A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming • Hacker News Board

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#201

Post by im3w1l » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 5:45 AM UTC

evrydayhustling wrote: post #152

Reading this article is like watching someone beat the ocean with a stick. What would it look like for an "anti-deplatforming" initiative to succeed? All ideas have equal access to all platforms? Just the big ones? The objective is so poorly formed, it's not even wrong. A platform's identity and ability to attract an audience are determined by the activities they accept / cultivate, not vice versa. Infowars wanted to…

First people get kicked off their platforms "build your own platforms"

Then platforms got kicked off the platform platforms "build your own platform platforms"

What reason is there to assume those platform platforms will not get kicked off the platform platform platforms?

These people are not arguing in good faith.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#202

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 5:48 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #173

stcredzero wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody has lost their first amendment rights That's just what Universities say when they create protest zones where no one can see the protest. That's what Universities say when they slap outrageous fees and fines on groups who invite speakers they don't like. Technically, they're correct, but in the spirit of the law, suppressing speech is what they are seeking to do. the person you're replying to hasn't made such a…

> The person I'm replying to is advocating for the practical loss of free speech No, I'm arguing that your free speech rights do not give you the right to compel me to repeat your speech for you, and that the idea that they do negates my free speech rights.

No, I'm arguing that your free speech rights do not give you the right to compel me to repeat your speech for you, and that the idea that they do negates my free speech rights.

No one in 2018 really thinks that someone having a YouTube channel means that YouTube means to say or approve everything said on that channel. That's only pretended by people whose aim is just to silence those they disagree with.

I should think that the small fraction of a percent of people who'd genuinely have that sort of idea is far outweighed by the impact on hundreds of millions of people who feel their voices are squelched in part or whole by YouTube's so-called "free speech" decision to silence opinions they don't like.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#203

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 5:51 AM UTC

pvg wrote: post #149

stcredzero wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, you were hypocritically pushing a narrative that I meant something entirely different than what I was saying, and I took that opportunity away from you. I'm saying the same thing I always was.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#204

Post by mattsfrey » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 5:54 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #199

mattsfrey wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, details.. What if every single domain company decides to blackball them? What do they do then? Nothing, they are off the internet.

I guess they'll have to return to sharing their desire to kill black people the old fashioned way, in person. Something you aren't grappling with here is the way the Internet has enabled previously-scattered terrible people to connect and self-radicalize. David Neiwart, who tracked various "patriot", white supremacist, and other fringe groups since the 90s, wrote a very readable book about how things have changed sin…

Actually inciting violence or conspiring to do so is covered under common law statutes and can be easily prosecuted. This is far different, it is companies deciding on their own volition to unilaterally ban entities from accessing the very "pipes". Today it's at the domain level, so the convenience of being able to type in a name versus an IP is what's at stake. What next, ISP's blocking traffic?.. Like I've said it's the principle. I believe in free speech and a free and open internet, if there is criminal activity the FBI, et al. can easily get involved. This is about the fact that the very infrastructure of the internet is largely dictated by private entities who are now imposing their own discretion based on content they object to, odious as it may be. I for one am not keen on allowing the sociopolitical whims of the time to dictate who is allowed on this great thing called the internet. I see something once pure, beautiful, and glorious entering its first stages of death.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#205

Post by adventured » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 5:54 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #191

mattsfrey wrote: post #188

It seems like many people are caught up in the details here and missing the wider principles.. What kind of internet do you want? I grew up with an internet that was entirely open and free, there have always been the hate dens and their garbage. I view domain services as essentially infrastructure, not arbitrators of content. If sites/services are being shut down at the infrastructure level, we've entered a new age o…

Stormfront is still up and running. They had a hard time getting access to the same QOS and pricing as do sites that companies actively want to host, but at some point we're complaining that white nationalists don't get FRAND terms, and it's a little hard to get worked up about that. Gab ran Twitter for White Nationalists off Digital Ocean, Azure, and who knows where else. Gab's users have a disconcerting tendency to…

> Gab's users have a disconcerting tendency to blow up synagogues.

The Gab user in question was issuing threats on Twitter as well for months. Twitter did nothing about it. Under your exceptionally poorly formed argument, Twitter's users have a tendency to blow up synagogues (it was actually a shooting).

Under your premise, Twitter and Facebook should be forced off the Internet, or otherwise maligned, because the people that commited 9/11 were Arabs and there are Arabs using Twitter and Facebook. Under your premise, all Arabs should be guilty and share responsibility. Because N number of Arabs threaten Jews, no Arabs should be allowed on Twitter or Facebook, or otherwise those platforms must be isolated. You could widen that and claim it should apply to all Muslims because of some bad Muslims. By your premise all Muslims share guilt for the actions of some Muslims. See: Louis Farrakhan on Twitter.

We can extend your absurdity further. We can start talking about how Facebook should be shut down because it was used in some manner to assist in genocide in Myanmar. All chat applications must be destroyed, all encryption must be removed because it could shield someone like the Pittsburgh shooter. The iPhone and its security has to be forced out of existence, lest it protect someone like the Pittsburgh shooter. Why just imagine all the horrible conversations and plots that have taken place online, shielded, aided by encryption. Your premise has to be that encryption is also evil and must be 'stopped' or outlawed, because it routinely assists evil deeds.

