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

311–320 of 565 posts

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

#311

Post by ironjunkie »

We are living in a new century of censorship. BigTech companies have become so big, that they are the one deciding what to allow or not allow based on some weird guidelines ("Hate speech" means everything and nothing). It became extremely difficult to put an opinion out there and not relying to at least one of them at some level.

This weird censorship is perfectly legal since it's coming from private entities. What really annoys me is that it's always the same side that is "censored". All the FAANG//MAGA being extremely left leaning.

There is going to be a backslash. It is mounting, and people start to realize.

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

#312

Post by Ajedi32 »

millzlane wrote: post #118
CM30 wrote: post #86

This sort of thing illustrates the biggest issue with web hosting, domain registrars and the internet's infrastructure in general; everything is privately owned by companies who get unlimited rights to decide who and what they want to host. The solution is to require all hosting and domain companies to act as utilities, and require neutrality in regards to any content that's legal. They're not private forums or homes…

Are people still able to download a web server and host their own content? What does anyone need a host for? If a bunch of angry racists want to start their own social network, they could build it, if they really wanted a place to spew their hate. Is anyone really stopping them from connecting to the internet?

Could they? Couldn't an ISP decide they don't want to serve that hateful content over their pipes and disconnect them? Or what if the domain name registrar decides they don't want to do business with an angry racist? Or what if an upstream backbone provider decides they could get some good PR by blackholing their IP?

These days, private companies have a _lot_ of power over what speech is allowed to be heard. Perhaps even more so than the government.

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

#313

Post by rainonmoon »

Nadya wrote: post #285
rainonmoon wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's disappointing this even needs to be pointed out, that simply existing while gay is not the same thing as proliferating hate speech.

I'm LGBT and this is exactly why I make such a fuss about selective censorship every time it comes up. Everyone always assumes it will only be done for things "they agree" with and never flips the coin over. They see it as justified, but only when it agrees with their morals because anything that doesn't agree with their morals is "obviously wrong" and "doesn't need to be pointed out what the difference is". That dif…

Thank you for contributing your perspective. I hear you. I don't have an easy answer; I can see the pendulum swinging the other way too, and I do worry about the precedent we might be setting. And I am thankful to live in a country that's (relatively) civil regarding LGBT freedoms.

But to return to the cake comparison: as an LGBT person as well, I still get screamed at on the street and harassed in public. Two nights ago I was walking with my same-sex partner and was followed down the street by a guy muttering, and then shouting, about "faggots" etc. He started catching up to us and we turned around, and he grabbed my partner by the neck, and we had to fight him off. But let's disregard the assault for a second and say he just followed us for a while, intimidating us, but technically within the confines of the law. Wouldn't you agree one side of this deserves to be stopped? To be silenced? I think it's an overly broad generalisation to say "Everyone always assumes it'll only work in their favour." I'm saying right here: I know that's not the case. But by the same token, trying to apply objective metrics to freedom of speech just as quickly justifies "I'm free to disagree with the way LGBT people live their lives" as much as "I'm free to walk in public without being afraid of assault." It's more nuanced than that. It isn't free or not-free. And I'd argue it's worth some people giving up certain freedoms (the freedom to denigrate other people based on their sexuality, for example) so others can increase theirs (like the freedom to walk in public without fear.)

So I'm glad I can get my cake, but if it means we're expected to shut up because we're afraid someone's going to roundhouse kick that cake out of our hands as soon as we walk out of the shop, that speech doesn't seem exceptionally free.

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

#314

Post by im3w1l »

gamblor956 wrote: post #43
kodablah wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wait to see what will be next on the chopping block. I wish we didn't have to wait. I wish there was a large enough group of people that would boycott companies that make up the internet infrastructure (e.g. ISPs, registrars, DNS, CDNs, cloud providers, etc) for censoring lawful content. I wish we didn't require mass media articles to get groups of consumers to act in a common interest. And I would prefer it was…

There was no government involvement in this. Microsoft made a business decision that hosting Gab would subject them to business pressures from other customers/potential customers not wanting to use a service used by hatemongers. That's not censorship. That's the free market at work. Gab is free to host their own website; and if necessary their own DNS servers. Hell, they're free to go Tor-only.

Why do you say that? EU governments are regularly complaining about hate speech and this will win Microsoft their favor.

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

#315

Post by anigbrowl »

Covzire wrote: post #260
gamblor956 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A website ban isn't even remotely the same thing as a legal sanction. If you want to control the platform, create your own. You'll need the hardware and the software, and it could get expensive. But if you want to spread hate speech or libel, suck up the cost. If you want to be on someone else's platform you accept the restrictions of using that platform. Hate speech is on the list of almost every major platform (exc…

As someone else pointed out, what if they go after your DNS registrar? Your SSL certificate provider? Where will it end? De platforming people who spew vile (but legal) speech isn't good for society and it's contrary to the spirit of the first amendment.

Well it ends with (generic) you running a hidden service on TOR that only committed misanthropes are willing to participate in on a regular basis, and looking over your shoulder in public a lot.

