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

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

#361

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 3:35 AM UTC

AgentME wrote: post #341

drb91 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

[deleted]

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

#362

Post by api » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 3:35 AM UTC

jackvalentine wrote: post #340

autoexec wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think you could show me enough inane neo-Nazi videos to make me a Nazi. Insane, ready to gouge my eyes out with an egg beater... maybe... but conversion is not likely.

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

#363

Post by ilove_banh_mi » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 3:40 AM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #342

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?

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 whos…

I think any business should have the freedom to refuse to trade with anyone they dislike, however irrational or bigoted their decision may be. I also think everybody else can denounce, ostracize, or boycott them for similar, or rational and non-bigoted, inclinations.

Nowadays I do wonder about how much integrity is involved in our post-modern social strife. While I like to think I'd sell on principle my bread to anyone, regardless of behaviour or creed -- there are some awful people with whom I think, honestly, I'd rather have nothing to do with if I know what they've done (a child murderer or holocaust-supporter or rapist, or someone who defends them, to go to extremes).

Banishment is a social tool that has been in use for a long time (forever?), sometimes with very good reasons, probably as a last recourse; I'll feel better when we have deliberate and explicit criteria for this method.

ps: I'm neither a "conservative" nor a "progressive" -- though I uphold thoughts that may be labelled by others as one or the other.

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

#364

Post by toasterlovin » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 3:41 AM UTC

foxylad wrote: post #323

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is there any evidence that there are more people who believe crazy things than before? It seems way more likely to me that there is a portion of the population who are nuts and basically cycle through various conspiracy theories.

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

#365

Post by toasterlovin » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 3:51 AM UTC

lylecubed wrote: post #45

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. 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…

FWIW, I think the real question is whether or not people’s inclinations can really be changed by exposure to information. To me is seems more likely that people seek out the information which confirms their world view. And if that’s true, then I think the imperative to shut down hate speech is greatly undermined.

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

#366

Post by Forge36 » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 3:52 AM UTC

retsibsi wrote: post #353

rainbowmverse wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> You could wisely point out I claimed there's research, and I could at least provide it. The research I've seen tells me this won't help since people tend to discount research that goes against their beliefs, and use research that supports those beliefs as reinforcement. It won't do you any good if you start out with a strong belief in the unsupported original claim, as seems to be the case with most people I see he…

Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds - https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont...

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

#367

Post by pcwalton » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 3:52 AM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #346

MajesticHobo2 wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Don't insult our intelligence. It is obviously a vile statement about Jewish people.

http://archive.is/q8Guu if you need it to be even more obvious.

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

#368

Post by webmaven » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 3:53 AM UTC

mxfh wrote: post #210

fvdessen wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember national TV talking about UFOs, proofs of WMD in Irak, Homosexuality being a disease, conspiracy magazines in every gas station shop, and no easy way to verify anything. I have the impression that the general quality of available information has only gone up.

Promoting those things back than had significant opportunity costs for getting things published and reaching an audience. And bad actors even got denied free or even paid communication channels after a number of bad faith offenses, so gatekeepers to mass communication were a good thing in that respect. Of course they also work the other way around, if a bad idea manages to creep in, but it took a significant amount o…

> (Third one if you count the printing press, but the adoption happened over generations, so societies had time to adopt)

Even though the printing press kicked off societal changes that took a few centuries to mature and settle down, it was only slow by our current standards. The societies and institutions that were being disrupted evolved in an environment that changed on millenial timescales, so they were, in some senses, shell shocked for most of those 'few centuries' due to a failure to adapt despite having ample (by our standards) time, and the new institutions that arose were regarded as disruptive upstarts for generations (eg. the Lutheran church).

Anyway. An order-of-magnitude change is going to be just as disruptive, even if the change is from "snail's pace" to "tortoise-like".

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

#369

Post by exikyut » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 3:54 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…

Well, I don't have an account, but this blew up sufficiently enough that I only needed to click "explore" and stumbled on a repost containing a screenshot of the original post. Here you go: https://gab.ai/PNN/posts/31263515

Wow, what a sad website. I don't quite understand the mindset/vitriol/hate/anger/etc here (the reason for it or need for it) psychologically speaking.

In any case I've taken my own simple screenshots of the repost in case it disappears, which I expect will happen eventually. If anyone absolutely needs them let me know.

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

#370

Post by usefulcat » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 3:55 AM UTC

tinalumfoil wrote: post #126

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…

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".

> People are better off hearing a bad idea and hearing it refuted then never hearing a bad idea.

We humans have a strong preference for ideas that support our existing beliefs. This feature, when combined with the proliferation of sources of news and other information (who directly profit from this feature), means that the ones who are most in need of hearing the refutation of a bad idea are also the least likely to ever hear it.