watching it" bucket.
Anyway my comments were a response to the idea that Diaspora should promote its decentralized platform on the wake of ISIS publicity, which is a really stupid idea. It had nothing to do with government censorship, although I have no problems with governments discouraging murder videos.
Anyway my comments were a response to the idea that Diaspora should promote its decentralized platform on the wake of ISIS publicity, which is a really stupid idea. It had nothing to do with government censorship, although I have no problems with governments discouraging murder videos.
> Yeah the threats about being arrested for viewing the video struck me as weird too.
A police officer explained this to me. They do this because they want the ability to arrest the people who are recruiting muslims using these videos. The "recruiting" thing is impossible to prove, so ...
These videos are made with one purpose only : to recruit more muslims to their cause. Assuming they know what they're doing, that's exactly what free dissemination of these videos will do (otherwise, after all, there wouldn't be an al qaeda or IS organization in the first place).
I think you can at least agree that using arrests, and even violence (of the police kind, not the IS kind), to prevent that from happening is unambiguously a good thing.
The arguments against these laws are mostly of the "slippery slope" kind, and I agree that these laws are open to abuse. I hate to say it but I also don't see an alternative.
A police officer explained this to me. They do this because they want the ability to arrest the people who are recruiting muslims using these videos. The "recruiting" thing is impossible to prove, so ...
These videos are made with one purpose only : to recruit more muslims to their cause. Assuming they know what they're doing, that's exactly what free dissemination of these videos will do (otherwise, after all, there wouldn't be an al qaeda or IS organization in the first place).
I think you can at least agree that using arrests, and even violence (of the police kind, not the IS kind), to prevent that from happening is unambiguously a good thing.
The arguments against these laws are mostly of the "slippery slope" kind, and I agree that these laws are open to abuse. I hate to say it but I also don't see an alternative.
> They do this because they want the ability to arrest the people who are recruiting muslims using these videos. The "recruiting" thing is impossible to prove, so ...
I take issue with this. They think someone is guilty of a real, serious crime, but they can't prove it so they want to convict them of something else. That is bypassing the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".
I take issue with this. They think someone is guilty of a real, serious crime, but they can't prove it so they want to convict them of something else. That is bypassing the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".
You may think that you'll vote to stop this, but you won't. Think about the consequences of your position for 5 seconds. If modern law cannot guarantee people's freedom from large-scale violence, then nobody, not me, not you, nobody, has any use for modern law. Abrogating law to prevent these things from happening, hell, even committing massacres against their forces, is perfectly acceptable behaviour. Islam does not fight with a distinction between civilians and military. So it's impossible to hit one and not the other. That cannot reasonably result in not hitting them. You may not agree, today, but if these things keep expanding like they have in the last decade, you will agree before another decade passes.
> guarantee
What does this mean? Of course no guarantee of safety could be absolute, so how large does the threat have to be for us to give up our basic freedoms? Terrorists are already, for western countries a statistically insignificant threat. Nothing compared to drunk drivers, diabetes, cancer etc.
You are appealing to an irrational fear.
What does this mean? Of course no guarantee of safety could be absolute, so how large does the threat have to be for us to give up our basic freedoms? Terrorists are already, for western countries a statistically insignificant threat. Nothing compared to drunk drivers, diabetes, cancer etc.
You are appealing to an irrational fear.
I disagree. The people making the videos are not in the US or UK. Furthermore, the people making the video are already breaking US and UK laws -- murder. The simple act of making a video (of some kind), posting it, linking to it, nor viewing it are illegal in themselves. However, if the government of the US or UK deem the video content to be "extremist" content, now it becomes illegal to link-to, or view the video? That seems bad to me (censorship). (again, murder is already illegal). Where does it draw the line? What about extremist videos that don't include murder but talk poorly about the US and UK governments and people? Will be deem those to be illegal to view too?
Police can already arrest the people making the videos (if they were in the UK or US) without having to make it a crime to simply view the video.
I don't buy the argument that these videos are propaganda to recruit -- they are there to stir fear and incite the idea that no one will save you if you are captured. The goal of the videos are to bend the public opinion.
The video will only sicken the majority of US and UK citizens -- which will in turn demand direct military action. This is, what both administrations (US and UK) have been trying to avoid recently as both have campaigned in large to avoid any direct use of the military (aka, boots-on-the-ground). It would be bad, politically, to then renege on that and send troops in.
