A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming • Hacker News Board

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#211

Post by amputect » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 6:07 AM UTC

im3w1l wrote: post #201

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.

What's the alternative to "build your own platforms" though. Are you willing to compel Stripe by threat of force to keep processing credit cards for nazis? Are you willing to completely torpedo freedom of association, as long as the people demanding your company continue associating with them are sufficiently monstrous?

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#212

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 6:08 AM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #181

stcredzero wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 whole point of Free Speech is to enable all sides of any issue to have their say And that freedom includes the freedom to say "I don't want to be associated with you". Any "anti-deplatforming" is, of necessity, forced unwilling speech. Which is sort of the opposite of what "free speech" people should be standing up for. If someone doesn't want to lend you their soapbox, the solution is not to put a gun to their h…

Any "anti-deplatforming" is, of necessity, forced unwilling speech. Which is sort of the opposite of what "free speech" people should be standing up for.

No, the "relaying" or "transmission" argument is just a dishonest gambit in 2018. Only idiots believe YouTube thinks everything some YouTuber might say on their own channel. Should AT&T have had the right to cut off phone calls containing speech they didn't like? There were party lines where entire groups of people could hear the same person speak, so it wasn't just one on one communication. Should AT&T have had the right to cut those off because of AT&T's "free speech" rights?

Sorry, but the effect of such a position is to allow large companies to regulate the speech of the general public. Their inability to censor the general public doesn't somehow mean that they lose any ability to express their views to the public. It only curtails their ability to squelch the expression of others.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#213

Post by emerged » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 6:08 AM UTC

happilycentrist wrote: post #54

msla wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That thing everyone except the intolerant seem to understand remarkably well Another example of trying to shut down discussion. For example, a substantial number of people around the world understand 'tolerance' to mean 'nobody insults my religion' which, of course, means 'nobody depicts homosexual relationships'. Therefore, depicting homosexuality is intolerant, hein ?

What's worse, is that the people howling about "intolerance" are engaged in a purity spiral, and demand we be a part of it. It's a circular firing squad, which demands more and more extreme signals of virtue by the day - and those people found insufficiently faithful will be the next week's witches to burn. It's an ideological death-cult that won't stop eating itself until there are literally only two of them left, f…

It's a recurring weakness of societies throughout history. There does seem to be strong social push back against it which hopefully implies we are collectively building immunity.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#214

Post by pppaul » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 6:11 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #35

travisoneill1 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is a platform that let's you say anything uncensored intolerant? If your definition of "tolerance" is forced censorship, then I don't think you would do so well in Karl Popper's proposed society.

In actuality, Gab bans users for the same reason Twitter does. For instance, when Paul Nehlen tried to organize harassment of another white nationalist figure, Gab banned him. Part of Gab's sales pitch is that it's a refuge for people whose thoughts are somehow too dangerous for Twitter. But contrary to what Gab wants you to believe, Twitter doesn't ban white nationalists. Richard Spencer has a Twitter account. So do…

Faith Goldy is not a white nationalist

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#215

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 6:13 AM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #147

stcredzero wrote: post #141

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 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 peo…

I don't believe it was ever widely recognized by US jurisprudence and I want you to cite your claims that prove it was.

Take it up with Rekieta Law.

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

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#216

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 6:15 AM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #153

stcredzero wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are some very real problems where oppressed people of various sorts have a real need to be able to "speak the unspeakable" in order to sort their own problems. New ideas are also inevitable heretical. Sorting the wheat from the chaff is a challenge. Trying to not throw the baby out with the bathwater is a challenge.

oppressed people of various sorts have a real need to be able to "speak the unspeakable"

There's a difference between letting people express themselves and ratifying hate to fuel more outrage. Doing that is throwing the justice baby out with the bathwater -- also because it's more viral and you make more money and get more political power that way.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#217

Post by archagon » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 6:16 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #209

archagon wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The president and many members of his party spout the same garbage. These beliefs are not fringe anymore.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#218

Post by emerged » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 6:18 AM UTC

fhood wrote: post #7

colonelpopcorn wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure we're already here. Ignorant or evil folks won't become enlightened or good if they can't use the internet.

No, but they will be isolated, and an isolated person is powerless person.

Really? You can't think of any isolated groups or individuals who have wrecked hell with bombs, guns, virii, etc? Or nukes for that matter.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#219

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 6:18 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #167

jesssse wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We must protect the rights of "white nationalists" or whatever to organize and speak on the Internet. Free speech is for everyone.

They have the right to organize and speak on the Internet. Not only can they, they can even do it on Twitter! The whole premise behind Gab is kind of a grift. Twitter is choc-a-bloc with white nationalists, many of them with blue checkmarks. The things that get people kicked off Twitter (most notably: targeted harassment) are ostensibly things that also get you kicked off Gab. Gab doesn't want you thinking too carefu…

We must protect Free Speech as broadly as we can manage. Otherwise, one allows the gatekeeping of speech, and Free Speech is dead.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#220

Post by alexanderwept » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 6:24 AM UTC

amputect wrote: post #211

im3w1l wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's the alternative to "build your own platforms" though. Are you willing to compel Stripe by threat of force to keep processing credit cards for nazis? Are you willing to completely torpedo freedom of association, as long as the people demanding your company continue associating with them are sufficiently monstrous?

In America, we accepted that when we decided 'disparate impact' was sufficient basis for establishing civil rights violations.

If employers can't use IQ tests because some racial minorities 'underperform' then why not force those same employers to tolerate every view that's legal to own.