A 23-Year-Old Coder Kept QAnon Online When No One Else Would (bloomberg.com) 441
Bloomberg's William Turton and Joshua Brustein have published a profile of the 23-year-old proprietor of VanwaTech, an internet provider in Vancouver, Wash. that "provides tech support to the U.S. networks of White nationalists and conspiracy theorists banned by the likes of Amazon." An anonymous Slashdot reader shares an excerpt from the report: Two and a half months before extremists invaded the U.S. Capitol, the far-right wing of the internet suffered a brief collapse. All at once, in the final weeks of the country's presidential campaign, a handful of prominent sites catering to White supremacists and adherents of the QAnon conspiracy movement stopped functioning. To many of the forums' most devoted participants, the outage seemed to prove the American political struggle was approaching its apocalyptic endgame. "Dems are making a concerted move across all platforms," read one characteristic tweet. "The burning of the land foreshadows a massive imperial strike back in the next few days."
In fact, there'd been no conspiracy to take down the sites; they'd crashed because of a technical glitch with VanwaTech, a tiny company in Vancouver, Wash., that they rely on for various kinds of network infrastructure. They went back online with a simple server reset about an hour later, after the proprietor, 23-year-old Nick Lim, woke up from a nap at his mom's condo. Lim founded VanwaTech in late 2019. He hosts some websites directly and provides others with technical services including protection against certain cyberattacks; his annual revenue, he says, is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Although small, the operation serves clients including the Daily Stormer, one of America's most notorious online destinations for overt neo-Nazis, and 8kun, the message board at the center of the QAnon movement, whose adherents were heavily involved in the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6.
Lim exists in a singularly odd corner of the business world. He says he's not an extremist, just an entrepreneur with a maximalist view of free speech. "There needs to be a me, right?" he says, while eating pho at a Vietnamese restaurant near his headquarters. "Once you get to the point where you look at whether content is safe or unsafe, as soon as you do that, you've opened a can of worms." At best, his apolitical framing comes across as naive; at worst, as preposterous gaslighting. In interviews with Bloomberg Businessweek early in 2020, Lim said he didn't really know what QAnon was and had no opinion about Donald Trump. What's undeniable is the niche Lim is filling. His blip of a company is providing essential tech support for the kinds of violence-prone hate groups and conspiracists that tend to get banned by mainstream providers such as Amazon Web Services.
In fact, there'd been no conspiracy to take down the sites; they'd crashed because of a technical glitch with VanwaTech, a tiny company in Vancouver, Wash., that they rely on for various kinds of network infrastructure. They went back online with a simple server reset about an hour later, after the proprietor, 23-year-old Nick Lim, woke up from a nap at his mom's condo. Lim founded VanwaTech in late 2019. He hosts some websites directly and provides others with technical services including protection against certain cyberattacks; his annual revenue, he says, is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Although small, the operation serves clients including the Daily Stormer, one of America's most notorious online destinations for overt neo-Nazis, and 8kun, the message board at the center of the QAnon movement, whose adherents were heavily involved in the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6.
Lim exists in a singularly odd corner of the business world. He says he's not an extremist, just an entrepreneur with a maximalist view of free speech. "There needs to be a me, right?" he says, while eating pho at a Vietnamese restaurant near his headquarters. "Once you get to the point where you look at whether content is safe or unsafe, as soon as you do that, you've opened a can of worms." At best, his apolitical framing comes across as naive; at worst, as preposterous gaslighting. In interviews with Bloomberg Businessweek early in 2020, Lim said he didn't really know what QAnon was and had no opinion about Donald Trump. What's undeniable is the niche Lim is filling. His blip of a company is providing essential tech support for the kinds of violence-prone hate groups and conspiracists that tend to get banned by mainstream providers such as Amazon Web Services.
Maybe... (Score:2)
Lim exists in a singularly odd corner of the business world. He says he's not an extremist, just an entrepreneur with a maximalist view of free speech.
Or maybe he keeps certain information accessible to a certain government agency.
I'm just saying, if the leader of the Poor Boys was and FBI informant then what are the chances this guy is something similar?
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Funny)
"Wait, we're all FBI agents?"
Re: (Score:2)
Mulder isn't sure but wants to believe.
I've read writing like that before (Score:4, Insightful)
Before I stopped eating at the same lunch table with him, I'd get treated to his stories about his Russian girlfriend. The one that he met on the internet. The one he has the hottest conversations with. At the same time, over a period of about a year, it became clear that he was no longer able to do his job competently. He was run out of the place and eventually had to be legally ordered to stay away because he would wander in occasionally and make vague threats.
