Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed • Hacker News Board

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

#321

Post by pvg » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 2:07 AM UTC

colllectorof wrote: post #267

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

Are there known instances of Gab removing left-leaning content, or content speaking against white nationalists? That is the only relevant metric here. Tweets from their official account have nothing to do with it.

A metric for what? It's obviously not a sensible or relevant metric for 'is Gab a white nationalist platform'.

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

#322

Post by inevitable2 » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 2:12 AM UTC

bitwize wrote: post #185

inevitable2 wrote: post #44

"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -John Gilmore Lately this is getting absurd. I believe this quote is still true, but the amount of 'I don't like what is being said so therefore you should be silenced' is going too far. I don't agree with what this guy said (or even know who he is aside from what was said in the article), but I'm alarmed that Microsoft would go after Gab for a user on G…

Lately we're sort of learning that absolute freedom to express any opinion you like is kind of a bad idea, especially at web scale. The example of Germany, which is freer and more democratic than the USA despite having strict laws forbidding expressing any sort of Nazi-like opinion, supports this.

I disagree. I would rather live with the freedom to express myself, be who am I, believe what I want, speak my mind and deal with consequences of it than deal with suppression and censorship. In the US its not that we're learning this is a bad idea granted I will say it is under attack. Its more that some people can't accept that people might just be different or have different thoughts than them and would rather say its a bad idea (easy way) than to engage them in conversation or accept that we're all individuals with different thoughts and backgrounds (hard way) or that being offended shouldn't be allowed.

Germany is not freer. They do not have Freedom of speech close in terms to the US. One easy example is Section 185 of Germany's criminal code which you can be punished for insults. Section 90 is also interesting and I bet people would dislike that one if we had that currently in the US. If you see those as freeer by all means have it in Germany. I'll stick with the 1st amendment.

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

#323

Post by foxylad » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 2:12 AM UTC

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #300

moomin wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are an infinite number of bad ideas in the world. No-one’s life would be improved by hearing them all.

Maybe not. But is one’s life diminished by hearing bad ideas? I don’t think so. For instance, the idea that the Earth is flat is laughable. But my life doesn’t deteriorate nor improve based on that idea. We can all agree it’s a stupid idea, laugh at it, and move on.

Bad ideas certainly can diminish quality of life. Firstly because we can't all agree that they are stupid and move on - the flat earth trolls are actually gaining momentum, and we've been re-litigating creationism for over a hundred years. This re-arguing ties up an enormous amount of energy that we could spend far more productively.

And secondly, when the masses weary of arguing nonsense ideas, there is a danger of them becoming acceptable. If we all stop arguing when the trolls repeat yet again that jews/immigrants/women/gays are sub-human and should be removed, some people will take that silence as assent and the violence begins.

So what we need is some kind of snopes for ideas, where our brightest and best could weigh good and bad ideas, and the rest of us could just point to their results. But wait - that's what a university* is! And it's no coincidence that the trolls direct their fiercest fury at academics.

*Trump University excepted.

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

#324

Post by buth_lika » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 2:17 AM UTC

api wrote: post #259

untog wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel as though the "sunlight is the best disinfectant" argument has taken a beating in recent times, and it's not difficult to see why. Take the example of QAnon. It's a movement based around utter nonsense conspiracy theory. It is debunked on a daily basis. It still has a lot of followers. Compare to Milo Yiannopoulos. I remember around the time his social media accounts were banned that people said doing so was p…

I feel like there's an elephant in the living room nobody is seeing, and that's general loss of trust in our institutions. These kinds of ideas have more traction today than they did 20, 50, or 100 years ago because people trust their government and their public institutions less today than they did back then. IMHO a certain amount of this calling for censorship is people from those self-same institutions refusing to…

Trust isn't even that hard to earn (though it takes time), but insofar as one depends on intellectual sloppyness or even outright dishonesty for "legitimate" aims" (just think marketing, elections, etc.), then you cannpot attack those fallacious methods as such in those that use them for much nastier things. All that's left then is squabbling about those ends while leaving the means out of the frame, which leads nowhwere.

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

#325

Post by 1123581321 » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 2:20 AM UTC

patrickg_zill wrote: post #316

partiallypro wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think they may have meant that the conspiracy theory that an interconnected federal government planned Ruby Ridge and Waco, and planned more such incidents, led to the OKC bombing. What the government did was wrong and arguably it was systemically predisposed to do wrong in situations like that. But it wasn’t planning more such actions, the OKC bombing wasn’t connected (I think), and even if so the belief that bombing, rather than protests, court cases and elections, was the right thing to do, was delusional.

But if I’m wrong and they think that it’s a conspiracy theory to think those situations were mishandled or shouldn’t have been instigated, then thank you for bringing up the facts; we shouldn’t be credulous and assume US Marshall and ATF agents are competent or just because we saw them on TV.

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

#326

Post by darpa_escapee » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 2:21 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #117

ilove_banh_mi wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think of a bakery refusing to make a wedding cake for people they disapprove of?

This is a poor point of comparison, since baking the cake doesn't put anyone at risk, whereas an exhortation to commit violence against specific people does.

It's also a poor point because being gay isn't a choice and choosing to post neo-Nazi rhetoric is.

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

#327

Post by jazzyjackson » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 2:22 AM UTC

reader5000 wrote: post #303

true_religion wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hatred simply feels good. Unless you are saying that is something defensible or praiseworthy, then I am not sure where you are going with this thread of thought.

