A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming • Hacker News Board

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#141

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 2:49 AM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #136

stcredzero wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[dupe]

I want you to cite the part where it is widely recognized by US jurisprudence, because we've seen similar cases arise (see: Cyber Promotions vs AoL) where it was argued that a company does not have freedom of speech rights to send unsolicited emails to another company's users. Additionally you make a large mistake in assuming that a company using the government to censor someone is the same as the company itself cens…

I want you to cite the part where it is widely recognized by US jurisprudence, because we've seen similar cases arise

You stripped away the past tense from my argument. Was that intentional, or was that a trick? Put back the past tense, and you have no point here.

If we were to take your argument to its logical conclusion and apply that ruling to individuals, I would not have the right to tell people to leave my property.

Here, you demonstrate that you didn't familiarize yourself with the case. If it's in the interest of Free Speech, then yes, as shown in the case in the YouTube video. You can answer the door and tell the Jehovah's witness to leave, but you can't keep her from walking down the sidewalk to your house. You can get a restraining order if you can show she's harassing you unlawfully. The law specifically makes a distinction between a private person who owns a house and a mining company that owns all the sidewalks and roads in town.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#142

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 2:51 AM UTC

pvg wrote: post #138

stcredzero wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty clear about what is the other person's idea, and what other ideas that idea is parallel to. In that case, I'm not misstating the other person's argument. I'm clarifying the idea's implications.

Well, you were, quite blatantly, but you've now edited the comment to not do that - thanks. It seems we're in agreement on the important bit.

Well, you were, quite blatantly

No, you were quite blatantly misreading my argument and making your argument hypocritically.

but you've now edited the comment to not do that - thanks.

No, it never did that. I just clarified.

It seems we're in agreement on the important bit.

Effectively, you are admitting you have no counter-argument, other than your willful misreading of what I was saying all along.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#143

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 2:55 AM UTC

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #135

> Most successful deplatformings are Pyrrhic victories Big fat citation needed on this. You speculate as to how they may become pyrrhic victories, but it's far from concluded that this will be the case. Previous deplatformings (Milo, Alex Jones) haven't produced any visible negative consequences for the platforms. There's little reason to think this will either. Surprisingly few people care if a den of hate speech ha…

Likewise, almost no one cares what a Jehovah's witness has to say.

The US government coming in and telling a private entity, no you must tolerate free speech on your property is historical fact and precedent.

There is a lawsuit where a company owned this mining company town, including all of its roads and sidewalks. A Jehovah'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 once widely recognized by US jurisprudence, though property rights and freedom of association are important, the First Amendment was even more important and trumps property rights.

Surprisingly few people care if a den of hate speech has trouble finding a DNS registrar.

Surprisingly few people cared when the US government carted off my bandmate's parents to concentration camps. That's a very poor metric to apply to a principle of rights and justice.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#144

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 2:58 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #64

roenxi wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has similar impacts and risks to the government imposing similar restrictions through the law We can't really compare them to the government until they have a standing army. That said, pure scale does matter. There will debate over whether powerful organisations are currently benign or hostile, but there is no doubt whatsoever that they are a mighty force. If Google or Facebook ever decides to seriously wake up pol…

> We can't really compare them to the government until they have a standing army. While I disagree that the firms in question have government-like comprehensive power, even without their own army, a monopoly or coordinating oligopoly able to lock out new participants on essential communication services would have such power, and be a de facto part of the government, even if they lacked formal command relationship ove…

There is a lawsuit where a company owned this mining company town, including all of its roads and sidewalks. A Jehovah'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.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#145

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 3:02 AM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #65

Gab illustrates a “catch-22” around setting out to be specifically a “free speech platform”. You initially appeal to the most fringe elements of public discourse. Your first wave of users are going to be people for whom this has been a problem, and if you’re an absolutist and let them on then suddenly that’s your base. For me, this is one of the more profound take-aways from the article. This piece is very thought pr…

The forums for Free Speech in the 60's also came with a lot of what was thought of as perverted toxic nonsense. Some of that is still thought of as unacceptable today.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#146

Post by freedomben » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 3:02 AM UTC

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #135

> Most successful deplatformings are Pyrrhic victories Big fat citation needed on this. You speculate as to how they may become pyrrhic victories, but it's far from concluded that this will be the case. Previous deplatformings (Milo, Alex Jones) haven't produced any visible negative consequences for the platforms. There's little reason to think this will either. Surprisingly few people care if a den of hate speech ha…

I agree it probably won't matter. I wish it would, but it won't.