Police can already arrest the people making the videos (if they were in the UK or US) without having to make it a crime to simply view the video.
I don't buy the argument that these videos are propaganda to recruit -- they are there to stir fear and incite the idea that no one will save you if you are captured. The goal of the videos are to bend the public opinion.
The video will only sicken the majority of US and UK citizens -- which will in turn demand direct military action. This is, what both administrations (US and UK) have been trying to avoid recently as both have campaigned in large to avoid any direct use of the military (aka, boots-on-the-ground). It would be bad, politically, to then renege on that and send troops in.
I'm not talking about the people making the video. I'm talking about people recruiting new fighters to their cause.
> What I find more outrageous was that the reporter apparently was held captive for 2 years... without anyone (in the public) knowing. Bergdahl was held captive for 5 years and luckily was returned in a controversial exchange. What is going on that we are not able to protect and/or recover our people?
I feel like I'm stating the obvious, but here goes : the US cannot protect every one of it's citizens from every external force. Not abroad, and not in America. Terrorist forces who recruit out of a near-global pool of 1 billion muslims, who effectively have presence everywhere, there's no way. If you think about this for 5 minutes, you'd realize that even a genocidal police state wouldn't be able to do that.
> Seems to send a clear message that if you get captured by an extremists group like ISIS, the government won't come running in to save you, nor will the public even know you are missing -- fore the government doesn't want to stir public opinion into favoring some sort of military action. So, in essence -- you are all alone out there, potentially for years, or worse. -- That is outrageous to me.
That's the message islam wants to spread, yes. Of course, the opposite is true [1]. The US military tried to rescue him (and others) and failed due to lacking intelligence.
[1] http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-us-syria-hosta...
I feel like I'm stating the obvious, but here goes : the US cannot protect every one of it's citizens from every external force. Not abroad, and not in America. Terrorist forces who recruit out of a near-global pool of 1 billion muslims, who effectively have presence everywhere, there's no way. If you think about this for 5 minutes, you'd realize that even a genocidal police state wouldn't be able to do that.
> Seems to send a clear message that if you get captured by an extremists group like ISIS, the government won't come running in to save you, nor will the public even know you are missing -- fore the government doesn't want to stir public opinion into favoring some sort of military action. So, in essence -- you are all alone out there, potentially for years, or worse. -- That is outrageous to me.
That's the message islam wants to spread, yes. Of course, the opposite is true [1]. The US military tried to rescue him (and others) and failed due to lacking intelligence.
[1] http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-us-syria-hosta...
> Terrorist forces who recruit out of a near-global pool of 1 billion muslims, who effectively have presence everywhere
Just want us to be careful here -- you don't have to be a Muslim to be a terrorist -- and not all terrorist's are Muslims.
Just want us to be careful here -- you don't have to be a Muslim to be a terrorist -- and not all terrorist's are Muslims.
I'm not arguing otherwise. I fear though, that that distinction only matters as long as the number of terrorists is small enough. Evidently, that number has been growing by a lot. So while I believe that every person has the right to be judged on his own, I fear that we will not realistically have that choice for much longer.
They gave people the power to post really offensive and harmful things, but that doesn't mean they have to be happy when it happens.
They gave people the ability to post things without threat of censorship.
Whether or not they thought through the ramifications of all edge cases, how they feel about it, and what they do about is another matter entirely.
Whether or not they thought through the ramifications of all edge cases, how they feel about it, and what they do about is another matter entirely.
Diaspora is just a web app. If you already have a web server, you have the ability to post things without censorship. Diaspora doesn't add any anti-censorship abilities on top of that. In fact their main selling point is keeping things private.
Maybe Diaspora will finally take off now that the other social networks will begin to get heavily censored.
I for one would like Twister to take off as alternative to Twitter:
http://twister.net.co/
EDIT: It also seems to be compatible with Tor now:
http://twister.net.co/?p=366
I for one would like Twister to take off as alternative to Twitter:
http://twister.net.co/
EDIT: It also seems to be compatible with Tor now:
http://twister.net.co/?p=366
It seems odd to structure a project around freedom of speech, control of your own information, and dilution of central authority, and then act disappointed when it actually gets used for those purposes.
