A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming • Hacker News Board

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#91

Post by pvg » Fri, Nov 02, 2018, 11:47 PM UTC

StuntPope wrote: post #38

tptacek wrote: post #32

It's probably unrealistic to expect us to stop seeing threads about this (Gab's #1 objective at this point will be to make more noise and surely something "newsworthy" will happen with them sometime soonish). But it's worth noting that we've had several recent discussions about Gab stemming from the events that occurred after the mass shooting. Here, Jeftovic is arguing from faulty premises. Correcting those premises…

Jeftovic here. I actually wasn't aware of many things you cite above, having cursorily examined, then abandoned Gab I never followed their twitter feed, etc. Without having seen any of that myself, I wrote the article extending a certain benefit of the doubt, trying to look at it from a neutral (ostensibly) vendor vantagepoint.

You've added an update to your article pointing out it was 'flagged' after 'rapidly ascending'. Flagging is done done by users, so both the (brief) rapid ascent and the flagging are results of user action.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#92

Post by StuntPope » Fri, Nov 02, 2018, 11:59 PM UTC

pvg wrote: post #91

StuntPope wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeftovic here. I actually wasn't aware of many things you cite above, having cursorily examined, then abandoned Gab I never followed their twitter feed, etc. Without having seen any of that myself, I wrote the article extending a certain benefit of the doubt, trying to look at it from a neutral (ostensibly) vendor vantagepoint.

You've added an update to your article pointing out it was 'flagged' after 'rapidly ascending'. Flagging is done done by users, so both the (brief) rapid ascent and the flagging are results of user action.

So what's your point?

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#93

Post by pvg » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 12:10 AM UTC

StuntPope wrote: post #92

pvg wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've added an update to your article pointing out it was 'flagged' after 'rapidly ascending'. Flagging is done done by users, so both the (brief) rapid ascent and the flagging are results of user action.

So what's your point?

There's nothing 'ironic' about it, flagging is like downvoting. You aren't being 'deplatformed' by some inscrutable power, users just don't think it's a fit for the site.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#94

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 1:31 AM UTC

patrickmay wrote: post #43

throwawaysea wrote: post #22

This is a good article that explores many of the angles involved. Deplatforming is a dangerous step for a free society, especially when so much power is accumulated in a few platforms* The big risk is this: when only a few entities funnel so much societal discourse or control our communication infrastructure or process payments, those entities making arbitrary decisions about who they serve has similar impacts and ri…

> Spare me the tired arguments that these private companies have a right to not serve customers at will. That seems like self-serving cherry-picking, when in other situations the same folks would be against granting freedom of association. Some people's hypocrisy doesn't undermine the core principle of freedom of association. The more abusive the big players become, the more incentive there is for people to use alter…

> Spare me the tired arguments that these private companies have a right to not serve customers at will.

Some people's hypocrisy doesn't undermine the core principle of freedom of association.

There is a lawsuit where a mining company owned an entire town, including the roads. A Jehova's witness won a lawsuit allowing them to distribute pamphlets there on the basis of free speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc

In any case, freedom of association shouldn't apply to online platforms. The average person isn't possessed by the illusion that any YouTuber's opinion is necessarily ratified by YouTube. If you don't want to hear someone's opinion nor associate with them, then you unfriend/block/unsubscribe. On the other hand, freedom of speech is very relevant from a practical standpoint.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#95

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 1:34 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #59

throwawaysea wrote: post #22

This is a good article that explores many of the angles involved. Deplatforming is a dangerous step for a free society, especially when so much power is accumulated in a few platforms* The big risk is this: when only a few entities funnel so much societal discourse or control our communication infrastructure or process payments, those entities making arbitrary decisions about who they serve has similar impacts and ri…

> Deplatforming is a dangerous step for a free society, Deplatforming is simply the a natural consequence of the operation of the marketplace of ideas, a central necessity for a free society. If ideas don't have to compete for the privilege of access to resource to relay them, there is no marketplace of ideas, and society drowns in noise. > The big risk is this: when only a few entities funnel so much societal discou…

Deplatforming is simply the a natural consequence of the operation of the marketplace of ideas

That's just as silly as if someone had said, "Certain people losing their 1st Amendment rights is simply the natural consequence of the operation of the marketplace of ideas." It's nonsense, because once you let people start silencing others, there is no more free marketplace of ideas.

That's pretty much like some Victorian gentleman telling himself that he's won it over those peasants over there because of his superior breeding. In the case of Facebook and Google having the practical ability to censor, it's not because they won the marketplace of ideas. It's because they're the "Equity Lords" that got there first and who hold on through network effects.