I wish I was making this up, but I'm not. It's sad watching a person with one of their critical organs failing, but it's especially ugly when it's the brain.
This is what's collectively happening to the right wing in this country. Any right-winger with actual intellectual cred has already left the movement. What's left is seriously mis-firing in the grey matter. I'd like to see some actual thought return to the conservative side of this country, but I suspect it's going to take decades. There's a LOT of trash to get rid of before that can happen. People are gonna look back at the days when conservatives were just mildly sexist and racist and feel nostalgia. Nowadays it's qanon and birtherism. Ooof. I used to vote a mix of R and D. Not anymore.
Re:I've read writing like that before (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I've read writing like that before (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to be advocating for the tyranny of the majority. Preventing that is good design.
Preventing tyranny is a good idea, but that's not what the electoral college was designed to do. It was meant to preserve it. That's why a system which gives power mostly to former slave states was engineered in the first place: to give them the power to continue to be shitheels.
And lo, it's working exactly as designed.
In a nation which claims that all men are created equal, a voting system explicitly designed to prevent them from attaining equality is abhorrent.
Re:I've read writing like that before (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a pretty good paper on the Electoral College. https://scholarlycommons.law.n... [northwestern.edu] If you think enslaving a huge chunk of the population is tyranny, then the EC was really designed to facilitate tyranny.
The interests of rural voters are adequately represented by giving each man and woman one vote (and the other restraints on government in the Constitution) . The EC effectively imposes a tyranny of the majority in every state, where the votes of the winners nullify the votes of the statewide losers. There are more Trump voters in Los Angeles county than in West Virginia and their votes count for nothing because of the EC. There are tons of Democrats in Austin, their votes are worth nothing because of the EC.
A national popular vote would force politicians to chase every vote in every state. Right now Republicans cannot compete in California because the national GOP platform (such as it is) is designed to pander to its reliable geographic centers. If the party was free to adapt to national tastes, then the GOP could afford to be less crazy because they could draw votes from CA to make up for the votes they lose in the South--say for legalizing marijuana or reducing farm subsidies or eliminating Qualified Immunity (all consistent with the historic limited-government brand of the GOP).
This seems unlikely, since the ensconced GOPers have nice jobs and are willing to keep them by cook and crook.
Re: (Score:3)
Whereas now they can pass things that are in their interests and that are against the interests of the people who live in cities.
If you think this is a zero sum game, with a winning and a losing side, how is it not batshit insane to make sure that the winning side is the side with *fewer people*? Why on earth is it *better* for the majority living in cities and urban areas to suffer at the expense of the minority living in rural areas?
Re: (Score:3)
So if the Electoral College was designed neither to upgrade small states nor to displace democracy, what was its Founding Era raison d’être? Not to boost small states, but to bolster slave states. At the Philadelphia Convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But in a key speech on July 19, 1787, Virginia’s James Madison threw cold water on this proposal: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, a direct election system would be a deal- breaker for the South, which would get no credit for its half million slaves, who of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—would eventually enable each Southern state to count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall number of presidential electors.
Akhil Reed Amar - Yale University Professor of Constitutional Law [northwestern.edu]
Re:I've read writing like that before (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, the "Deplorables" strategy. Which is
PERFECTLY VALID when so obviously true. Being willing to be part of a party which is so much about jerking off the wealthy and frankly so much about preserving institutional racism is frankly not so much about being "deplorable" and really about being "an idiot" or "a hypocrite", with no third option. The Republican party claims to be about fiscal responsibility, but reliably runs up the national debt bombing brown people for profit. The Republican party claims to be about honesty, but every time they cry "election fraud" when we look for it we find almost none, and the majority of what we find is perpetrated by Republicans. The Republican party claims to be about protecting life, but they will protect life only up until it's a baby, and then you can go fuck yourself.
The Democrat party has a shitload of things wrong with it, but at least some of its members are trying to make a difference. That's why they don't vote in lock-step like Republicans... or should I say goose-step? Republicans are united in fucking everyone else over, that's why they vote together. Birds of a feather...
And 12 folks (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a surprisingly small number of people spreading the worst of the fake news (i.e. the kind that radicalize the mentally ill and cause extremists to go on shooting rampages).
That said, I don't really think they're doing it alone [slashdot.org].
Face it, we're all being played.
Re:And 12 folks (Score:5, Interesting)
And it's really a huge scam. Those 12 people do it for the money - they literally charge people $500 to attend a webinar about it. Those sessions are held practically daily and about 400 people attend at a time (that's $20,000).
https://www.cbc.ca/news/market... [www.cbc.ca]
And it turns out, that's really all they're doing it for - they're all more than happy to get their vaccinations and all that.
