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

481–490 of 565 posts

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

#481

Post by specialist »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #465
Amezarak wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that objective truth about reality not only exists but is accessible to the sufficiently enlightened, at least if they use the right "tools and frameworks", is a bold philosophical thesis that has undergone quite a lot of criticism in the past few thousand years. The idea that advocates of 'perspectivism' are simply trying to confuse people is absurd. "There are not facts, only interpretations" people are ju…

At no point I was trying to argue against free speech. Just about the notion that "lie is almost always a matter of perspective". I'm aware there has been criticism of the concept of objective reality in philosophy, but I'm also not aware of any framework of thought that would fit the observable reality better. In fact, all the progress of science and technology, as well as all communications we do with each other, a…

I have no idea how to articulate these notions, please forgive.

#1

While I think of myself as a Popperian, I've begun to adopt a "true enough to act now" view of the world. It's close to the notion "a good plan violently executed today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow".

Mostly, I'm sick of the debate. I have relatives and friends who are creationists, climate change deniers, supply-siders, etc. Instead of trying to convince (persuade) people about the truth, opposing the torrent of bullshit forces pushing these idealogical rocks up hill, I now focus on "ok, what can we do today?"

In the case of evolution (vs creationism). The value of the theory isn't that it's true (or not). Rather, the value is a set of axioms that allows us to make reasonably good predictions about the world.

So when it comes to the complicated topics (eg current events), I'm trying to relax my standards for objective truth, be satisfied with "true enough, for now".

#2

We need more data. (aka You can't manage what you can't measure.)

I was a tree hugger when GIS and satellite imagery were being rolled out. They completely changed the conversation about clearcutting, habitat loss, impacts, etc. It was no longer a just propaganda war. Legislators could see for themselves, if they wanted to, what was happening.

#3

Stop fighting "fake news". There's a better way.

Verifiable attribution, sources. All source data needs to be published.

Every publisher (that wants to be verifiable) would have their own blockchain(s), sign their own works. Whenever a reader sees a news item, they could verify the authenticity by checking the block chain.

This is no different than adding SHAs to software releases.

Each blockchain would be seeded with a CA, leveraging our current chain of trust infrastructure.

#4

Also, the story is made in the edit. So publishers need to show their work. Just like in science. Sure, cut down a two-hour interview to just 5 minutes. But you still have to post the original footage.

#5

No one challenged my abandonment of "free speech ultimatism." So what's the alternative?

Recognizing that cognition is social, that we (mostly) cohabitant a shared reality:

Defending public discourse from the abuses of free speech is a tragedy of the commons [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons]. This framing goes further than Paradox of Tolerance [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance] by justifying the limitation of some speech in service of the greater good.

[Maybe call it the "marketplace of ideas" to engage the Freedom Markets™ zealots.]

I have no idea how to police the commons.

But I do think punishing parties for knowingly lying would be a good start.

There was a time when FCC broadcast licenses where contingent on serving the public good. And license renewals were serious business.

I'd be okay with doing the same for online mediums as well.

There would be two classes of speech: anonymous and verified (per #3 above). Verified speech, and the aggregators, would vouch for what they say.

If someone is found guilty of using verified speech to harm the public good (jury of their peers, public hearings), their root CA would get revoked.

They can still publish anonymously, of course. But they can no longer claim to be telling the truth.

---

Okay. Thanks for listening, humoring me. I have these notions rattling around in my head. And I like your comment history. And wanted to share with someone(s), in case I get hit by a bus.

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

#482

Post by michaelt »

Amezarak wrote: post #443
TeMPOraL wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> lie is almost always a matter of perspective This meme I do not understand. There is one physical reality[0]. A thing either happened, or it didn't. Physics doesn't change its workings because of perspective . A precise enough statement about reality can be either true or false, there's no middle. There's no "depends on perspective". If I say, "the Sun is shining", the truth of that fact does not depend on perspect…

The idea that objective truth about reality not only exists but is accessible to the sufficiently enlightened, at least if they use the right "tools and frameworks", is a bold philosophical thesis that has undergone quite a lot of criticism in the past few thousand years. The idea that advocates of 'perspectivism' are simply trying to confuse people is absurd. "There are not facts, only interpretations" people are ju…

Interesting. Would someone who applies that philosophy be willing to say flat-earthers are wrong?

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

#483

Post by yontherubicon »

betterunix2 wrote: post #458
yontherubicon wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There's a reason the ACLU has in the past defended neo-Nazis and other unpopular speakers, and it's not because they support these speakers' messages. It's because you need a canary in the coal mine. People aren't mentioning this, but this has already happened. I'm not white, just to be clear, however back sometime last year I knew infrastructure-level censorship was coming when DNS services, GoDaddy in particular,…

Except that the Daily Stormer is still online. As long as net neutrality exists (in practice if not in law) there is no "infrastructure-level censorship" to speak of beyond a slight lack of convenience. What is the worst-case outcome of DNS registrars refusing to do business with nazis? People who want to visit nazi websites would have to type in numerical IP addresses. The only "infrastructure-level censorship" we s…

All true. And yet still we have to grapple with the reality that our public square is in the private sector.

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

#484

Post by specialist »

michaelt wrote: post #482
Amezarak wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that objective truth about reality not only exists but is accessible to the sufficiently enlightened, at least if they use the right "tools and frameworks", is a bold philosophical thesis that has undergone quite a lot of criticism in the past few thousand years. The idea that advocates of 'perspectivism' are simply trying to confuse people is absurd. "There are not facts, only interpretations" people are ju…

Interesting. Would someone who applies that philosophy be willing to say flat-earthers are wrong?