If a group that posts videos of journalist executions can use it without getting shut down, it is certainly usable for any other group that may be unpopular with their local majority: Tibetan nationalists, Falun Gong, breastfeeding moms, cop watchers, Iranian women's rights groups, Ukranian rebels, homosexuals, German Nazis, Quebec secessionists, eco-terrorists, unschoolers, conspiracy theorists, anarchists, red-state liberals, blue-state conservatives, and people who text while driving.
To get the good, you have to take the bad with it. The same Bitcoin that can buy a pizza can also buy a murder. The same typewriter can write both a beautiful poem or an extortion note. A hammer can build a house or crack a skull. A fire can chase away the cold and the dark, or it can burn your home to ash.
The early adopters are going to be the most blatantly offensive, and the most suspiciously paranoid, and the most idealist. The mainstream people already have their mainstream network, and won't see any reason to switch until they find themselves penalized in some way for being different from the owners of the system.
This is good. If someone as nasty as a journalist beheader can't get silenced, I know with reasonable certainty that if I go to Diaspora, there's likely nothing I would ever do myself that would result in me being erased from the network. And I can share information with just my friends, rather than my friends plus all paying Facebook customers.
And in addition to all that, how can you expect to get more jaw-jaw and less war-war if you slap a gag on the other guy every time you see his lips move?
If a group that posts videos of journalist executions can use it without getting shut down, it is certainly usable for any other group that may be unpopular with their local majority: Tibetan nationalists, Falun Gong, breastfeeding moms, cop watchers, Iranian women's rights groups, Ukranian rebels, homosexuals, German Nazis, Quebec secessionists, eco-terrorists, unschoolers, conspiracy theorists, anarchists, red-state liberals, blue-state conservatives, and people who text while driving.
To get the good, you have to take the bad with it. The same Bitcoin that can buy a pizza can also buy a murder. The same typewriter can write both a beautiful poem or an extortion note. A hammer can build a house or crack a skull. A fire can chase away the cold and the dark, or it can burn your home to ash.
The early adopters are going to be the most blatantly offensive, and the most suspiciously paranoid, and the most idealist. The mainstream people already have their mainstream network, and won't see any reason to switch until they find themselves penalized in some way for being different from the owners of the system.
This is good. If someone as nasty as a journalist beheader can't get silenced, I know with reasonable certainty that if I go to Diaspora, there's likely nothing I would ever do myself that would result in me being erased from the network. And I can share information with just my friends, rather than my friends plus all paying Facebook customers.
And in addition to all that, how can you expect to get more jaw-jaw and less war-war if you slap a gag on the other guy every time you see his lips move?
There is a difference between a forum for the free exchange of ideas, and a decentralized system that can be used to plan and share murders/(horrible other things). It is totally legal (in the usa) for you to get together with your friends and talk about whatever you want, but it is not legal for you to get together and plan an overthrow of the government, or a murder. It's not good that a dangerous group has a new tool.
You actually can get together with your friends and plan an overthrow of the government. That's exactly what the Free State Project is. It just so happens that their plot does not include violence or other criminal behaviors.
And you can plan a murder. The conversation itself is not a crime. But it is very damning evidence if the prospective victim that was discussed actually turns up dead, showing that the crime was, in fact, premeditated murder and not a less severely punished type of homicide, and that accomplices were involved. The speech is not the crime. It is evidence of malicious intent if a crime subsequently occurs. It may also be useful intelligence that could allow someone to interfere with a crime in progress.
If you overhear the murder conversation, you might be able to prevent a murder. But those guys could have been talking about their clan strategy for a MMORPG raid, and you simply misunderstood the intent. You don't know for certain until someone acts.
Censorship cannot stop crimes. It can only conceal evidence.
And you can plan a murder. The conversation itself is not a crime. But it is very damning evidence if the prospective victim that was discussed actually turns up dead, showing that the crime was, in fact, premeditated murder and not a less severely punished type of homicide, and that accomplices were involved. The speech is not the crime. It is evidence of malicious intent if a crime subsequently occurs. It may also be useful intelligence that could allow someone to interfere with a crime in progress.
If you overhear the murder conversation, you might be able to prevent a murder. But those guys could have been talking about their clan strategy for a MMORPG raid, and you simply misunderstood the intent. You don't know for certain until someone acts.
Censorship cannot stop crimes. It can only conceal evidence.