But the money - that's where it's at. They get some people with some doubts and send them to pages that amplify it, then basically get them to pay $500 each to "learn what the media and government are hiding from you."
It's really about exploiting the gullible and stupid and making lots of easy cash along the way. Pretty much all the content and crap that anti-vaxxers spew comes from these classes, to encourage others to ... take the class.
infinite free speech is not actually free (Score:5, Insightful)
Once you get to the point where you look at whether content is safe or unsafe, as soon as you do that, you've opened a can of worms.
As usual, everyone wants "freedom" without responsibility. Can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, but if people propose violence as a way to force their views on everyone else, or call for violence against duly elected members of government, all of a suddent we're judging.
At least this guy is honest, he just wants to make a buck. There will always be somebody perfectly ok with making money while contributing to the deaths of others. And there's a depressing amount of commenters on slashdot who are ok with that too.
So yes, i'm judging that if you are keeping web sites open that promote anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, call for the murder of congress people and think that white people are being replaced, i'm absolutely going to judge you.
These ideas actually do harm, and encourage people to do harm. We should absolutely open that can of worms.
Re:infinite free speech is not actually free (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you want to go after the electricity supplier next?
Re: (Score:2)
Common Carrier was abolished by a right-wing FCC and Donald Trump, but severely crippled under the Bush I & II administrations and I think even Ronnie the Raygun. If you want to keep web hosting safe from the acts of those who use them, that's fine but reinstate the Intetner under the correct Telecommunications Aricle, enforce that by law, and eliminate the issue. But as long as Internet is not regarded as a protected common carrier serivce, services are responsible. It's really that simple.
I have argue
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Once you get to the point where you look at whether content is safe or unsafe, as soon as you do that, you've opened a can of worms.
As usual, everyone wants "freedom" without responsibility. Can't yell fire in a crowded theatre
Funny, but the Supreme Court said the exact opposite in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. Your information is fifty years out of date.
but if people propose violence as a way to force their views on everyone else, or call for violence against duly elected members of government, all of a suddent we're judging.
At least this guy is honest, he just wants to make a buck. There will always be somebody perfectly ok with making money while contributing to the deaths of others.
And there will always be someone looking for an excuse to impose new forms of oppression.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, but the Supreme Court said the exact opposite in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. Your information is fifty years out of date.
So if someone does shout fire in a crowded theatre, causing the deaths of people in a stampede, you would argue that the person did nothing wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
There is even a nice technical explanation.
With infinite free speech the signal to noise ratio will approach zero, when infinite free speech means that you have the right to spread lies and misconceptions.
There is more human stupidity than reality. The signal is made up of reality, the noise from human stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
That is correct, and you what the SNR to approach the maximum limit, not the minimum. The difference in quality between, say, Kuro5hin and Slashdot over the same timeframe shows the difference even slight controls can play.
Re: (Score:2)
but if people propose violence as a way to force their views on everyone else
I am a staunch free speech advocate, but got to admit that socialism gives me a pause. Maybe even then it's worth it to allow bad ideas to be confronted rather than spreading under the radar?
if you are keeping web sites open that promote anti-vaccine conspiracy theories
I know right? People who withhold a life saving vaccine from those who want it [cdc.gov] because of unproven one in a million chance of side effects.
think that white people are being replaced
Yeah, everyone knows UN is a hoax [un.org].
Re:infinite free speech is not actually free (Score:5, Insightful)
For 50 years after WW2, people were ashamed to espouse fascist ideas in the US (and most other countries too). They couldn't get such ideas published. They would be shunned by neighbours for expressing them, they might lose their jobs, they could be kicked out of their church etc. Americans had fought a war against fascists and had zero interest in tolerating fascist ideas in the public sphere -- it wasn't illegal to express them, but it was disgusting and treated as such. And it worked: only a tiny handful of people were adherents of fascist ideology, and they typically had to make themselves outcasts from ordinary society if they wanted to express those views publicly. Fascism never came remotely close to power.
Then came the last 20 years, and a megaphone was handed to the tiny numbers of fascists, and their ideas were allowed to be spread because of free speech arguments like yours, and the result was that the Capitol got stormed and we have fascists in Congress and in state legislatures and millions of people whose minds have been poisoned.
This is blindingly obvious. Yet you pretend that there's more risk of spread if these ideas become shameful once more. Ridiculous, and you should know it.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly I'm more scared of the anti-fascists, and quite a lot of other things. Fascism isn't the threat, it's "a" threat, and not even a particularly bad one, compared to other things such as creeping communism and authoritarianism in the halls of education and power that seems to be unopposed these days. At least people stand up to the fascists.
