Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 565 posts

Re: Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

#121

Post by holtalanm »

komali2 wrote: post #79
lylecubed wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A common argument in philosophy is that bad ideas should occur in the open - where everyone may ridicule them. Not to get too far off topic, but is this actually true in practice in the real world? Scientific studies have shown that the idea that gets repeated the most often is the idea that "wins". A bad idea gets repeated and spread every time it gets criticized. If the idea proves more "credible" than the critic…

I would like to know this as well. Case in point, when I was a kindergarten teacher, kids wouldn't have a concept of race. I'd have white girls asking me if I could put their hair in braids like "the tan girls." But by 4th grade I'd be teaching about slavery, racism, etc, and the kids would be then learning about a concept that was utterly nonsensical to the non-racism-indoctrinated kids. So I'm wondering what would…

Unfortunately, a lot of racism is picked up at home.

Re: Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

#122

Post by zamalek »

hartator wrote: post #19

Little's posts on Gab are awful, and Microsoft is in his rights to refuse service to anyone. However they don't have the capacity to do a fair manual triage of all the services they are hosting, and they should avoid doing it until legally constrained.

> Little’s posts had advocated for physically harming Jews.

Fighting words are not covered by the first amendment according to the established supreme court interpretation. Regardless of your views on freedom of speech, it is not in any way relevant to the posts in question. The court would certainly uphold Microsoft's decision to step in.

Re: Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

#123

Post by lylecubed »

coldtea wrote: post #108
will_dev_4_food wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say it’s like this one way but not the other, you have conceded to relativism. You have basically said there is a time and place for stealing someone’s wallet, and that acting as a moral agent in society can be suspended under the right conditions.

Is that a valid argument though? Of course things should be judged on a case by case basis, and not on dogmatic one size fits all rules. Even courts take context into account for the same action (e.g. whether a murder was in cold blood or premeditated, whether someone stole because they were hungry or just greedy, etc). And, yes, "there is a time and place for stealing someone’s wallet", as well.

But it's equally illegal to kill anybody based on race, class, political belief or religious belief.

Re: Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

#124

Post by zokier »

Nadya wrote: post #31

A common argument in philosophy is that bad ideas should occur in the open - where everyone may ridicule them. When they are cast to the shadows they can grow, under everyone's noses, in private where only there are they allowed to exist. In private, these bad ideas cannot be challenged by others and people will be convinced to believe in them, with nobody challenging the idea as a genuinely terrible idea. It gives b…

> A common argument in philosophy is that bad ideas should occur in the open - where everyone may ridicule them

Problem is that on internet there is no open commons where the bad ideas can occur; instead they occur generally always on someones service on some level. This leads to the conflicting freedoms of the service providers and their clients.

Re: Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

#125

Post by DanAndersen »

gamblor956 wrote: post #36
cm2187 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And like for everything else, first a precedent is created with an indefensible case of terrorism/pedophilia/neo-nazism, then the rule gets progressively applied more broadly.

Or, in the real world, cases like these actually reinforce the applicability of legal rights. Because in the real world, judges are able to protect the rights of pedophiles and neo-nazis while also upholding the laws against child pornography and hate crimes. In fact, a fair number of modern legal rights were established in cases involving fairly heinous defendants. For example: in recent decades, a lot of non-politi…

The main difference we are seeing in this new world of large tech companies is that the role of the "judge" is diminished. Groups figure out the fine lines on which to make judgment, but only as a matter of internal company policy, behind closed doors, which none of us get to have a say in or even read the guidelines.

When a judge sentences you to prison, you know pretty well exactly what sentence of which law was the one that did it. When deplatformed from these private-but-ever-growing services, vague "ToS violations" is the best you get. Very easy for "rule of law" to become "rule of man."

