Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gab.com banned from PayPal

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 203 posts

Re: Gab.com banned from PayPal

#151

Post by matt4077 »

splintercell wrote: post #130
Dylan16807 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible to focus on free speech without encouraging white supremacists. That doesn't seem to be Gab's goal.

How, I would love to hear solutions. People like asparagirl will not join a free speech platform because her speech isn't really restricted from the non-free speech platforms. The people who have the biggest incentive to join these platforms are the one which are kicked out from all the other networks.

The ACLU seems like a worthwhile cause for actual advocates of free speech. And no, they don't only advocate for liberal causes. Campaign finance laws would be one area of policy where they have starkly different ideas than the political left.

As to these platforms: the whole argument is essentially build on this slippery-slope fallacy that banning vile racism, anti-semitism, etc. inexorably leads more restrictions on speech, and (eventually) the end democracy.

That's demonstrably false: there have always been restrictions on speech (such as obscenity laws), so there really isn't some bright red line that would be crossed, and these restrictions have also not lead to the end of free speech.

There are restrictions on almost any other activity if you expand your definitions to the extremes: the right of peaceful assembly is just as central to democracy, but nobody is bothered by the restriction that you can't hold your protest in the Oval Office.

So maybe these people should consider being kicked out of all these platforms not as an incentive to change platforms, but to rather think about how far they must have removed themselves from society. Seriously: if the people who think youtube comments are worth it ban you, it's time to start listening more and posting less.

Re: Gab.com banned from PayPal

#152

Post by sneak »

beatgammit wrote: post #131
DuskStar wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banning alt-right conspiracy theory nutcases might just be related to free speech, however. And that's what most people seem to want Gab to do.

Yes, it's related to free speech, but I just want to point out that it has nothing to do with the US first amendment protections and likely has nothing to do with free speech laws in other areas as well, since those only restrict what government can do. Choosing to disassociate from speech you don't like is yet another use of free speech, as is banning groups that use speech you don't like from your private platform.…

I think you may be confusing “government infringement upon free speech rights” and the much wider concept of “free speech” in general, which is the ability, provided by common spaces and a soap box, or printing presses, and now by the internet, that permits someone with something to say to reach their audience who wishes to hear them.

There are a lot more people who have the ability to shut down a website, regardless of hosting company choice, than have the ability to shut down dissemination of a flyer or stop a speaker from speaking.

Yes, a TOS is freedom of association. That doesn’t mean it’s a good thing for society when unpopular speech gets banned from every web host they use, in order.

Re: Gab.com banned from PayPal

#153

Post by anigbrowl »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #99
orf wrote: post #65

It's funny how those who cry hardest about being censored, when given a completely free space to express themselves, fill it to the brim with xenophobia, racism, fake news and outlandish conspiracy theories involving the Clintons https://gab.com/popular

Only in this particular cultural context. In the context of the Arab Spring such a platform would have very different content. What does seem to be the case is that every time someone attempts to deplatform the people writing about the subjects you listed, their audience grows instead of shrinks. What is the ultimate goal here because it seems like the deplatforming movement is spreading the ideas they oppose much fu…

What is the ultimate goal here because it seems like the deplatforming movement is spreading the ideas they oppose much further than these people ever could have on their own.

I'm gonna need to see evidence for that assertion before I take it at face value, because the alt right figures I monitor hate being deplatformed and anything that ruins their day is fine by me.

Re: Gab.com banned from PayPal

#155

Post by dna_polymerase »

Asparagirl wrote: post #26

Good. Now for Stripe. I already called their customer support this morning and told them I'd pull my organization's account unless they dropped Gab. I'm sure I'm not the only customer who has. They enable payments processing for Gab, which means that they also profit from Gab. They make money off the alt-right. They choose to make money off the alt-right. You want protests in front of your office, Stripe, raising hel…

You are the reason why the Republicans will easily win the mid-terms as well as the 2020 reelection.