Re: (Score:3)
The megaphone for dishonesty helps to create the conditions for stupidity and credulousness, though. One of the purposes of propaganda is to stupefy the masses so that many people will accept the nastiness the propagandists want to feed them.
Re: (Score:2)
The ideas don't do any harm. The harm is caused by people who are willing to believe and act upon ideas they read online without proper research.
If people were properly educated, the vast majority would not be susceptible to conspiracy theories, but they would also not be so susceptible to manipulation by the media.
Re: (Score:2)
If people were properly educated, the vast majority would not be susceptible to conspiracy theories
Yet one side of the political spectrum is determined to prevent that from happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Might not be just a matter of education, also a matter of group identity. The define their identity by what they believe in.
This pisses me off. (Score:2)
Don’t get me wrong; I read the summary thinking trailer trash must die. Ok, maybe not that extreme (on either term).
But, honestly, I have to agree with him. If it is something that he as an individual / company can do, then someone is going to do it. And that might not be all bad.
Then, throw in the irony of him being Vietnamese heritage and you have to just kind of give it a meh. The only real challenge of the situation is how do we manage crazy as a society.
Re: (Score:2)
He is in it to make money. Tragically, his customers caters to individuals that would just as quickly give him a beat down and take his money and blame him for "taking their jerbs" all the while trying to help them to spread their message that someone like him is taking their jerbs.
Good on Mr Lim (Score:2)
We have been through this 20 years ago (Score:2)
Right here on Slashdot - good guys need the same technology / freedoms to protect themselves, Streisand effect, pixels don't feel abused, if we take down copyrighted materials now in 20 years people will not be able to dispute elections online. If anyone only believed these things when right wingers were trying to ban encryption / porn / violent video games, they never really believed them.
There is no way to censor a hundred conspiracy theories without also censoring one improbable truth. Bill Clinton and D
All Speech Is Free (Score:4, Insightful)
But some speech is more free than others.
Apparently.
Fascism is rampant in America, and the fascists universally think they are doing the right thing.
I remember when Slashdot would come down on the side of free speech because it is obviously the right thing, even while decrying whatever nonsense was actually being spoken.
What a farce this site has become.
Re:All Speech Is Free (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember when Slashdot would come down on the side of free speech because it is obviously the right thing
You remember wrong. Slashdot has *ALWAYS* been on the side of free speech, which includes freedom of association, and the freedom to not do business with those you don't support.
Why aren't you supporting the free speech rights of hosting providers? Oh right, because you think only some people deserve rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Tragic Irony (Score:2)
The sad thing is some the users of the platforms that he help run and sustain probably don't care for the likes of him or would come to his aid if he was getting a beat down. But like he said, "there needs to be a me, right?"
Nothing like biting the hand that feeds and not even know it. That is the ultimate plausible deniability.
#ClaytonBigsby
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A maximalist view of free speech... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, these aren't protocols like code. A pattern of otherwise legitimate steps which brings about the same outcome as the prohibited effect because the spirit and intent of the law is equally applicable to the letter.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course they are running afoul of the concept. The way in which they are manipulating the impression of the audience is an illustration of what this kind of thing is bad, especially in a democracy where the audience subsequently walks away wielding power from the now skewed position. But the television show isn't granted immunity from legal accountability by government the
Re:A maximalist view of free speech... (Score:5, Insightful)
That idiom specifically refers to the violent, distributed use of massed pressure waves to prevent a person's exercise of speech by denying them the ability to raise it out of the noise floor.
Literally censorship of speech in the most physical possible sense. You failed not only English, but Physics as well. I award you no points, and may FSM have mercy on your soul.
Re: A maximalist view of free speech... (Score:2)
"except of course in this day and age that is literally impossible"
You think so? All your isp has to do is block access to your preferred website and only the most tech savvy users would be able to bypass it by using a VPN (something that your isp can decide to block too). This is done constantly, usually for illegal content, but even for content that is just "controversial".
And even then, by removing some content you dislike from the "mainstream internet" you are literally making it invisible to most users
Re: A maximalist view of free speech... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think you know what that word means.
Forcing others to carry your message is not freedom. The very fact the person in this article has a job doing what they do is proof enough that it is not suppressing anyone's freedom of speech. We must preserve the freedom of association. Forcing amazon or twitter to carry someone's speech when it goes against their values is an ACTUAL violation of free speech.
Re:A maximalist view of free speech... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Lim exists in a singularly odd corner of the business world. He says he's not an extremist, just an entrepreneur with a maximalist view of free speech. "There needs to be a me, right?" he says, while eating pho at a Vietnamese restaurant near his headquarters. "Once you get to the point where you look at whether content is safe or unsafe, as soon as you do that, you've opened a can of worms." At best, his apolitical framing comes across as naive; at worst, as preposterous gaslighting."