It seems the drug war subverts sensible legal principle again. I find the reasoning behind US v. Shabani to be completely abhorrent. And as a 9-0 decision, it's absolutely shameful. You can't reasonably prove that a conspiracy to commit a crime existed if the criminal act never actually happened. You would think that at least one justice would have thought that through a bit more, and dissented.
Your comment can apply to any technology; from computers and radios to simple things like hammers and knives. Yes, dangerous groups could use those tools for evil but that problem shouldn't be attributed to the tool or their creators. Especially when the tool was not designed for evil and is not primarily used for evil.
I completely agree. That doesn't mean its a good thing that a dangerous group has a new tool
This is one of the reasons I never felt that I could run a TOR or freenet node in good conscience.
They have good uses but I can think of plenty of bad uses and I suspect that the bad uses will outnumber the good uses at any moment in time.
They have good uses but I can think of plenty of bad uses and I suspect that the bad uses will outnumber the good uses at any moment in time.
By Blackstone math, it is better than ten guilty men go free than one innocent be punished.
How many pedo-pervs would you allow to trade images such that one political dissident may speak without fear of persecution?
How many pedo-pervs would you allow to trade images such that one political dissident may speak without fear of persecution?
Absolutely, but that does not mean that I'm going to have to enable 10 guilty men to perpetrate their crimes.
If a political dissident would approach me I'd more than happily attempt to smuggle his words out of whatever dictatorship he or she is currently living in, that would be my call to make. But whoever gets unfettered access to my network interfaces is going to have to be known to me in person.
If a political dissident would approach me I'd more than happily attempt to smuggle his words out of whatever dictatorship he or she is currently living in, that would be my call to make. But whoever gets unfettered access to my network interfaces is going to have to be known to me in person.
If the dissident could approach you to ask for your help, he wouldn't need to. You have to gamble on opening up that channel for anyone to use.
You have to pick your Blackstone Number. If the actual ratio of criminal to innocent exceeds it, you should not participate in Tor. Otherwise, you should.
As for myself, I don't think I'd go as high as 10, but I might be willing to enable as many as 3 people to anonymously commit the worst information-based crime I can conceive without my knowledge to enable one person to achieve the greatest assistance possible from safe and unfettered access to information.
Unfortunately, if I run a Tor exit node, I am likely to experience government persecution as the identifiable scapegoat for all that criminal activity that I was willing to tolerate for the sake of helping one person in need. By prosecuting exit node operators for traffic passing through, government policy effectively sets the Blackstone Number for everyone to zero, and damns the innocent.
You have to pick your Blackstone Number. If the actual ratio of criminal to innocent exceeds it, you should not participate in Tor. Otherwise, you should.
As for myself, I don't think I'd go as high as 10, but I might be willing to enable as many as 3 people to anonymously commit the worst information-based crime I can conceive without my knowledge to enable one person to achieve the greatest assistance possible from safe and unfettered access to information.
Unfortunately, if I run a Tor exit node, I am likely to experience government persecution as the identifiable scapegoat for all that criminal activity that I was willing to tolerate for the sake of helping one person in need. By prosecuting exit node operators for traffic passing through, government policy effectively sets the Blackstone Number for everyone to zero, and damns the innocent.
(1) I don't have to anything
(2) if someone is a dissident I'm willing to take significant risk on their behalf, but only after I've verified for myself that they are what they say they are.
I'm not entirely green in this respect, I've run a number of services that were borderline legal and have had numerous run-ins with the law because of this. I've decided for myself that the amount of abuse does not make it worth my while on the off chance that one day a dissident might make use of the service. Feel free to adjust your strategy according to what you believe is the right ratio, I've done this for myself already after building up a fair amount of experience with services that lent themselves a lot less to abuse than tor.
(2) if someone is a dissident I'm willing to take significant risk on their behalf, but only after I've verified for myself that they are what they say they are.
I'm not entirely green in this respect, I've run a number of services that were borderline legal and have had numerous run-ins with the law because of this. I've decided for myself that the amount of abuse does not make it worth my while on the off chance that one day a dissident might make use of the service. Feel free to adjust your strategy according to what you believe is the right ratio, I've done this for myself already after building up a fair amount of experience with services that lent themselves a lot less to abuse than tor.
https://diasporafoundation.org/about#features
"diaspora* is completely Free Software. This means there are no limits on how it can be used."