And that's before we get to the use of encryption in warfare. Command & control, drones, planes, bombings, satellite communication. Essentially all warfare now or in the near future will be heavily utilizing encryption technology in a critical manner. That's a very large amount of killing and murder, in other words. As a technology assistant to evil, Gab couldn't hope to rival encryption tech in a thousand lifetimes. Your premise would require the abolition of all encryption and that all engineers and service providers globally must stand against all encryption technology. Such that we can see what all people are doing at all times, since so many evil people utilize the Internet and encryption.

It's a very obviously absurd premise you're floating. The entire Internet has to be destroyed if one follows what you're saying to its logical conclusion.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#206

Post by prepend » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 5:55 AM UTC

evrydayhustling wrote: post #152

Reading this article is like watching someone beat the ocean with a stick. What would it look like for an "anti-deplatforming" initiative to succeed? All ideas have equal access to all platforms? Just the big ones? The objective is so poorly formed, it's not even wrong. A platform's identity and ability to attract an audience are determined by the activities they accept / cultivate, not vice versa. Infowars wanted to…

“A platform's identity and ability to attract an audience are determined by the activities they accept / cultivate, not vice versa.”

I think this is a really good point, but it’s precisely why platforms that are content neutral are optimal for creative and productive exchange of ideas.

Reality is a platform. The universe allows all us atoms to zip around. If it consciously tried to optimize based on shifting morals then it would not work well.

In a little while, we’ll be digital and “deplatforming” will be a form of death sentence. So, I’d like to get used to letting fringe people be fringe and having the authorities get involved when laws are broken.

It’s not about “owing you an audience” it’s about equal access to basic infrastructure needed for a free society to interact. This is sort of net neutrality related as our comms need to function like title I carriers in the US where they just provide dumb infrastructure. The last thing I want is to have to pick my DNS server based on political ideology. Does the future get to the point where there’s a “No Nazi GPL?”

The way to fix people to stop being nazis/isis is not to make their blog stop working, but to engage and surround them with empathy. And then maybe their kids will be ok. There’s a lot of 100 year old wars out there where people escalate without resolution.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#207

Post by Canada » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 5:56 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #163

freedomben wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can say that! But: if, rather than just writing a chin-stroking blog post, Easydns had actually hosted Gab's zones, I think they'd find the impact on their customer base would not be net positive.

Would it be negative? Why do I care whose DNS records are also hosted there?

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#208

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 5:58 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #169

evrydayhustling wrote: post #152

Reading this article is like watching someone beat the ocean with a stick. What would it look like for an "anti-deplatforming" initiative to succeed? All ideas have equal access to all platforms? Just the big ones? The objective is so poorly formed, it's not even wrong. A platform's identity and ability to attract an audience are determined by the activities they accept / cultivate, not vice versa. Infowars wanted to…

When people complain about being deplatformed, they're just saying "the platforms that accept me aren't popular enough". This is perfect.

No, it's crazy. In that case, ideas aren't being judged as ideas. It's the same sort of "technically not" dishonesty that Noam Chomsky called out in Manufacturing Consent. Western media did indeed cover events not favorable to the US/Nato side. But it was covered in back pages, in the plainest language. Technically, it's not censorship in the same way as Pravda airbrushed people out of photos was censorship. However, it had pretty much the same effect.

I thought the media distortion was bad in the 80's/90's. Now I realize I didn't realize how much worse it could get.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#209

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 6:02 AM UTC

archagon wrote: post #195

toasterlovin wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People are surprisingly easy to reprogram. You can read countless stories of once-liberal parents turning into hateful conspiracy nuts in their old age out of prolonged exposure to right-wing media. You should be more skeptical of your intuitions about which way the arrow of causality points.

These are people who now believe that Jewish cabals run the world and that the dead kids at our schools are crisis actors. Don’t you bullshit me.

There are also reasonable, nonviolent, left-leaning centrists who think everyone should have Free Speech, because no one can parcel out Free Speech and have it still remain free. The people who spout the nonsense you cite are a marginal fringe. They're probably greatly outnumbered by people in the far fringe left who are just somewhat not quite as bad. All should have the right of Free Speech.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#210

Post by pppaul » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 6:05 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #199

mattsfrey wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, details.. What if every single domain company decides to blackball them? What do they do then? Nothing, they are off the internet.

I guess they'll have to return to sharing their desire to kill black people the old fashioned way, in person. Something you aren't grappling with here is the way the Internet has enabled previously-scattered terrible people to connect and self-radicalize. David Neiwart, who tracked various "patriot", white supremacist, and other fringe groups since the 90s, wrote a very readable book about how things have changed sin…

are you OK with most Muslims not using the internet, because their values are radically different from non-muslims (treatment of women, gays, atheists) and they have a fairly high rate of terrorism compared to other ideologies?

It's likely that the internet and places like GAB or whatever site you don't like, is a good place to de-radicalize people as well. and you can't even have a place to de-radicalize when the people you care about that happening for have had their thoughts banned from the internet.