Lim... has the nearly universally understand and agreed upon ideal of free speech up to what, 2012 or so? Consider reading this for an idea of what might have initiated these changes.
https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Generation/dp/0735224919/
Re:A maximalist view of free speech... (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouting someone down in no way impinges their right to free speech.
Free speech does NOT mean that everyone has to listen to,you, just that you should not be jailed for what you say.
You sure have a very narrow and limited view of what constitutes free speech. In most civilized countries speech is not only free in the sense that the government does not put you in jail for it but also in the sense that the government protects you against perpetrators that try to hinder you in speaking or threaten or harass you for speaking (and I hope we can agree that shouting someone down is harassment).
Or do you really believe that the only threat to free speech originates from the government?
Re:A maximalist view of free speech... (Score:4, Informative)
I think there are more threats to speech than the government, but the US constitution only protects you from the government. It says nothing about protecting you from companies choosing not to associate with you due to your views.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see Congress shall protect the people from the consequences of their speech.
Re: (Score:3)
I think protecting free speech is very important. That is why I support the rights of the person in this article to host speech I disagree with.
What I will never support is forcing others (person, company, or otherwise) to carry speech they disagree with. It seems to be a minority stance.
Re: (Score:3)
Free speech does NOT mean that everyone has to listen to,you, just that you should not be jailed for what you say.
The first amendment means you won't be jailed for what you say. Freedom of speech means that people who want to listen to you can listen to you.
Freedom of speech != first amendment.
Re: (Score:3)
Except, the democrats and their relatives who work in the FBI and law firms, will find any and minor technical law offences or some rare collusion to conspire to do abc, or something like 'minority report' thinking about fraud, and pile up 50 lawyers on your ass to pound you into years of jail
Has this ever happened once?
Re:A maximalist view of free speech... (Score:5, Interesting)
A single incident wherein a technical glitch was assumed to be one of the string of known and established ongoing attacks hardly makes them crazy. Isolating it from the complete picture in that manner to paint a false picture DOES suggest an intent to manipulate the audience though. That is every bit as bad as the misleading material which came out of the mouth of the likes of Rush or O'Reilly.
Re: A maximalist view of free speech... (Score:2)
When protesting in small groups, without harassment, without breaking noise regulations, and not in front of residences or places of worship etc. Otherwise it's performing free speech while committing a crime.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Re:Not what nationalists (Score:5, Funny)
Have you stopped beating your wife?
If by "wife", you mean "meat", then no.
And if by "stopped" you mean "paused for a few minutes", then yes.
Re:Not what nationalists (Score:5, Funny)
Processing error: missing dependencies.
Re:Not what nationalists (Score:4, Funny)
Or "woke brigade."
Re:Not what nationalists (Score:5, Funny)
Sir, your hood is hanging out of your pocket.
Re: Not what nationalists (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Not what nationalists (Score:5, Insightful)
Who says he was being altruistic? Or even motivated by beliefs?
This is simply capitalism at work. His competitors have voluntarily exited from the market, leaving a handful of potential customers with little alternative. He can charge them considerably more than other providers, knowing that they have no choice.
He doesn't have to agree with the sites he hosts, he may vehemently disagree with them, but that doesn't change the fact that these are paying customers.
Re: Not what nationalists (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe not the best business plan though, considering how it tends to end up costing the operator more than they make. Voat and Gab both lost a lot of money, although Gab does seem to be at least solvent now. 8chan was a money-pit and 4chan has been struggling just to pay the bills since its inception.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Not what nationalists (Score:4, Interesting)
Right, if anything he gets to charge a premium and can offer inferior service because his customers have no place else to go. Oh your site was down for an hour, I was asleep and there is nobody else actively monitoring alerts so...is what it is. That does not happen to you on other hosting providers (well it does but its not supposed to).
Sounds like a petty good business to be in to me. Its no different than those check cashing and title loan stores really. Same concept, you have a client with basically nowhere else to so you can charge insane rates of interest and terrible punitive terms for any sort of late payment etc. You can do that at Jim's Title Loan because you know the folks at the Wells Fargo branch next door won't talk to them. Risk is the same to your client goes bankrupt and does not pay. Its the same business model
Re: (Score:2)
The law states that it is an offence to be an accessory to a crime. So, no, he isn't.
The Dangers of Judgement (Score:5, Insightful)
I’d just like to observe that this touches on something that neither the law nor our society have quite figured out yet. When you write, ”These groups are radioactive and I just can’t see how it can be spun as being altruistic.”, the other side to that position would be one in which a service provider reserves the right to refuse that service to any potential customer for a particular reason or reasons. The “reasons” bit will become important in a moment...
