Alt-social network Gab booted from Google Play Store for hate speech

How do you boycott your power company? There aren't a lot of options...

(p.s. thanks for the civil discussion).

I am just asking the question, if all businesses choose to not be public forums (as in their right, which I do not dispute), is that good for society? Some would argue that all Internet platforms deciding to regulate speech is a positive because it removes hate speech, for example. I would argue that it is not good because it eliminates public spaces.

The key thing about the public square is interaction with the public. If all that people wanted was free speech they would just go shout in the woods. And the Internet is becoming that. The liberals will shout with the liberals and the conservatives with the conservatives.

Again anyone can create their own website, nothing is limiting the exercise of their protected speech and if the speech wins in the marketplace of ideas nothing can stop it, and history has shown when speech has won in the marketplace of ideas the people who try to stop it only magnify it. Showing my age a little but look the show Married with Children, it was going to be cancelled until the politicians tried to take it off the air and then it became a hit, or when politicians tried to ban 2 Live Crew's album and they went to the Supreme Court and won, it only promoted the album/speech more. If you have a good enough idea you publish on your own website, that simultaneously all the existing platforms prohibit they are likely going to be doing you a favor in terms of promotion of your idea and your platform(website), but if its a idea that fails in the marketplace of ideas don't expect much one way or another.

As to the idea about shouting in the woods, that highlights my point just as much as yours. At some point Facebook.com was just empty woods, they bought it and made it what it is, it was never a public space, in fact in the beginning it was more restrictive limiting the people who could join to people with .edu email addresses, meaning at one point Facebook's platform was less public than it is today. And if they turned the switch back tomorrow, my opinion would be that it wouldn't be a loss of a public space because it never was a public space, it would still admittedly be a loss of some kind.

Moreover, I am just not sure these internet platforms have the ability to eliminate public spaces because they were not and never have been public spaces. Nothing, about these platforms ever guaranteed an audience for anyone's speech, in fact they are all subject to disappearing tomorrow due to competition or simply going out of business. Also, I see many alternatives to publishing speech on the internet, admittedly it may be about the same as shouting in empty woods but again even facebook at onetime was empty woods and still may as well be for many content publishers.

The issues dividing society right now can be discussed on HN where relevant, but not like this. Comments here need to become more civil and substantive, not less, as the topic becomes more divisive. When accounts flout this rule to the point of arson, we ban them.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042316 and marked it off-topic.

Bollocks. This is the case in quite a few countries but America is an exception to this rule. Let me explain why: In America, contrary to many other countries the accused has his mug shot, full name, house address and plenty of other details including conversation with his neighbors and his grade school teacher paraded in the media some times even before they've been properly charged.

When Hans Reiser was accused of the murder of his wife I was one of very few people on HN asking for people to hold back their judgment until the facts were in and until he was declared guilty (which eventually happened).

One reason for this is that there was at that point in time no evidence at all that he had actually committed that crime, all there was was a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence.

Now, if there had been a home video of Reiser killing his wife on youtube then that would have held me back from making that comment, even if for legal purposes the judge would still have had to go through the whole 'presumed innocent' routine the facts would have proven to me that he would be found guilty with a likelihood close enough to certainty that advocating his innocence until proven guilty would border on the grotesque.

So, if you want to take a stand here and advocate that this person, who used his car to attempt to murder dozens and who successfully murdered at least one person and who is on the record as being a supporter of a group of people which has made no bones about their willingness to do violence and of who we have some pretty good video of him doing that particular deed of which he stands accused them I'm fine wit h that, that's your right. In the meantime the accused has his name plastered all over the media and he's going to have a hard time even finding a jury that is not already roughly where I am: that if he's going to plead 'not guilty' he's going to have to pull an outside size rabbit out of his hat.

FWIW and if you haven't seen it yet, go watch the video footage (which to me is some pretty strong proof) of this persons actions and then come back here and argue their innocence.

And if you are really so concerned about the rights of the accused put in a cent or two towards protecting their privacy in the media until they've been found guilty, you know, like countries do that really care about protection of the individual against the tyranny of the mob.