Re: Gab.com banned from PayPal

#156

Post by mikeash »

sneak wrote: post #152
beatgammit wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's related to free speech, but I just want to point out that it has nothing to do with the US first amendment protections and likely has nothing to do with free speech laws in other areas as well, since those only restrict what government can do. Choosing to disassociate from speech you don't like is yet another use of free speech, as is banning groups that use speech you don't like from your private platform.…

I think you may be confusing “government infringement upon free speech rights” and the much wider concept of “free speech” in general, which is the ability, provided by common spaces and a soap box, or printing presses, and now by the internet, that permits someone with something to say to reach their audience who wishes to hear them. There are a lot more people who have the ability to shut down a website, regardless…

It’s an interesting question. Speech on the internet does seem to depend on the cooperation of big companies in a way that isn’t seen in other realms.

However, this seems to be drifting off topic. Gab’s web site didn’t get shut down, they just got cut off by a payment processor.

Re: Gab.com banned from PayPal

#157

Post by nkurz »

tptacek wrote: post #109
jesssse wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Web platforms are censoring right wing conservatives. Which web platforms are censoring the left?

These aren't "conservatives". Conservatives aren't racists and anti-Semites.

I'm not exactly a conservative, but I sincerely appreciate that you continue to make this distinction. Thanks!

Re: Gab.com banned from PayPal

#158

Post by meowface »

pvg wrote: post #125
meowface wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gab may have a large number of alt-right conspiracy nuts, but they also have a lot of users who rightfully mock those nutty people. It really is a platform for pure free speech. Unfortunately, its polarization was inevitable as Twitter and Reddit started cracking down on far-right users, leaving only pure free speech websites left for the crazies. But suggesting the website itself condones violence or sympathizes wit…

suggesting the website itself condones violence or sympathizes with neo-Nazis isn't accurate. It's pretty accurate. They sound like Nazis. Take a look at https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056332670513233920 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056266704148262912

Ok, I didn't see these. You're right. Whoever controls that Twitter account is definitely very alt-right and possibly sympathizes with Nazis. I take back what I said.

Re: Gab.com banned from PayPal

#159

Post by SamReidHughes »

mikeash wrote: post #156
sneak wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may be confusing “government infringement upon free speech rights” and the much wider concept of “free speech” in general, which is the ability, provided by common spaces and a soap box, or printing presses, and now by the internet, that permits someone with something to say to reach their audience who wishes to hear them. There are a lot more people who have the ability to shut down a website, regardless…

It’s an interesting question. Speech on the internet does seem to depend on the cooperation of big companies in a way that isn’t seen in other realms. However, this seems to be drifting off topic. Gab’s web site didn’t get shut down, they just got cut off by a payment processor.

Well now the web site’s getting kicked off Joyent. And, you know, I want the right to choose who I host and who I don’t host if I ran a hosting company. And I’d be happy to host conspiracy theorying white nationalists, but I wouldn’t want to have to transmit child porn wedding cake payments if that were legal.

Re: Gab.com banned from PayPal

#160

Post by stickfigure »

dmartinez wrote: post #83
stickfigure wrote: post #43

I don't really have a take on gab.com (never heard of it until now) but a couple years ago I was processing thousands of transactions per day with PayPal. Their technology is awful and (from outside observation) their engineering teams are incompetent. In a business where "the hard technical problem" is how to stop fraud while allowing legitimate transactions to occur, you'd expect bad engineering to mean that the fr…

Interesting thoughts. It could be that PayPal has over extended certain models for far longer than they should have. Some forms of tech debt should be resolved sooner, rather than later. It would be fascinating to know the real reasons behind the fall from grace. Is it really the employees, or the managers? There could be dilapidated business processes still in place that even prevent the company from healing itself.…

It's hard to be certain from the outside, but my impression is:

- Fractured product line; they have a bunch of products that are similar but different and they themselves are confused about which is which. Product management is in chaos.

- Tech debt from the 90s that has never been paid off.

- Acquisitions that were poorly integrated.

- Some weird attempt to mash their platform together with ebay that never quite fully baked, then more debt incurred hastily ripping them apart again.

- Some attempts at outsourcing development overseas? Can't be certain about this, just an impression.

- A major attempt to rewrite their API, but instead of simplifying they got an architecture astronaut to design it. He wrote a lot of annoying blog entries about HATEOAS but AFAICT no longer works at the company. The modern API was published but it's broken and crippled in so many different ways that they would be better off putting a big "DO NOT USE" at the top of their documentation.

- They've effectively abandoned the new API and apparently are relying on a sort of reverse-takeover from Braintree to save them. Maybe there is progress but it's been a while and I don't see any.

Post reply on HN