Live data from Hacker News

Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

twitter.com

61–70 of 92 posts

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#61
post #36

We support free speech, obviously. And we're happy to fund people with all sorts of different political views. We do not allow harassment, for which Andrew unfortunately set a new bar in our community. You can look at his Twitter or Facebook for plenty of public examples, to say nothing of what he's said privately. As per our previous comments, when a founder violates our ethics statement, we remove them from the com…

@sama Sam Altman, can you explain your reasoning for banning a company that merely wrote something on Twitter, but you allowed Jumpcut from S16 who actually went into the streets and filmed street harassment (forcefully kissing women without permission, massaging them without permission, and "motor-boating" them as an incentive for charity) with their brand Simple Pickup? Here are links proving my point: http://www.d…

I don't want to read too far into the comments already made, but: a YC company sexually harassing strangers on the street doesn't seem to impact people's desire to do business with YC.

But if you do much less, but to people YC has to do business with, that has real consequences.

If they were motorboating Marc Andreessen without consent, for instance, they wouldn't need news coverage and video to drop them.

EDIT: I don't mean this to be cynical so much as derived from fiduciary duty.

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#62
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@sama Sam Altman, can you explain your reasoning for banning a company that merely wrote something on Twitter, but you allowed Jumpcut from S16 who actually went into the streets and filmed street harassment (forcefully kissing women without permission, massaging them without permission, and "motor-boating" them as an incentive for charity) with their brand Simple Pickup? Here are links proving my point: http://www.d…

And here we go. That is exactly what happens once censorship is not any longer based on legal evidence but personal judgement. The 'my feelings are hurt more than yours competition' starts. Edit: Actually watched some of the videos mentioned. Totally amazed how anyone can get offended by prank videos and doesn't know about actors involved.

We're talking about how an organization chooses who to boycott. Legal evidence typically isn't the standard here, but I think it's reasonable to ask what that standard might be.

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#63
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> insulting people or a group of people is not free speech anymore it's actually a crime. This is incorrect. https://popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-her...

well maybe not in america. in my country (germany) you get into jail for insulting, see StGB (§ 185 Beleidigung). https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=h...

Hopefully we'll liberate you soon.

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#65
post #36

We support free speech, obviously. And we're happy to fund people with all sorts of different political views. We do not allow harassment, for which Andrew unfortunately set a new bar in our community. You can look at his Twitter or Facebook for plenty of public examples, to say nothing of what he's said privately. As per our previous comments, when a founder violates our ethics statement, we remove them from the com…

You can see Andrew's tweet here: http://imgur.com/a/vnbvT

Note that he did not simply tweet the words "Build the wall." That's not what happened. What he did is he screenshotted another YC founder's private facebook wall post, in which she says she is scared for her safety. And he publicly tweeted her words while adding "Build the wall" as mocking commentary.

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#66
post #51
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like it, I Googled him to get a better understanding and several prominent links were Breitbart articles about other posts of his that were removed from Twitter and Facebook. Looks like a lot of it is just drumming up support for his completely free speech Twitter clone.

Also, not really 'completely free speech' either. From the Breitbart article: > a zero tolerance policy for promoting terrorism Everyone has their own version of acceptable free speech. Him using 'free speech' as his tagline and yet having restrictions is hypocritical.

That'd be the US government's version of acceptable free speech. You can't just start a legit business with VC backing that allows terrorism and child pornography. And it gets more and more expensive to run the service the closer to the line you allow.

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#67
post #7

From the screenshot he himself provided [1], it looks like he was confronted about making people at YC feel unsafe, and responded by saying they "shouldn't be on the internet". Contrarian views are one thing. Addressing the people who fund your company like a belligerent troll is another. You're entitled to free speech, you're not entitled to a captive ear to hear it. [1] http://i.imgur.com/ReFx2Mr.png

He edited the screenshot to exclude the specific concern that kicked this off.

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#68
post #7

From the screenshot he himself provided [1], it looks like he was confronted about making people at YC feel unsafe, and responded by saying they "shouldn't be on the internet". Contrarian views are one thing. Addressing the people who fund your company like a belligerent troll is another. You're entitled to free speech, you're not entitled to a captive ear to hear it. [1] http://i.imgur.com/ReFx2Mr.png

"feel unsafe" has been more subjective and ridiculous than ever.

