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

341–350 of 565 posts

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

#341

Post by AgentME »

drb91 wrote: post #129
braythwayt wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

Doesn't the fact that white supremacists groups still get members contradict your idea here that people won't join them?

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

#342

Post by ubernostrum »

ilove_banh_mi wrote: post #88
mcguire wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, there's no principle that requires an entity like Microsoft to support services it or its customers find repugnant.

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

Conservatives generally want the bakery to be able to refuse to bake the cake. Why aren't they also in favor of the ISP refusing to offer service, or the host refusing to offer use of their servers?

Do you believe a baker ought to be able to refuse service to someone over religion? If so, do you believe a baker whose beliefs condemn homosexuality should be able to refuse a same-sex couple? Do you believe a baker whose religion condemns Christianity should be able to refuse Christians?

If so, do you have a problem with a hosting service cutting off a site of which it disapproves?

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

#343

Post by tuxxi »

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…

Just curious - what are the notable cases that you're referring to which burned credibility of our institutions? By "our", I assume you mean NATO countries (or even just the USA).

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

#344

Post by ubernostrum »

moduspol wrote: post #140
millzlane wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Is that the point? There are a lot of people here completely in support of this, and it's not hard to trace an IP address to an ISP. When brigades start calling for ISPs to stop serving these sites, do you really think that's when they'll stand up for free speech? Keep in mind in the span of just a few days, we've seen the jump from application platforms (Facebook, Google) to now infrastructure providers. The leap to…

We already have organized brigades demanding ISPs stop providing service to certain people. That is to say, people who spam on an industrial scale.

Do you think ISPs should instead be required to host spammers? Perhaps even to provide them extra resources to help them overcome the unfair way people's spam filters censor their valuable free speech?

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

#345

Post by Whitestrake »

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…

With more decentralization comes more freedom of association; I will choose to be a part of communities that I judge to have a reasonable view of what is "hatred", and those communities will, just like they do today, kick out offenders.

Decentralization will give people the opportunity to spread their hatred among themselves, without involving me, which is... exactly how things operate today.

So... Bring on infotech decentralization, I guess. It's got its merits, and for me, nothing about all this hate speech will change.

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

#346

Post by manfredo »

MajesticHobo2 wrote: post #320
manfredo wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I scrolled for not only 30 seconds or so but at least a minute. Nowhere do I find Gab actively promoting white supremacy. As far as promoting "white supremacist talking points" this is a pretty substantially different actually supporting white supremacy, and support for that allegation is still pretty vague. The closes things I found are:

> “Hate speech” is free speech, as decided unanimously by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Sure, white supremacists may be more keen to protect hate speech but this statement is factually correct.

> Right-wing platforms provide refuge to digital outcasts — and Alex Jones

Again, hosting a speaker is not the same as promoting or endorsing what is said. By this logic, Berkeley endorsed Milo Y.

> At some point you have to ask yourself: just who is pushing for the censorship? Once you learn who, there is no going back. You can’t unsee what has been seen. You can’t unlearn what has been learned.

Arguably echoes allegations that Jewist people control the media, but this is vague at best.

Furthermore, the account states that it would not ban left-wing speakers that had written hateful message about whites:

> The @verge defends the anti-white hate of @sarahjeong then turns around and maligns Gab as “alt right” for defending free speech for everyone (including Sarah!)

I think official Gab twitter account is consistent Gab's claim to allow all legal speech, including hateful speech regardless of political leaning.

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

#347

Post by stale2002 »

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'…

Censorship has absolutely nothing to do with the government, and I am confused as to why you think so.

Censorship is when any group at all, uses their power, any power, to attempt to silence others.

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

#348

Post by xfer »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #308
theclaw wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phone company would be a better analogy, and they absolutely can cut off your service if you’re being a nuisance. The first ammendment says your government won’t pass laws against you saying stuff, it stops you from going to jail for the things you say, and it’s there to protect the people’s right to criticise the government. It is not there to force companies to serve you if they don’t want to.

Okay, so sticking with that analogy, can your phone company cut off your service if you're making racist comments or discussing unpopular political ideas with your friends over the phone? Or, perhaps more importantly, _should_ they be able to?

Phone conversations are private.

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

#350

Post by api »

chc wrote: post #288
api wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm shocked by how many liberals who really ought to know better are cheering for the deployment of corporate oligopolistic censorship at this scale. We're not talking about just kicking someone off Twitter... now we're talking about kicking them off supposedly neutral public cloud platforms. This is a major escalation and honestly it's changing my mind a bit about the whole issue. I was a fence sitter before but now…

> Censors always start with the least popular ideas and speakers. They do that for a reason: they want to gauge what they can get away with and they want to shift the Overton window toward increasing support for censorship. Every time a neo-Nazi gets shut down, people trot out the "First they came for the communists…" — and yet the next time, it's a neo-Nazi again, every time. It would be bad if people who aren't pro…

You have to take a long view of this. Whatever powers we cede to the state or corporations now will remain long after nobody remembers Alex Jones or that Nazi punching bag (forget his name already!)

After 9/11 there was a mad rush to cede civil liberties and deploy surveillance. Many liberals and libertarians pointed out quite correctly that terrorism remained even after 9/11 a fringe activity and a statistically insignificant risk. Was it really worth it to toss the bill of rights (and the Geneva convention) for a risk that didn't even rank when compared with routine low probability accidents?

The same logic applies now. The Nazis are loud and obnoxious but few in number, and those hurt by these clowns number far less than the dead from Oklahoma City or 9/11.

Open discourse, free speech, and net neutrality are more valuable than this.

Gave you an upvote since I don't think what you wrote was that unreasonable. I just think it's short sighted.

Post reply on HN