However, I will be moving a handful of domains to Easy DNS because I appreciate them taking this position. I looked at Gab once a while back and was mostly disgusted, and never looked back, but I don't like this trend toward censoring and deplatforming. I don't worry about my speech being censored because (at least for now) it's relatively popular. But popular speech isn't the speech that needs protecting, the unpopular speech does.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#147

Post by fzeroracer » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 3:04 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #141

fzeroracer wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want you to cite the part where it is widely recognized by US jurisprudence, because we've seen similar cases arise (see: Cyber Promotions vs AoL) where it was argued that a company does not have freedom of speech rights to send unsolicited emails to another company's users. Additionally you make a large mistake in assuming that a company using the government to censor someone is the same as the company itself cens…

I want you to cite the part where it is widely recognized by US jurisprudence, because we've seen similar cases arise You stripped away the past tense from my argument. Was that intentional, or was that a trick? Put back the past tense, and you have no point here. If we were to take your argument to its logical conclusion and apply that ruling to individuals, I would not have the right to tell people to leave my prop…

No, my point is that I think you're wrong. I don't believe it was ever widely recognized by US jurisprudence and I want you to cite your claims that prove it was. Preferably from a neutral source. Because as far as I can tell, it only explicitly applied to company towns, which means you bringing it up in this argument is entirely moot.

And again, you miss the distinction. A private person has the right to prevent people from being on their property, but not prevent them from using the sidewalk. A company similarly has the right to prevent people from using their property, but not the right to stop people from accessing the greater internet.

Facebook, Google, Twitter etc may be large, but them removing you or preventing you from accessing their services is not the same as a company town using the government in attempt to prevent your distribution of pamphlets. The wikipedia article for this ruling even covers this case as someone being banned from a mall is not a sufficient violation of their freedom of speech rights. To appropriately cite the case of Lloyd Corp vs Tanner:

>The facts in this case are significantly different from those in Marsh, supra, which involved a company town with "all the attributes" of a municipality, and Logan Valley, supra, which involved labor picketing designed to convey a message to patrons of a particular store, so located in the center of a large private enclave as to preclude other reasonable access to store patrons. Under the circumstances present in this case, where the handbilling was unrelated to any activity within the center and where respondents had adequate alternative means of communication, the courts below erred in holding those decisions controlling. [1]

Of which the decision should be clear: Given that there were clear alternatives in communication, this was not a violation of his rights to free speech.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/407/551#writin...

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#148

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 3:05 AM UTC

adamrezich wrote: post #21

The problem with free speech on the Internet is that our human minds have not sufficiently evolved to even remotely begin to understand just how fundamentally the Internet changes our perception of our fellow humans. Dunbar's number shows that we're only able to keep track of a very small number of ongoing human relationships relative to the Internet-connected population of the planet, and at a societal level we're u…

The problem with free speech on the Internet is that our human minds have not sufficiently evolved to even remotely begin to understand just how fundamentally the Internet changes our perception of our fellow humans.

Douglas Adams understood. (Babelfish)

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#149

Post by pvg » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 3:07 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #142

pvg wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you were, quite blatantly, but you've now edited the comment to not do that - thanks. It seems we're in agreement on the important bit.

Well, you were, quite blatantly No, you were quite blatantly misreading my argument and making your argument hypocritically. but you've now edited the comment to not do that - thanks. No, it never did that. I just clarified. It seems we're in agreement on the important bit. Effectively, you are admitting you have no counter-argument, other than your willful misreading of what I was saying all along.

You edited the comment. If the end result is a less poopy comment, I'm fine with that.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#150

Post by Natsu » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 3:18 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #96

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…

The irony here is that the 'intolerance' Popper was worried about was people using 'fists or pistols' and the whole thing was premised on the right of self-defense. Times have changed and that Overton window has shifted quite a bit, to the point where people use Popper to prop up the idea that they have a right to use their fists to silence people they hate based on a theory of future harm if those people were permitted to speak.

Having completely lost the idea that the right of self-defense is the right to use reasonable force to protect oneself from immanent violence and it doesn't apply when you start the fight. [1]

[1] https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=864 gives a nice, simple overview of how it works.