... you say with absolutely no evidence, based on a truncated screenshot of a public Facebook feed.

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#69
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look into why Charles Johnson was banned. They took a statement he made that obviously meant "I am going to write a news story about this person that will be very bad for them" and tortured it into a death threat, and banned him for life. There is literally no defense of this because it was so obviously a bad-faith interpretation, and yet other people have very obviously put people in actual danger, like Spike Jones…

1) Interesting that you mention doxxing in the context of Chuck Johnson, since when he was banned for his tweet about Deray, he had already posted home addresses of two NYTimes reporters. That both a) indicates that he was a bad actor, and b) colors how you might interpret comments about "taking out" someone. It doesn't turn it into a threat of violence, but it does make it look a lot more like using Twitter to organ…

McKesson chose to interpret it as an open death threat, it obviously wasn't but nobody was going to call him on it, and it got Johnson booted off Twitter. I see your point, but that wasn't how McKesson and his fans used it.

Regarding the Spike Lee thing, I'd say he got a pass because he's a celebrity, but who knows. This is kind of my point. You have to piece together pattern out of Johnson's activity on and off Twitter to decide that maybe he was trying to get deray killed by paying people for his home address. On the other hand spike lee directly tweeted "here's george zimmerman's address, share this as much as you can" and nothing happened to him at all. Twitter was aware of it, because many, many people made them aware of it, and they pay special attention to their celebrity accounts. it didn't happen off twitter, it happened on twitter. and it wasn't tangential to some other threat, it was a direct threat. on twitter. tons of people reported it. I just can't hurdle this one. they let it happen and they didn't care.

the commonality across these is that in the best circumstances you're probably a scummy person if you do that, Johnson or Lee, but it's extra terrible when people just tweet addressed with death exhortations and they didn't even know or care if it was correct info. johnson was pretty scummy but his point was made, if you're the new york times nobody seriously is going to hold you to that. if you're spike lee, nobody is seriously going to hold you to that. if you're charles johnson, you're booted off twitter, lose your internet hosting and two dozen newspapers write stories about you.

2. it's not actually that vague, you could take what I said and watch and see if you can observe it. I gave you enough information if you were truly interested. You're not obligated to believe me or do it, of course, I was just sharing my experience. I kind of have a problem proving this is intentional, because I don't run twitter. i used to live close by what I suspected was a crack house once, people were always coming and going, and doing crack outside. Maybe the police could prove it, I can't. but I can tell you what I saw.

You are very correct that it's hard to tell what is intentional and what is not on the part of twitter. I see a lot of bogus claims of shadowbanning where it's really just that twitter is eventually-consistent, and sometimes you try to look at data from one location and its there, someone in another country can see it, though. Roach-motel hashtags, some are more obvious than others, and some are just legitimate misspellings that catch on because that's what everybody types. Example, for a while podestaleaks was autocompleting as podestraleaks. On the other hand, SpiritCooking trended for almost 24 hours before it stopped autocompleting and was replaced with spiritualcooking, which roach-moteled you into ancient sparse tweets about cooking. I can't prove anything, but come on. As far as straight up suppressing trending tweets, it's not even arguable. things trend, then abruptly stop autocompleting and drop off the site globally. they already do this to prevent spam, and it's obvious they do it to shut up some hashtags.

3. Have we not yet gotten to the point where that odious xkcd cartoon has been thoroughly debunked? Freedom of speech goes far beyond being a simple ban on things you can or cannot say or else you will be punished by some authority.

I am sorry if this is long and rambling, I wanted to say what I've been seeing because I am not the only one who has made these observations, and this is a particularly good place I could say it and people with more ability than me to investigate this might see it.

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#70
post #7

From the screenshot he himself provided [1], it looks like he was confronted about making people at YC feel unsafe, and responded by saying they "shouldn't be on the internet". Contrarian views are one thing. Addressing the people who fund your company like a belligerent troll is another. You're entitled to free speech, you're not entitled to a captive ear to hear it. [1] http://i.imgur.com/ReFx2Mr.png

"feel unsafe" has been more subjective and ridiculous than ever.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN