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

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

#331

Post by autoexec » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 2:36 AM UTC

jackvalentine wrote: post #298

autoexec wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people in those dark places the ones you have to worry about. Most people don't hold dangerously wrong ideologies like neo-nazis do. What amount of rhetoric or marches or speeches would convince you to be a nazi? If you are like most people no amount ever would. The most vulnerable out there are the ones who find themselves isolated. Those who end up in the dark places or are simply raised in them from childhood.…

Nazis in dark spaces have always existed - their modern grasp of distribution on internet platforms is what has changed. For years stormfront was a well known butt of jokes about racists, but it existed. What has changed is nazis have started using the new distributive platforms (youtube, facebook, twitter etc) to spread their word outside of the dark space. All we need to do, is deny them that distribution. Motivate…

How many videos would you need to watch on youtube before it turned you into a nazi? The people watching those videos are already true believers, or they are researchers, police, and others concerned about what racists are saying, how many of them there are, how they operate, etc. It's invaluable to have ready access to what they're up to. Access that would be lost if they were forced into their own closed circles away from public view.

Now someday one of the racists on youtube might see a reaction video in the sidebar and they click it expecting "librul tears" but end up leaving with something to think about. Youtube videos aren't usually how racists find reform, but every little thing that chips away at the lies they've been told helps. If they were forced to watch their racist videos on a racist only video site they'd never have a chance to see anything else.

In every last story of a racist who changed I've ever heard, the thing that turned things around for them was something breaking through that racist's echo chamber. Forcing racists further into their own isolated groups is the opposite of fighting racism.

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

#332

Post by zaroth » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 2:40 AM UTC

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…

Just for kicks made an account and the front page currently looks like this for me;

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

#333

Post by anigbrowl » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 2:45 AM UTC

pandasun wrote: post #216

charonn0 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, his "political views" are a call for violence.

Interesting, you see I see calls of violence on Twitter all the time but their hosting company isn't threatening to ban them. And if you mean "me" by "his": I don't call for violence.

'his' above refers to Patrick Little, so unless you're him further discussion is moot. If you are him, then we have a disagreement.

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

#334

Post by stale2002 » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 2:45 AM UTC

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…

There is a difference between thinking that a certain social medium, "works" because of moderation (such as HN), and between thinking that NO uncensored platform should ever exist.

I enjoy lots moderated platforms. But I still think it is important that uncensored platforms like gab exist at all.

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

#335

Post by Forge36 » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 2:48 AM UTC

I spent done time digging through the posts (and researching the view points). My conclusion: This article and the Twitter posts feel like an advertisement for Gab. It's currently building a userbase, primarily from people banned from Twitter for expressing extreme views. In this case it's capitalizing on a very well known user, a stance supporting the user, and the user self censoring.

Something feels off (see my quote). This is timed around Gab seeking funding (see Twitter: https://mobile.twitter.com/getongab/status/10275500729328517...)

I suspect further exposure will push Gab to censor. However in the interim: it will grow based on the controversy to ban/remain open

quoting my own reply >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?

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

#336

Post by ubernostrum » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 2:50 AM UTC

lylecubed wrote: post #60

mrguyorama wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all fine and dandy, but is there actual factual standing behind the positions I listed?

You posted them as examples of "bad ideas." Shouldn't you be able to tell me the factual standing behind the positions you hold?

Well, this sort of gets to the heart of it, doesn't it? A lot of what's being called a problem is basically people who go Gish galloping; they spew easily-refuted statements, rarely if ever offer any evidence or anything else to back them up, but if you so much as hint at the possibility that perhaps they might have said something a little bit mistaken, they come down on you like a ton of bricks with demands for citations and evidence. And on a platform like Twitter, it's not even one person who does that; wade into the wrong thread and you might have hundreds or thousands of people mobbing you with "citation needed" and ignoring any evidence you don't personally direct at them and them alone (and that's being charitable; most of them ignore evidence, period).

This wears people down quickly to the point that they just give up on challenging incorrect information, and then the people who spew it win by default and take over whatever platform they're on.

Why shouldn't platforms have the freedom to put a stop to that if they choose? What value is there in claiming "neutrality" on this (and really, there is no "neutral" -- there's only enabling it, or not enabling it, the platform's owners don't get to claim they're just bystanders when they're, y'know, providing the platform)?

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

#337

Post by darpa_escapee » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 2:54 AM UTC

ironjunkie wrote: post #311

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 r…

> What really annoys me is that it's always the same side that is "censored"

Untrue. Religious extremist content has been silently taken down for years.

People advocating for workers rights, anarchists and communists have all had a history of facing censorship online.

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

#338

Post by microcolonel » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 2:55 AM UTC

pcwalton wrote: post #291

microcolonel wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Granted it was in response to Ken making fun of "incels". Presumably the point is that an infertile person who is not particularly attractive has little to stand on when mocking people with poor romantic success... or something to that effect. It's not my Tweet (and I have no bone to pick with Ken White), but wouldn't take this as solid evidence that Gab (or the person operating the Gab Twitter profile) agrees in gen…

Cowardly obscurantism is the standard tactic of white supremacists and others with loathsome views. They know that if they come right out and say what they believe, they will get nowhere. So they engage in slight of hand and dog whistles in order to recruit the gullible. Andrew Torba's entire platform is built on this obscurantism. It would be an insult to my intelligence to claim that the target of this tweet is any…

Yikes, hadn't seen that one. That really is too bad, I hope this attitude doesn't permeate the company, because the platform is gaining steam.

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

#339

Post by rainonmoon » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 2:55 AM UTC

kodablah wrote: post #318

rainonmoon wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What I’m saying is: their speech hasn’t been blocked. Microsoft is making a decision not to align with a particular demographic, not shutting them out of public discourse.

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

#340

Post by jackvalentine » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 2:55 AM UTC

autoexec wrote: post #331

jackvalentine wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nazis in dark spaces have always existed - their modern grasp of distribution on internet platforms is what has changed. For years stormfront was a well known butt of jokes about racists, but it existed. What has changed is nazis have started using the new distributive platforms (youtube, facebook, twitter etc) to spread their word outside of the dark space. All we need to do, is deny them that distribution. Motivate…

How many videos would you need to watch on youtube before it turned you into a nazi? The people watching those videos are already true believers, or they are researchers, police, and others concerned about what racists are saying, how many of them there are, how they operate, etc. It's invaluable to have ready access to what they're up to. Access that would be lost if they were forced into their own closed circles aw…

> The people watching those videos are already true believers

No they're not. The YouTube algorithm (for example) encourages people to slowly ramp up how extreme the content they view is little by little.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/youtube...

> but every little thing that chips away at the lies they've been told helps.

You're assuming they even see this content. The way "the algorithm" works makes it increasingly unlikely that platforms will even show you things that oppose your view.

And if they do... the backfire effect means they'll often reject your opposing view even harder. https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/