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

A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

easydns.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 473 posts

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#281

Post by geeostation »

stcredzero wrote: post #114
sanderjd wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I start a company that allows users to upload content over the internet, is it your contention that I should not be within my rights to control what is stored and who is allowed to use my services?

You wind up in a monopoly, or a near-monopoly position, and you can practically suppress the free speech of people, then yes. 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 Orig…

why is this downvoted? seems very good counterpoint to private companies can do whatever they want.

The reality of the free speech online is that US constitution comes stapled with a "Terms of Service" by tech oligopoly

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#282

Post by golemiprague »

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…

The question is if there is alternative and if this thing applies consistently. If I want to create a club which only accept men or whites it will not be allowed and there was the famous case with the bakery that refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. The supreme court in the US actually sided with the bakery but then there is the question of alternative and whether it is a monopoly. The bakery was certainly not a monopoly but access to a payment system could be completely blocked for people with certain view and that's a bit worrying. We don't allow it with certain other critical utilities and we should ask ourself if some of those services are not critical utilities. I feel also very worried that when it comes to people views the people who decide which voice will be heard and which not is some tech company manager. The idea of the first amendment was that the government will not suppress speech because the government was the one with the power to suppress it but these days it is few unelected people in power position in a very specific industry and location of the US with a very obvious point of view and set of believes. So although I don't like certain opinions I like less the precedence we have here and the power given to very few people that I can't even influence by voting. It is like the city square fell under the control of some private company, companies like facebook and twitter are the modern city square and the first amendment should apply to it the same way it applies to any other public place.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#283

Post by ryanlol »

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

Why should we assume that until someone gets kicked off the platform pltaform platforms?

Platform platforms intended exclusively for uses commonly considered undesirable have been successful in the past, see namecentral.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#284

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#285

Post by slededit »

8note wrote: post #262
stcredzero wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? Th…

YouTube is a publisher, and acts with editorial control. Right now, they're emphasizing Indian content. it's they're freedom to downplay Western content to get broader appeal to an Indian audience

They explicitly claim the opposite when taking their DMCA safe harbor provision.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#286

Post by makomk »

kmooney wrote: post #3

> We run the risk that the act of deplatforming can become as extreme as the hate speech it seeks to banish. Let us cross that bridge when we get to it.

Once we reach that point it will be too late to do anything about it, because there will be no platforms left to stand on in order to challenge it.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#287

Post by PeterisP »

colonelpopcorn wrote: post #5
kmooney wrote: post #3

> We run the risk that the act of deplatforming can become as extreme as the hate speech it seeks to banish. Let us cross that bridge when we get to it.

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

Well, but they can use the internet. It's just that people who don't want to hear them (which is most people) won't hear them using the internet, and that is okay and not a restriction of free speech. They can communicate freely with people who care about their viewpoints over the internet, with people who want to communicate with them, but not on the platforms whose subscribers don't want to communicate with such people.

The right to free speech doesn't include the right to force your speech on people who don't want to listen to you.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#288

Post by nl »

oh_sigh wrote: post #232
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ain't gonna happen in this case, for two reasons: 1. Jehovah's witnesses tend not to shoot up synagogues, whereas an otherwise typical member of Gab did. 2. Antisemitism isn't a protected class. I can see from your comments that you are one of those, "I'd defend to the death your right to say it," people. I must admit, I would not defend to the death someone's right to spew hate toward Jews. That's not my hill to die…

If that guy was an "otherwise typical" user of gab, and gab has ~500,000 active users(per wikipedia), why hasn't there been more than one story about gab-user-gone-wild in the media?

Isn't that (the fact this guy shot 11 Jews dead and the other users haven't) exactly what "otherwise typical" refers to?

The way he talked on Gab seems pretty typical of users there, so going and shooting people seems like the only thing that wasn't typical.

Or are you arguing something else?

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#289

Post by [deleted] »

Mirioron wrote: post #278
pjc50 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are already a large number of fights over this. And the solution is the same: complain and hope for the court of public opinion to go your way. E.g. breastfeeding on Facebook, lgbt content generally, the drone strike reporting app on iOS, sex work adverts after FOSTA etc. Then there's the illegal stuff like fraud websites, ddos control domains, and anything to do with copyright infringement. It's noticeable whi…

But gab isn't far right. As I understood it, it's just a Twitter alternative. It doesn't make it inherently left or right. Many people pointed towards lgbt content being taken down and said: "Look, you guys brought this on yourselves." The implication being that some vocal lgbt people were pushing for censorship of other people, but it ended up being used against themselves. I think the solution is to require platfor…

[deleted]

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#290

Post by cousin_it »

b1daly wrote: post #275
mattsfrey wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

I’m responding to your comment more as a representative of a general sentiment. The implicit psychological construct behind this little “mini-panic” around fringe groups be “de-platformed” is a common one: something bad is happening, and we are losing freedoms/rights/capabilities we (society) has in the past. It’s a variation on the notion that “the world is going to hell a hand basket.” The rhetorical fallacy is cal…

> The problem that these new communication platforms are trying to deal with is unprecedented.

The early internet had to deal with the same problems, yet it was much more free than the internet of today. This isn't a false idealization of the past - I was around at the time.

To me the only reason the internet matters is to let individual people speak and be heard - without being silenced by advertisers, the government, or the mob. If we let these entities institute censorship for the common good, we might as well have TV.

Post reply on HN