De platforming people who spew vile (but legal) speech isn't good for society

On the contrary, I think it's very good for the same reason I would want to drain an abscess or excise a tumor. The vile speech that you mention isn't harmless, and the people targeted by vile speech are part of society. What benefit is achieved that exceeds the costs imposed upon them?

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

#316

Post by patrickg_zill »

partiallypro wrote: post #141
acdha wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Note that most of these existed well before the internet and were just as widespread. Do you have a citation for that? It seems unlikely that the Internet didn’t increase the reach for fringe views by making them available to everyone rather than just the few who requested conspiracy materials by mail.

Are you really suggesting that conspiracy theories such as JFK, Roswell, Area 51, Antivaccine/"mark of the beast," Moonlanding, Big Foot etc weren't already in popular culture before the internet was popularized? Because, in fact, many of them spread because there was no wide usage of the internet (Roswell, probably being the #1.) It helps create lore. Even X-Files, a show that I adore, was really pre-popularized int…

re: "Think of Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. Those conspiracy theories led to the Oklahoma City bombing"

What part of the admitted shooting of Vicki Weaver while holding an infant in her hands, and of 1 of Randy Weaver's under-18 sons, by FBI snipers; and the use of explosive/flammable igniters to disperse "CS gas", a form of tear gas, used against people inside wooden buildings in Waco [2], are conspiracy theories?

Even the US Gov't admits to the basic facts of both situations...?

[1] http://www.cnn.com/US/9510/ruby_ridge/ [2] http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/24/fbi.waco/

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

#317

Post by anigbrowl »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #252
tptacek wrote: post #146

Having read the article but not knowing anything about the posts themselves, I think most of this thread misses the point. Clearly Microsoft knew it was hosting Gab and what Gab was. There's a troll argument that suggests Gab is just "free speech twitter", but of course that's not the case: I've been screenshotting the front page for months, from a random anonymous account, and every time I've done it the front page…

The original story, is apparently not available at this link, but the footer, also written by Andrew Torba, owner of Gab.ai , is available: https://medium.com/@Torbahax/this-is-a-joke-and-it-is-fake-n... partial quote: " Gab is absolutely not a “white nationalist social media platform.” We are a free speech social media platform. We welcome everyone and have since the day we launched. My co-founder Ekrem is a Muslim…

Exodus 8:2-7 alludes to an ultimatum threatening to inflict a plague of frogs on Egypt. Because when I want to demonstrate my love of freedom and inclusivity, the first thing I think of is calling down plagues on my enemies.

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

#318

Post by kodablah »

rainonmoon wrote: post #197
kodablah wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was no government involvement in this I know that, I am clearly saying I don't want it for any consumer-led efforts. > That's not censorship Did you mean to say it's not government censorship or do we just have different definitions of the word? Whether they can host their own site or whatever has absolutely nothing to do with what is and isn't censorship.

If I own a nightclub and it becomes a hotspot for the alt-right, who don't align with my values, and I close down that nightclub for that reason, am I censoring them? No, I'm excluding them from my privately-owned space and refusing to associate with them. Nobody's right is being infringed upon here; they're free to go to any other bar. "Whether they can host their own site" is absolutely relevant to what is and isn'…

> am I censoring them

Yup

> Nobody's right is being infringed upon here

Of course not, who said otherwise? I just disagree wth the decision taken.

> absolutely relevant to what is and isn't censorship

You don't get to make up your own definition of the word. That someone blocks the speech is censorship, by definition, regardless of whether you can say it elsewhere and regardless of what you might want the definition of the word to be. I'm not going to condescendingly paste the definition here, but it's very clear Microsoft is engaged in censorship here.

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

#319

Post by zerealshadowban »

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…

Has Microsoft identified similar posts on Gab in the past, and requested/obtained their removal -- or else? (is Gab acting as a sudden victim?)

If not, how is that possible -- since Gab was created to explicitly tolerate pretty much any kind of barely-legal speech under pressure in Twitter? are we to believe that this style of expression is completely new to Gab? (or did Microsoft just now notice?)

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

#320

Post by MajesticHobo2 »

manfredo wrote: post #297
tptacek wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting thing for him to say, because Gab is absolutely and obviously a white nationalist social media platform. Want another example? Arguing with Ken White (Popehat) on Twitter, the official Gab account RT'd a white nationalist mocking Ken for having adopted Asian children. https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1026849669425520640

I think it's important to distinguish between platforms that host content of a given topic, and platforms that are specifically set up for a certain topic. For example, Reddit has /r/motorcycles, but I wouldn't call it "a motorcycling discussion platform". I'd call advrider.com or bayarearidersforum.com motorcycle discussion platforms. They're websites specifically set up for motorcycling related discussion. A websit…

Are you just going to ignore the fact that the official Twitter account for Gab actively promotes white supremacist talking points? It only takes about 30 seconds of scrolling through their feed to see this.
Post reply on HN