I now believe this is a question better posed to psychiatrists.

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

#485

Post by jackvalentine »

api wrote: post #478
jackvalentine wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it's telling that America's potential for radicalization might be comparable to that of a former war zone like Iraq. I was actually referring to the many British & Australian citizens that were radicalized and traveled to Syria to fight for ISIS. Removing the ability to broadcast these vile ideologies in to mainstream channels will certainly reduce the incidence of those susceptible to radicalization discov…

Same question applies I think. My post was US-centric but the same issues exist to varying degrees across the developed Western world. Check out the unemployment rates in parts of Europe. My overall point is that we should be looking inward if vast numbers of people are being radicalized. It means our culture is simply not compelling enough to overcome the allure of these cults.

> My overall point is that we should be looking inward if vast numbers of people are being radicalized. It means our culture is simply not compelling enough to overcome the allure of these cults.

Oh I very much agree with you - there has been a fundamental change in as little as one generation as to what 'life' is for men, with traditional roles thrown out the window. Combine this with difficult economic times for young men and it's a recipe for this kind of thing.

For those who can't forge their own path they'll find someone that accepts them - sometimes good sometimes bad. Often these extremists offer belonging and self worth to those who have been unable to build it themselves.

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

#486

Post by bitwize »

jewelthief91 wrote: post #244
bitwize wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany consistently places higher than the USA on international press freedom indices. The press, in general, is a protected institution there, whereas here, blowhards like Trump do their damnedest to intimidate journalists out of doing their job, which is to expose the dealings of government to the public. And you don't have to read Hackernews for long to see how terminally fucked and anti-freedom the U.S. justice…

How is this freedom attributable in any direct way to restrictions on "hate speech"?

Well, you could argue that Germany successfully avoided renazifying in part because of its anti-hate-speech laws.

Even absent this, the point is that Germany is, in practice, freer than the USA despite having a less absolute stance on free speech.

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

#487

Post by alkonaut »

Someguywhatever wrote: post #25
hartator wrote: post #19

Little's posts on Gab are awful, and Microsoft is in his rights to refuse service to anyone. However they don't have the capacity to do a fair manual triage of all the services they are hosting, and they should avoid doing it until legally constrained.

Too lazy to actually look it up but I think that MS are getting ahead of the lawsuit from Europe. Europe will fine you X dollars for every second / minute / hour or something that a bad post is left online. So even if GAB does not comply with EU regs then Azure surely will and EU will go after the weakest link. MS knows this, and they don't care about GAB or Free Speech or whatever so they're going to shut them down…

I don’t think there is a pan-European set of free speech laws. These are per country.

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

#488

Post by ataturk »

pixl97 wrote: post #455
TeMPOraL wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> lie is almost always a matter of perspective This meme I do not understand. There is one physical reality[0]. A thing either happened, or it didn't. Physics doesn't change its workings because of perspective . A precise enough statement about reality can be either true or false, there's no middle. There's no "depends on perspective". If I say, "the Sun is shining", the truth of that fact does not depend on perspect…

That is what I call 'thermodynamic truth', or the truth we would see if we ran time backwards. The problem is, we can't run time backwards and because of information loss there, many times, can be many possible situations that create the outcome we see.

[dead]

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

#489

Post by s73v3r_ »

Endy wrote: post #389
s73v3r_ wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, no. People will see the vile toxicity right up front (it's not hidden at all there), and they'll leave in 5 minutes.

I think I understand what you're saying, but if it was so vile and so toxic, why would people keep returning to it and stay so involved? Whether you happen to like it or not, these are communities just as much as any other. I think it would be better for the human condition if, instead of dismissing them as "vile toxicity", we looked at what they're saying and what's caused them to feel a need to say it. Then again,…

Because the people who are there are the ones who agree with that vile toxicity.

"we looked at what they're saying and what's caused them to feel a need to say it."

While that might be needed, Gab is not the place to do it.

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

#490

Post by mirimir »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #428
candiodari wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, as has been clearly illustrated, "trusted" news source can't always be trusted either. So preventing "lies" (lie is almost always a matter of perspective) to spread ... is really always also preventing people from finding out the truth. We just used to find that acceptable. Wars have been started by fake news from "reputable" sources. If fake news regulations become widespread and usable, they would be trivially…

> lie is almost always a matter of perspective This meme I do not understand. There is one physical reality[0]. A thing either happened, or it didn't. Physics doesn't change its workings because of perspective . A precise enough statement about reality can be either true or false, there's no middle. There's no "depends on perspective". If I say, "the Sun is shining", the truth of that fact does not depend on perspect…

I do agree that there's one objective physical reality that's accessible to us. There is quantum level stuff, where indeterminacy is an issue. But at the macroscopic level, that's pretty much averaged out. Except maybe entanglement.

But anyway, as you say, complex statements typically involve multiple facts, assumptions, inferences, conclusions and speculation. And yes, we have language for that.

The problem, though, is that people often express complex statements in simple language. They gloss over complexity, and hide assumptions, inferences, speculation, etc. So it's easy to have multiple stories claiming to be true. And it takes considerable work to decompose them, and determine which best fits the facts.

Post reply on HN