Sounds like the IS people are using it as intended.
(Life will get complicated for any pod admins in western countries though.)
"diaspora* is completely Free Software. This means there are no limits on how it can be used."
Sounds like the IS people are using it as intended.
(Life will get complicated for any pod admins in western countries though.)
Microsoft and Dell cannot stop IS using computers.
Xerox cannot stop IS using photocopiers.
Sanford cannot stop IS using pencils.
BBC cannot stop IS listening to World Service.
etc.
Xerox cannot stop IS using photocopiers.
Sanford cannot stop IS using pencils.
BBC cannot stop IS listening to World Service.
etc.
"The team behind a social network being used by Islamic State (IS) militants has admitted it cannot prevent the spread of extremist material."
"admitted"? What's with the tone of this article? What crime are they "admitting" to?
In my experience, BBC should be better than this.
"admitted"? What's with the tone of this article? What crime are they "admitting" to?
In my experience, BBC should be better than this.
Isn't that kind of what it was created for? They had to know from the start that not all the people and groups who used it would have noble intentions.
Sometimes it seems like people are more upset about the words of killers than the fact that they go around killing people.
In this case, I think it has more to do with the spreading a message that has recruitment as one of its aims. In the US, the freedom of speech doesn't apply if you are, for example, spreading a message that says, "You all need to kill [ethnic group]."
I suggest you read up on the effect of the words of killers in Rwanda in 1994.
I don't like what these guys are posting about but should we really abandon freedom of speech over it? Wouldn't that be an example of the terrorists winning?
The problem is that not all countries consider this free speech. If you're hosting a Diaspora pod in the UK, then having this material on your system is considered terrorism.
In the UK -- simply linking-to, reporting, or even viewing of this material is considered illegal under anti-terrorism laws... (I can understand if it's distasteful, or socially frowned upon... but illegal to view a video? come-on...)
I don't think "free speech" means what you think it means. Your freedom to speech, does not give me the obligation to publish your speech on my website.
In this case the Diaspora team is using their free speech to suggest that various pod administrators choose not to publish some particularly nasty speech.
In this case the Diaspora team is using their free speech to suggest that various pod administrators choose not to publish some particularly nasty speech.
A stranger here, i stumbled on this thread as i've been mulling over Diaspora's reaction to ISIS's sudden and dreadful arrival. It's heartening to read these threads and consider your reasoned and civilized exchanges.
My own perspective is largely reflected in the early post of logfromblammo, which puts me in the extremist free (i.e., decentralized/uncensorable) speech camp, i guess. logfromblammo's observation that early adopters rarely come from (anywhere near) the mainstream seems an especially salient aspect of the good-with-the-bad argument in this case.
The only thing i'd add, as an old school free speecher, is that the traditional anti-censorship answer to bad speech is more good speech. ...still thinking about how that model plays out on a distributed social network (social networking being an activity i personally mostly avoid).
Anyway...GRATITUDE for the cogent, respectful conversation i've had the pleasure of eavesdropping on.
My own perspective is largely reflected in the early post of logfromblammo, which puts me in the extremist free (i.e., decentralized/uncensorable) speech camp, i guess. logfromblammo's observation that early adopters rarely come from (anywhere near) the mainstream seems an especially salient aspect of the good-with-the-bad argument in this case.
The only thing i'd add, as an old school free speecher, is that the traditional anti-censorship answer to bad speech is more good speech. ...still thinking about how that model plays out on a distributed social network (social networking being an activity i personally mostly avoid).
Anyway...GRATITUDE for the cogent, respectful conversation i've had the pleasure of eavesdropping on.
What about this: the Diaspora team does not betray their principles for encouraging pod admins to block IS content, mainly because they do not make up their minds and say 'Oh shit, maybe this decentralized thing was not that good an idea'. What they're saying is that they do not approve of what IS do and say, and think that you shouldn't neither.
As it was said before, saying that certain assholes should shut up does not equal betraying the principle of freedom of speech. Now, that is philosophical subtleties aside. Of course this invokes hard questions, like, who gets to decide which assholes should shut up. But let's not split hairs -- IS case is not a borderline case. That is, if we all agree that what they do is universally harmful.
If someone doesn't then I think there's not much to discuss.