There is a lawsuit where a company owned this mining company town, including all of its roads and sidewalks. A Jehova's witness won a lawsuit on the basis of the First Amendment, enabling her to walk about that town and distribute her pamphlets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc

Originally, it was widely recognized by US jurisprudence, though property rights and freedom of association are important, the First Amendment was even more important. It's not at all foreign to US legal tradition for the government to tell private companies to let others use their facilities in the interest of free speech. When people make that argument, they do so from ignorance.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#96

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 1:40 AM UTC

mlillie wrote: post #2

This reeks of both-sides-ism and enablement. "Where does it stop?" is the same slippery slope garbage peddled by #HimToo and #BlueLivesMatter acolytes. But even engaging with the question at face value, the answer is very simple, and the author of this piece didn't try very hard if he couldn't find someone who is able to answer it. In fact, the best answer was given by Karl Popper in 1945. > In order to maintain a to…

This reeks of both-sides-ism and enablement.

The whole point of Free Speech is to enable all sides of any issue to have their say. That is a fundamental mechanism against totalitarianism.

In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.

Sorry, but Karl Popper's idea is just Orwellian nightmare fuel. "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

Tolerance is to live and let live. Oppressing those you disagree with is the very opposite of tolerance. (Even if they are truly horrible people.) If Silicon Valley were tolerant, they'd let Gab live and possibly be a cesspit of horribleness. A society that de-platforms and un-persons everyone and every idea it doesn't like isn't a free society. That's not a free market of ideas. That's totalitarianism through economic hegemony.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#97

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 1:45 AM UTC

tunesmith wrote: post #11

mlillie wrote: post #2

This reeks of both-sides-ism and enablement. "Where does it stop?" is the same slippery slope garbage peddled by #HimToo and #BlueLivesMatter acolytes. But even engaging with the question at face value, the answer is very simple, and the author of this piece didn't try very hard if he couldn't find someone who is able to answer it. In fact, the best answer was given by Karl Popper in 1945. > In order to maintain a to…

Define intolerance. That's the whole problem. So being "intolerant of intolerance" is meaningless except as something that signals a different meaning - different lines, different behavior, different standards - to every listener.

Define intolerance. That's the whole problem

No comrade. You are missing the point. Only our intolerance is in the service of tolerance. Only our intolerance is good and will bring about the worker's paradise. Their intolerance is bad. In fact, those who tolerate the wrong people are intolerant, and therefore we must be intolerant to them to make the world more tolerant.

Also: Our potassium is superior.

Also: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. -- George Orwell

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#98

Post by pvg » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 1:46 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #95

dragonwriter wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Deplatforming is a dangerous step for a free society, Deplatforming is simply the a natural consequence of the operation of the marketplace of ideas, a central necessity for a free society. If ideas don't have to compete for the privilege of access to resource to relay them, there is no marketplace of ideas, and society drowns in noise. > The big risk is this: when only a few entities funnel so much societal discou…

Deplatforming is simply the a natural consequence of the operation of the marketplace of ideas That's just as silly as if someone had said, "Certain people losing their 1st Amendment rights is simply the natural consequence of the operation of the marketplace of ideas." It's nonsense, because once you let people start silencing others, there is no more free marketplace of ideas. That's pretty much like some Victorian…

Nobody has lost their first amendment rights and the person you're replying to hasn't made such an argument at all - your paraphrase is just putting words in their mouth. That's a cheap and poopy thing to do.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#99

Post by marcus_holmes » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 1:47 AM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #71

msla wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if you have Group A and Group B, each claiming the other is doing horrible, offensive things, which group gets deplatformed? Since I can't legitimately reply yet, consider this a reply: > any group not specifically defined by their intolerance. So, would that be Hezbollah or Shas?

The subset of both groups actually doing the horrible, offensive things. Treating entire groups as a unit rather than as individuals is part of the problem, at least for any group not specifically defined by their intolerance.

which is all very well, except we're talking about deplatforming entire online communities, not merely individuals.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#100

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 1:48 AM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #31

mlillie wrote: post #2

This reeks of both-sides-ism and enablement. "Where does it stop?" is the same slippery slope garbage peddled by #HimToo and #BlueLivesMatter acolytes. But even engaging with the question at face value, the answer is very simple, and the author of this piece didn't try very hard if he couldn't find someone who is able to answer it. In fact, the best answer was given by Karl Popper in 1945. > In order to maintain a to…

N. Taleb, "The most intolerant wins": https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict... Looks oddly relevant.

If you're looking for the most intolerant, then look to the side that makes the accusations, does the screeching, does the un-personing and de-platforming, and either calls for violence against its enemies, enacts it, or tacitly accepts it.

If you want to find the tolerant, find those who advocate for free speech and those who want to engage and make their arguments. That's the side which has learned the value of tolerance, because they're on their back foot.