Alternative title:
"How the Netherlands facilitates free speech on the internet, and how that's a bad thing!"
"How the Netherlands facilitates free speech on the internet, and how that's a bad thing!"
You don't want a hosting service or an ISP to censor their customers. Even with neo nazis.
I'm pretty sure there are some laws against hate speech and the kind of threats that neo nazis make even in NL so the sites could be taken down through a legal process.
How about suing people who post illegal stuff and leaving the matter to the courts? Having to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines will deter unlawful people more than having to change hosting provider every few years
Genuinely curious what your take is. I think the topic of the bakery owners is so widely known because of this. As the other reply said, and your discussion has continued: I believe that it ultimately comes down to what has "arbitrarily" been decided as a protected group. ("Arbitrarily" in quotes because it is ultimately the American political system in this case, and that's not really arbitrary.)
- free-speech absolutism (this position exists) - ban all communication between all humans (this position is not advocated by anyone) - some speech should be banned
I reject all absolutist positions. Ideology is cancer. It's childish: the conceit that one's simple plan will fix the problems in the world. It's the reason communism has been a disaster.
It's depressing how many free speech absolutists you find on HN. I presume these people are intelligent in the field of tech and know it. Their political pronouncements are pure Dunning-Kruger. Founding four companies and retiring at 32 does not imply that you understand how societies work.
I don’t know if coming from a different culture means you don’t understand how societies work—that’s a pretty general claim.
I.e they take no issue with resolving that on legal grounds, but against succumbing to social (real or not) pressure of bystenders.