But what if the service provider happened to be a cake maker, and the customers were a gay couple who wanted a wedding cake? (This scenario actually took place in the UK. There, the UK Supreme Court voted to support the bakery).
Or what if the service provider were Apple, Inc., who refused to allow a company, say Epic Games, from loading their games in to the Apple App Store?
There are lots of different scenarios we can imagine here that, from a legal point of view, match the scenario presented to Nick Lim. We also have to accept that there are going to be lots of areas where the law is a bit murky and grey and the difference between legal and illegal could get a bit subjective.
The concern I have would be that the moment Mr. Lim makes a decision to not host a legitimate client, who is not posting illegal content, who is not using Mr. Kim’s services for illegal purposes, then that’s censorship, that’s discrimination.
If as a society we have a problem with what Mr. Lim’s clients are posting, that’s OK. But our problem is not with Mr. Lim. If his clients are not breaking the law but we think it’s wrong, then it’s up to us to convince society and lawmakers to change the law.
Re:The Dangers of Judgement (Score:5, Insightful)
And Mr Lim can and would say, “OK, thank you for bringing that to my attention. However, unless or until you can get a Court of Law with appropriate jurisdiction to find that the actions of my client are illegal, then in the eyes of the law they are doing nothing wrong and I have no obligation to decline them a service. The moment you can show me a court judgement that finds their use of my services illegal, I will terminate my agreement with them.”
To be honest I don’t see any easy answers here. I think we could both give examples in support of either view and I think this is an ethical minefield. But it is something I believe needs a lot more thought and discussion, especially on the legalities of the various scenarios we’re contemplating.
Re:The Dangers of Judgement (Score:4, Interesting)
Mr Lim's response only holds so long as there's some reasonable uncertainty about whether his clients' actions are illegal. Let me pose an alternative hypothetical -
I run a chauffeur service. One of my clients pays me drive to him people's homes in the middle of the night. I see him go inside with a gun, hear shots fired, and then my client comes outside. This isn't just a one off thing. He has me take him on these trips several times a month. One day a friend observes that there are frequently news reports of mob-style homicides at the addresses where I'm driving my client. He pays well, though, so I continue providing chauffeur services. After all - unless a Court of Law finds that my client's actions are illegal, I'm under no obligation to decline him a service!
One day, the police show up and arrest me as an accessory to multiple homicides. At trial, my friend testifies that he told me about the connection between my client and homicides. I go to prison for a long time.
Maybe real life lawyer can provide the legal reasoning behind this, but surely you can be held liable for facilitating an illegal action, even if it hasn't gone so far as a court finding that the action is illegal. I imagine that the bar is something like like "a reasonable person would recognize such an action as illegal"? It seems like knowingly hosting a site where specific acts of violence are planned and acted upon could meet that bar, and cause Mr. Lim some trouble.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with you that the entire hypothetical is based on the idea that Mr. Lim has some idea that his client's are breaking the law. This is posited in your original post, where he has been approached by someone saying "Mr. Lim, if you continue to provide a service to that client, whom we have shown you is breaking the law...". That's the hypothetical scenario which prompted my response.
Of course maybe that claim isn't sufficient to prove that they're breaking the law. Maybe they're making empty threats
Re:The Dangers of Judgement (Score:5, Interesting)
Particularly in the US, there has long been an established principle that businesses don't have a legal obligation to serve every customer.
"No shirt, no service"
"If your name's not down, you're not coming in"
"You need net assets above 500k and must be a sophisticated investor to access that product"
"Our online group is for discussing honeybees. You can't come on here and discuss alligators"
etc etc
There are important exceptions about not excluding people on the grounds of ethnicity, disability, etc -- protected classes -- but political views are not a protected class. Nor is wanting to talk about alligators on a honeybee group. No-one's going to put you in jail or fine you for doing it, so it's not censorship.
You treat this like a first-principles issue that's being addressed for the very first time, when it's a well-trodden path with extensive precedent, case law, philosophical and political inquiry, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
I just can't see how it can be spun as being altruistic
I just can't see who is trying to spin it as being altruistic.
Seems to me he's running a successful business by servicing a niche market.
Re:Not what nationalists (Score:5, Interesting)
You're correct. But for some strange reason, a LOT of white nationalists attached themselves to Qanon. Maybe because nobody else wanted anything to do with them and the people driving Qanon were too busy smearing their own feces all over the walls to notice that their group had become Klan 3.1. (or maybe it was Klan ME).