Re: Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

#126

Post by tinalumfoil »

braythwayt wrote: post #82
Nadya wrote: post #31

A common argument in philosophy is that bad ideas should occur in the open - where everyone may ridicule them. When they are cast to the shadows they can grow, under everyone's noses, in private where only there are they allowed to exist. In private, these bad ideas cannot be challenged by others and people will be convinced to believe in them, with nobody challenging the idea as a genuinely terrible idea. It gives b…

That argument works well in relatively small social groups where people generally can be relied upon to act in good faith, and where there are social disincentives to clinging to bad ideas after they have been refuted. When you have a small group with social bonds, you don't have to worry about a bad actor constantly repeating their already-refuted arguments to people who haven't heard the refutation. But when you ha…

People are better off hearing a bad idea and hearing it refuted then never hearing a bad idea. You could say, "well then detractors of the idea will have to keep refuting it" and you'd be right. That's how public forums work, and I hope you don't take everything your parent's believed for granted just because their detractors have already been "refuted".

Re: Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

#127

Post by dragonwriter »

DanAndersen wrote: post #115
dragonwriter wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do/did ISPs have to deal with net neutrality while large hosting companies and registrars get free reign? Because ISPs are, because of infrastructure (access to and across property, or access to scarce spectrum) requirements, naturally sharply limited, but anyone who connects to an ISP can host content.

Anyone with a server can host content in a technical sense, but can it ever scale without playing ideologically with the big players? One tactic for deplatforming undesirable sites is a DDoS -- if you put your home server online, what options do you have for DDoS mitigation if the big players in that space decide they're on the political side of those doing the DDoS?

> Anyone with a server can host content in a technical sense, but can it ever scale without playing ideologically with the big players?

For a wide reach via the press, you may need to either buy more (or higher capacity) presses or convince those who already have then of the value of devoting them to your ideas.

That's inherent in freedom of the press and the marketplace of ideas.

You aren't entitled to someone else's platform.

Re: Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

#128

Post by devmunchies »

int_19h wrote: post #116
devmunchies wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its the last recourse for the alt-right because other platforms censor them. I'm sure if you posted far-left stuff on there it wouldn't be censored either, but there is no point because most social media platforms don't censor far-left thoughts anyway.

> most social media platforms don't censor far-left thoughts anyway. They do, though. https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/09/google-censors-block...

google results are a social media platform?

And i said "most".

Re: Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

#129

Post by drb91 »

braythwayt wrote: post #82
Nadya wrote: post #31

A common argument in philosophy is that bad ideas should occur in the open - where everyone may ridicule them. When they are cast to the shadows they can grow, under everyone's noses, in private where only there are they allowed to exist. In private, these bad ideas cannot be challenged by others and people will be convinced to believe in them, with nobody challenging the idea as a genuinely terrible idea. It gives b…

That argument works well in relatively small social groups where people generally can be relied upon to act in good faith, and where there are social disincentives to clinging to bad ideas after they have been refuted. When you have a small group with social bonds, you don't have to worry about a bad actor constantly repeating their already-refuted arguments to people who haven't heard the refutation. But when you ha…

> But when you have the whole internet as your audience, no matter how many times you are refuted, you can say it again and a whole group of people will be hearing it for the first time.

Why is that a problem? You can't force people to believe in reality. Might as well have this process happen in the open to actually provide a disincentive to believing conspiracy theories/propaganda/ads/fake news/whatever.

Hell, I'll go as far to say that controversial/commonly mis believed concepts are the most worth discussing in a public forum. For instance, consider white supremacy: if you give people a choice between social groups and make them feel welcome, they can use simple, self-serving logic to join the one that meets their needs. White supremacy doesn't help white people, rationally, it's just stupid, except for very convoluted goals. See: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/podcasts/the-daily-transc...

If you don't enable conversations between white supremacists and anti-racists, there is no real choice--they'll gravitate the group where they're accepted.

Re: Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

#130

Post by moomin »

koube wrote: post #95
lylecubed wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A common argument in philosophy is that bad ideas should occur in the open - where everyone may ridicule them. Not to get too far off topic, but is this actually true in practice in the real world? Scientific studies have shown that the idea that gets repeated the most often is the idea that "wins". A bad idea gets repeated and spread every time it gets criticized. If the idea proves more "credible" than the critic…

This called the Rebound effect[0]. There is a Debunking Handbook[1] for dealing with this phenomenon. There is also the idea that a lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes, which spurred /r/AskHistorians to ban holocaust denial[2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect [1] https://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf [2] https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/the-…

Now figure out how debunking works when the guy putting out hate speech can block at will and/or controls the website.
Post reply on HN