As it was said before, saying that certain assholes should shut up does not equal betraying the principle of freedom of speech. Now, that is philosophical subtleties aside. Of course this invokes hard questions, like, who gets to decide which assholes should shut up. But let's not split hairs -- IS case is not a borderline case. That is, if we all agree that what they do is universally harmful.
If someone doesn't then I think there's not much to discuss.
"It's absolutely inevitable that organisations like IS are going to be among the early adopters of this sort of innovation."
That would have been a great quote to have on the crowdfunding page.
That would have been a great quote to have on the crowdfunding page.
The more trouble they have taking down IS content, the safer I know my pod is.
Scientists have ethics committees, but what do we turn to in these situations? Undoubtedly, many of us would argue that free speech is one of the best things that has come out of the internet, and open source and decentralised software is often created for this very reason. On the other hand, it gives extremists a platform for communication. It's a fine balancing act and I'm not sure there is enough debate around these sorts of issues.
If they set up their own pod then they can spread whatever propaganda they want. Earlier in the year IS made the foolish mistake of setting up on a Red Matrix server administered by someone who opposed them, and they promptly got kicked off.
https://libertypod.org/posts/7a778c00f3a201319eb700163efe12c...
https://libertypod.org/posts/7a778c00f3a201319eb700163efe12c...
I've been thinking about this type of problem for a while now. One possible solution would be a requirement for the content to pay for its 'right to be visible' or 'right of existence'. Rates for right of existence could vary based on network sentiment/karma regarding the content. Karma could be earned by users providing storage or purchased in bulk for a fee.
There was strange premonition of this in the 1990s Left Behind scifi series. This was at the dawn of the web. In those stories the true-believer Xtianss are guerillas battling the forces of the anti-Christ whom control all government utilities like the web. Yet the guerillas use the web for their planning. I always wondered why the anti-christ couldnt stop the web.
Hey, there are people who use it to do more offensive stuff than I ever would and they can't censor them.
Sounds like a quality criteria to me.
Sounds like a quality criteria to me.
Never heard of Diaspora, but based on this article I think it sounds good.
Groups conducting subversive activities all moving to one service..? This sounds like DARPA's lucky day.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?
"IS", aka Islamic State, does not necessarily mean "Extremist"
(and for the record, "IS" is not a synonym for "ISIS")
(and for the record, "IS" is not a synonym for "ISIS")
> In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims across the world and aspires to bring much of the Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its direct political control, beginning with territory in the Levant region, which includes Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and an area in southern Turkey that includes Hatay.
Sounds pretty extreme to me.
Sounds pretty extreme to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_state
Not so much. You are using the definition from an article geared towards ousting extremists -- and therefore their definition is "extreme". An IS can very much-so be a legitimate non-extreme government. (albeit, different from what most of us would prefer as a government)
Not so much. You are using the definition from an article geared towards ousting extremists -- and therefore their definition is "extreme". An IS can very much-so be a legitimate non-extreme government. (albeit, different from what most of us would prefer as a government)
[deleted]
for the record, "ISIS" changed their name to just "Islamic State".
Well, there seems to be an unfortunate naming collision then, because Islamic State was already reserved for a type of government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_state
It's not just unfortunate, it was deliberately chosen by the group to invoke legitimacy and power they don't have.
Wow, didn't know that actually.
My question would be -- why are people allowing them to call themselves "Islamic State" then? Why not just go on calling them ISIS or something that does not de-legitimize already existing and legitimate governments? I mean, people in this thread are already starting to jump on the band-wagon and label all "Islamic States" as extremists... when that is not the case.
My question would be -- why are people allowing them to call themselves "Islamic State" then? Why not just go on calling them ISIS or something that does not de-legitimize already existing and legitimate governments? I mean, people in this thread are already starting to jump on the band-wagon and label all "Islamic States" as extremists... when that is not the case.
Oh yeah, it's been almost a month now. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/06/isil-declar... I'm not sure why they "get away" with it, probably because western media doesn't get the significance of the term.
I thought ISIS was another name for ISIL and changed their name recently to IS as part of their propaganda about a new caliphate? If not, then what is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_... The first sentence there says "The Islamic State (IS), formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), is a jihadist group, widely regarded as a terrorist organisation."
(Edited for clarity)
(Edited for clarity)
So it works.
[deleted]