Today, Qanon is a basket of insanity that runs from belief that Jesus will return to swear in Donald Trump for a second eternal term and send Hillary and Barack to Guantanamo, to those who believe JFK Jr is coming back to lead a white ethnostate to people who believe there is some satanic cabal of liberals who are trafficking underage people for sex. Ignoring of course that the underage sex trafficking is coming from inside their own house (see: PizzaGaetz). Oath Keepers, Evangelicals, Second Amendment activists, cable news "personalities", violent extremists who would overthrow the government, anti-vaxxers, anti-semites, Republican members of Congress, and ex--presidents all have a surprising proportion of Qanon believers in their ranks, and nobody seems to want to mention the very weird elephant who has come into the room and heaved out a shit the size of a Mini Cooper on the conference table. Instead, they're all staring at said giant turd and wondering, "Maybe this won't be so bad on crackers" because their support has diminished to the point where they won't survive without the wild-eyed energy that Qanon brings.
The fact that not even a handful of mainstream conservatives will dare to say something shows that Qanon has won the day for the entire right-leaning side of the spectrum.
Re:Not what nationalists (Score:5, Funny)
Q the people driving Qanon were too busy smearing their own feces all over the walls to notice that their group had become Klan 3.1. (or maybe it was Klan ME).
Klan Bob is probably about the proper level of intellect
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's cool how mass media made this "QAnon" into such a big thing, and all you guys, carrying their water with all the free attention... I am amused...
Re: (Score:2)
That's merely coincidence. Belief in one cause does not necessarily mean you will believe in another unrelated cause or conspiracy theory.
Hitler was a proponent of animal rights and he was against smoking etc. Both of these are generally considered worthy causes, the fact that hitler also believed in them doesn't make them any less so.
Re:Not what nationalists (Score:5, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd
In 1946, Byrd wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation." However, when running for the United States House of Representatives in 1952, he announced "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." He said he had joined the Klan because he felt it offered excitement and was anti-communist.
Byrd later called joining the KKK "the greatest mistake I ever made." In 1997, he told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also warned, "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena." In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision -- a jejune and immature outlook -- seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions." Byrd also said in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized for a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."
Re:Not what nationalists (Score:5, Insightful)
Blah blah blah. Just more "Q is raciss" based on nothing more than "take my word for it".
A movement is not just defined by that movement's creed.
A movement is also defined by who chooses to associate themselves with it.
My wife's uncle has been radicalized by the internet over the past decade. He is a white nationalist. He's also part of Q, as are all his white-nationalist buddies online.
Another example is the Proud Boys. Officially they are about supporting men being men and men regaining their masculinity through pledging to not masturbate. Yet they attracted White Nationalists, and that now defines them.
Re:Not what nationalists (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't (Score:3, Informative)
I mean, you do realize that "adrenochrome" is just blood liable right?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> Why do people feel the need to attach "white nationalism" to every single thing they dislike?
White nationalism is the new boogeyman.
Black guy kills an Asian guy = White supremacy. Right up there with 2+2=5.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.dailywire.com/news... [dailywire.com]
Re:Not what nationalists (Score:5, Insightful)
Downmod in 3...2...1...
Re: (Score:2)
If this guy knows what he means when he says, "there has to be someone like me", then he surely understands , "what QAnon or Donald Trump is",
Can't have it both ways. He's doing this with his head up and eyes open.
Re: (Score:2)
You're engaging in some major historical revisionism if you think that qanon has nothing to do with the right wing.
Talking of major historical revisionism it took less than an hour for you to try and gaslight him.
Hint: He said nothing about 'the right wing'.
Re:Not what nationalists (Score:5, Insightful)
How the hell did you get modded up so fast?
Russian Troll farms. Every time you ask this question just give the timezones a chance to catch up and the mods end up right where they belong.
Re:Not what nationalists (Score:5, Insightful)
The Q's are not separable from Trump, you can't look at them in a vacuum and say that their wackiness was independent from the white nationalism which he has so successfully bolstered. Their beliefs are directly tied to his.
Re:People have weird ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
...you literally want them to be arrested even if they are totally marginalized and powerless
when did you realize that fascism was right for you?
Re:People have weird ideas (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to be coupled with the strange belief that if we all just have the Right ideas and do the Right thing, it'll be Good.
I'm not sorry--the simplistic dualistic view of things is fully shit. The universe is much more complex than we like to give credit, cf. The Law of Unintended Consequences. Like canceling people with abhorrent opinions. Because it could never happen to us.
Becausr we only have the Right ideas and we're the Good ones. Yep. That's it, for sure.