Who gets to determine what is "hatred"? The natural upvote/downvote economy of the internet or a self-appointed anonymous class of bigtech mass-censors? When you go on the internet would you prefer to see reality or an artificial selection of on-canon content pre-approved by the priest-media class as in the age of television? In many ways it doesn't matter because infotech decentralization will slowly find a way, and…

Whoa there buddy, there's other options for moderation besides media-priests || free market.

How about we just let the people who own the machines decide what data sits on their machines?

So I agree, decentralization will allow some communities to be total free market reddits and chans where anything goes, and I expect them to be very unpleasant places to hang out for some and not others.

I'll be over here in my private community where Microsoft can't read my discussions and anyone whining about the priest-media will be booted.

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

#328

Post by deficiencyresou » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 2:30 AM UTC

che_shirecat wrote: post #171

CommieBobDole wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been my position as well for a long time, but I'm starting to feel like there's an unexpectedly enormous number of people out there with zero ability to critically evaluate information, and it seems as if all a terrible idea needs in order to gain critical mass is that it be emotionally satisfying and generally known. I honestly don't know where we go from here - I continue to believe that giving the state t…

The alt-right playbook ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM ) is a great summary of common experiences with this sort of cancer online. It's next to impossible to engage with these people for rational debate, when all they care about is spreading their hatred and ignorance through the virality of the internet, rendering pointless any civil discussion by arguing in bad faith.

Bullshit! You people ban us from everywhere and try to get us fired for the opinions we hold. It's impossible to communicate with you people because you have a monopoly on what speech people are allowed to make, and you won't let our side be heard. If you want an open dialog, you can start by arguing for our ability to speak freely, otherwise you have absolutely no business complaining about how hard it is to have a civil discussion with us.

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

#329

Post by buth_lika » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 2:30 AM UTC

lylecubed wrote: post #63

CommieBobDole wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been my position as well for a long time, but I'm starting to feel like there's an unexpectedly enormous number of people out there with zero ability to critically evaluate information, and it seems as if all a terrible idea needs in order to gain critical mass is that it be emotionally satisfying and generally known. I honestly don't know where we go from here - I continue to believe that giving the state t…

> I'm starting to feel like there's an unexpectedly enormous number of people out there with zero ability to critically evaluate information, and it seems as if all a terrible idea needs in order to gain critical mass is that it be emotionally satisfying and generally known. Aristotle observed this in the 4th century BC. He wrote about it in his book Rhetoric . This is by no means a new development.

It's not in a vacuum though, other things multiply it. Radio was a phase shift and an important factor in enabling fascism along with industrialization. You can say WW2 and the Holocaust wasn't anything new because there's always been war and murder, but that's like saying a glass of water and the ocean are the same.

Now we moving towards automated analysis and manipulation of billions of people in real time, combined with incredible means to observe and control, not to even talk of weapon systems; and an astonishing obedience or naivity about it on behalf of the subjects.

"This is not new" is no excuse and of no help. You could say this about almost anything... as if we only get a chance to be critical of something and express that criticism (which is the first state of organizing change) the first time something "happens".

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

#330

Post by Forge36 » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 2:32 AM UTC

rainbowmverse wrote: post #198

Forge36 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you source that? Otherwise I can't tell if I'm arguing with you, your source, or a straw man.

No one asked for a citation on the widespread claim that exposing bad ideas to the light makes them go away, or at least decline in popularity. It's stated and taken as truth, but no one provided proof that it's true. I matched the standard of evidence applied to the original claim. It might be wise to actually investigate that bit of "common sense" before betting the future of the world on people's ability to deal w…

I didn't ask for sources on those because they looked believable. Worse, I hadn't seen support for banning until your post. You were the bastion for discussion supporting Microsoft's pressure on Gab. I want to believe your critique and take your side (it's a very popular one online). The article (unless I missed this) wasn't making either claim as superior, it was reporting the news. While many people discount evidence, I hoped to have a starting point for research and looked for support of banning from you. I thought you may be able to provide me sources to guide me towards your way of thinking. You didn't and self justified by fighting the straw man you built. I'd like to believe you, however your argument is self defeating.

Instead it feels like you've belittled me for not already taking your side. You're withholding the research you have and I'm supposed to trust you based on this discussion? How?

I tried to do research, What I found: 1) I don't know thy right search terms to find articles advocating banning users to solve the problem.

2) Articles discussing the problems of a lack of formal research: http://gwdspace.wrlc.org:8180/jspui/bitstream/1961/8566/4/A4...

A defense of exposing behaviors as a means of change: https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.j...

What I've gleamed: 1) A policy of open communication is useful in groups 2) Exposing problems can lead to meaningful change 3) Open communication in a company can help build a powerful culture

As this pertains to online forms: nothing it it's taking about discussion. Abd I failed to locate good articles on that subject.

Researching Gab: the posts from Gab was immediately followed by a funding request. Users pointing out how it appears to be "Twitter for racists" add (cherry picked) posts highlighting the advocation of destruction if Jewish memorials (and enslavement of the Jewish people).

To comment on the article: this appears to be shining the sun on what appears a racist bastion advocating violence. (I might be wrong. Gab didn't remove the posts, the user did) Or to rephrase Microsoft's threat as I'm seeing it: if [Gab] does not remove a post [advocating violence] , Gab must seek hosting on another platform.

So which strategy worked? Ban or exposure? For Microsoft? For Gab? For the user?

I don't know that the answer is the same for each group. I suspect given the article, exposure pushed Microsoft to push for a ban. A ban pressured the user, by thinking their platform. So where does Gab stand?