ate chan supports terror killings and promotes those who do so. Should it be taken down? Should its owners and operators be named complicit in terror acts?
How far should such a ban go? Forums which don't have user accounts? Forums where people aren't identifiable with their legal identity? Where do we draw the line on what people can say? It's easy enough to say we recognize it when we see it, but presumably forum hosters would end up being rather strict to avoid any punishment? Is the Nazi-stuff ban in Germany and France functioning well?
It's a topic worthy of consideration, but I'm still seeing lots of details that needs to be hashed out first.
Good question.
Presumably like pedophiles they'd just move to the dark web.
Probably a lot of the more serious far right groups are there already and just use more visible sites for propaganda/recruiting.
Its probably easier to keep tabs on them when they are more public. If they are mainly preaching to the converted then I can see a case for allowing them to operate openly.
In some ways the openly far right sites aren't the biggest danger, its the people who are legitimising those ideas and making them more mainstream.
How far should such a ban go? Forums which don't have user accounts? Forums where people aren't identifiable with their legal identity? Where do we draw the line on what people can say? It's easy enough to say we recognize it when we see it, but presumably forum hosters would end up being rather strict to avoid any punishment? Is the Nazi-stuff ban in Germany and France functioning well?
It's a topic worthy of consideration, but I'm still seeing lots of details that needs to be hashed out first.
The the bolded part, yes, absolutely. I'm not German, but from German followers of mine, yep, it's working.
It's one of the (louder) criticisms of how Twitter applies its policies, because their argument is that it isn't feasible a lot of the time. But it obviously is, and works like magic for at least one country. The real reason is it hurts their bottom line, which is likely why sites as mentioned in the OP are theoretically hard to drop. Lots of traffic, lots of hits, lots of bandwidth. I say theoretically because they absolutely bliddy should.
***** supports terror killings and promotes those who do so. Should it be taken down? Should its owners and operators be named complicit in terror acts?
The guy who runs it (regardless of his contrition now), and the site itself, could be targeted based just on the child pornography and stolen credit cards if the facilitation of violence and terrorism is too much of a stretch
5 star is new to me, but upon looking it up, no. The ate chan website is the culprit for its promotion of hate groups and hate crimes. They disseminate hate crime videos and function as a haven for hate talk.
Apparently, the typical spelling of ate chan is banned by CFC.
EDIT: From what I read, M5S seems to be popular, but shaky. They may be just a temporary political force that is stirring the pot undermining the status quo until some new entity shows staying power.
***** supports terror killings and promotes those who do so. Should it be taken down? Should its owners and operators be named complicit in terror acts?
Taken down is interesting leap, probably not going to pass first amendment muster in the US. Naming them complicit is not going to happen at all. First off as complicity isn;t a crime you'd have to demonstrate a conspiracy which obviously did not intentionally take place.
Now what can be done is a information campaign (remember truth.org and smoking) educating people on the mania these sites feed on and grow. Warning them about the negative effects on families and such when people become wrapped up in conspiracies and xenophobic white supremacy. Finally connecting them to almost every mass shooting in the past what ten years?
Typing this out makes it seem totally orwellian, but we crossed that bridge completely with Alexa, the Ring, Cambridge Analytica, Facebook, I could go on. Might as well turn the tables and try to educate people on the reality of the world they live in rather than cower afraid of people calling them Orwellian.
So, if i rented a building storefront and passed out racist hate literature to those who came by, rented a billboard along the highway to attract folks driving by, and featured speakers on a local talk radio station, it would stay open on first amendment issues?
Or is it the worldwide server placement and international audience that would keep it open?
It's a good rule of thumb not to waste too much time read comments. Any non-curated web pages have been sewers for a long, long time now.
I'm amazed that so many people still use those sites!
Not really. There isn't much the government can do when the servers are not in Germany. Blocking IPs can work for a time if the IP doesn't change.
I just checked, and I can go to Stormfront.
I can't watch region blocked videos on youtube, but I can access illegal holocaust propaganda.
Priorities.
ate chan supports terror killings and promotes those who do so. Should it be taken down? Should its owners and operators be named complicit in terror acts?
Well, since the U.S. Government is complicit in, supporting of, funding, and even directing and ordering terrorist attacks and activities commonly, has been since at least the end of WW2, then all Federal Government websites should be shut down too, by the same precedent, and the U.S. Government named as complicit in (and more deeply involved in) terror acts, as well. Let's call a spade a spade.
These people already exist, the conditions that result in their ideas having traction with a small minority of the population already exist.
Banning them from speaking will not change that first condition and will make the second worse. It also is unlikely to work - banning ideas has a non-existent track record of success.
If these viewpoints are to be challenged it should be by undermining the conditions that allow them to fester, not by driving people further underground - which will merely fan the flames.
Not a fan of those sites, but I don't think they should be shut down. (but of course private companies are free to do as they please) Having those people out in the open is better than having them undercover. Behold the surprise of the entire left of center electorate when they elected Trump.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