(Please, if you're going to willfully misunderstand my position and raise the strawman that I somehow agree with the opinions of various -ist groups, then you're wasting both our time. Have at ... the line is at the nose, where it always has been, and always will be.)
Re: (Score:2)
I... wasn't replying to you? I'm confused.
Re: (Score:2)
oh, you were also replying to him and it just threaded wrong
n/m
Re: (Score:2)
OP didn't say they were marginalized (Score:5, Insightful)
This 23 year old has a right to platform Qanon. And I have a right to be disgusted by him and want nothing to do with him. That is not fascism.
Fascism actually has a meaning. It is an ideology that has 3 essential features: [openculture.com]
1. A preoccupation with a mythic past.
2. Sowing diversion, usually through some form of bigotry (doesn't have to be racial, the Japanese used professions, re: Burakumin).
3. Consistent attacks on truth (this last one's debatable in that some historians swap it out with a focus on hierarchy [youtube.com] )
Wanting bad ideas to stop being treated as equal to good ideas is not fascism. One of the worst ideas we've ever had is the whole "market place of ideas". e.g. that all ideas are worthy of consideration. Just like my grocery store doesn't sell dog shit souffle some ideas don't belong in society at large.
Re: (Score:3)
This 23 year old has a right to platform Qanon. And I have a right to be disgusted by him and want nothing to do with him. That is not fascism.
Well how lucky for you that Bloomberg was brave enough to write a hatchet job on a 23yo apolitical entrepreneur so that you can have nothing to do with him.
I just hope that Bloomberg hit piece didn't incite anyone to go after him.
Wanting bad ideas to stop being treated as equal to good ideas is not fascism.
Hosting bad ideas on a website that barely anyone bothers to visit is not treating them equally to good ideas. You're an extremist, so you appear not to want any bad ideas to be discussed.
I personally would rather engage with the people with bad ideas so that I can find out for
Re: (Score:2)
Wanting bad ideas to stop being treated as equal to good ideas is not fascism. One of the worst ideas we've ever had is the whole "market place of ideas". e.g. that all ideas are worthy of consideration.
The marketplace of ideas is a discussion of which ideas are worthwhile. You can't do that unless you allow all ideas to be discussed.
If you want to prevent or limit that discussion, you are an authoritarian.
If you want to use the government to prevent or limit that discussion, you are a fascist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The dangerous nutters have been given hundreds of millions. They organised, built a cult, bought several manor and distribute megaphones and pallets of bricks. Then burn down city centres while looting the shops.
If they're allowed a platform online then shouldn't everybody else?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was just about to say that, "published a profile" sounds like CTRL-left doublespeak for "doxxing".
Re:Doxxing tech support (Score:4, Insightful)
In what sense was this article doxxing? What private personal information was released? You're just flinging around negative terms.
The guy is running a business; he answered the reporters' questions, ffs, he didn't just say "no comment". He made choices in public and those choices are pretty disgusting in the eyes of most people, and so be it. Choices have consequences. Bloomberg didn't reveal a single private thing about him.
If I found out a business I used was also serving neo-na-zis, I'd also stop using it. That's *normal*. It's a *good thing*. It's freedom of association. I choose not to be associated with such businesses. I'd be glad to be told. I mean, it's not exactly a high bar, is it? "I don't want to work with companies that provide services to neo-na-zis".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The right wingers keep saying "well, if you want to be herd over our shouting, shout louder" and the absolute nature of their idea of free speech. Fine. Don't complain when other shout louder things you don't like. Unless you're willing to accept that, no, shouting louder was never the point of free speech and it was never absolute. Then you get to object to doxxing.
I get to object to such abuses because I object equally regardless of who abuses whom. Principles only matter if they apply universally. Maybe
Re:Doxxing tech support (Score:4, Insightful)
So we're just doxxing tech support now?
So they posted his home address and phone number? Maybe his SSN? Perhaps the answers to his security questions?
No? Then it's not fucking doxxing.
Words have meanings. For example, you are a tool [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, fresh out. Shucks. Just used it all up.
Re: (Score:2)
If yu ever read the book, you'd understand what these meant. Half the book is just a boring manifesto but an important one if you want to quote it.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody is demonizing free speech.
What they are doing is denouncing speech promoting violence for stupid reasons.
Speech has consequences. One of the consequences is that if you promote things people believe to be evil, people will believe that you are evil.
Not everything the right wing says is evil. However, QAnon is evil. It started out as a gag, a joke on conspiracy cuckoo reich-wingers, and has itself become a scourge.
Re:Whenever you see "White supremacists" mentioned (Score:4)
Wow... This is certainly a take. A hilariously, aggressively bad one, but a take nevertheless.