A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming • Hacker News Board

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#291

Post by paganel » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 11:12 AM UTC

Latteland wrote: post #231

colordrops wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gab would like to use Stripe or Paypal because they are trusted payment providers, but those networks felt they'd stop being trusted payment providers if they let Gab stay on. What does that even mean "stop being trusted payment providers"? If their API works and payments go through, that seems trustworthy to me.

I assume it means the mass of people might stop using those services (like paypal) because they don't want to support sites that talk about racist things like happens with gab. gab is different than say reddit to me because while reddit might have some people posting racist things or threatning to kill someone or rape them, but reddit will ban them or the group - but allowing for that kind of speech ends up appearing…

People still use the international financial system and the banking system in particular even though they have done and still do business with very dodgy people. Afaik HSBC is still alive and kicking even though it has helped some Mexican cartels launder their money, we’re talking about monsters who like to skin their victims alive.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#292

Post by hackeraccount » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 11:14 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #288

oh_sigh wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It is the violence that people have a problem with not the speech right? I mean if the neighbors upstairs are talking about how much the hate me I don't have a problem though that would change if they knock on my door with baseball bat in hand.

It sounds like Gab is being de-platformed for the typical part and not the otherwise part.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#293

Post by PavlovsCat » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 11:17 AM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #245

PavlovsCat wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banally true, yes. > It doesn't mean it does matter either. Someone said something doesn't matter because "few people care", just one example of something that mattered and about which also "few people cared" refutes that reasoning. They're not making an argument, they're refuting one. edit: Another example would be Linus' announcement of Linux at the time. Few people cared, in contrast to the people who today find L…

> The point matters more than the comparison used to make it. Only if we assume the soundbite it's just like when Japanese Americans were put in concentration camps didn't happen. The point could have been made without the comparison, by writing something like this: "Surprisingly few people cared" is a very poor metric to apply to a principle of rights and justice. And then we can discuss how social norms and the leg…

The complaint wasn't that it was worded poorly, but that a direct comparison was made at all, using kinda spooky language such as "It sounds suspiciously as if you're drawing a direct comparison" and "That can't possibly be an argument you really want to make.".

English isn't my first language, even I had no problem understanding the intention of the words, and arguing against the "strongest plausible interpretation" is in the guidelines.

> And then we can discuss how social norms and the legal system interact

Personally I'm content with it being settled that "few people care" is an invalid argument.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#294

Post by PeterisP » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 11:18 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #94

patrickmay wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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=lBoz…

For pretty much every online community starting from the smallest web forums, you need an ability to remove unwanted content and people from that platform. Even platforms for very free, unrestricted discussion need to fight commercial spam and simple vandalism. The ability to have a community of group A for topics that interest group A requires effective moderation, i.e. the ability to remove unwanted topics and people from that forum, blocking them before the majority of the group have had to encounter that unwanted content, otherwise you have a very, very poor experience full of spam that kills the forum, and that is very relevant from a practical standpoint.

For some of that content the proper answer is "go have your community somewhere else"; for other content (e.g. penis enlargement spam and people who post it) there probably is no community that wants them, and for that freedom of speech consists of being able to freely speak on a soapbox somewhere where all the 0 people who want to hear you can do it.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#295

Post by ngcazz » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 11:24 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #208

tptacek wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I’m sure Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines only wanted their ideas to be seen as ideas, just like all others!

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#296

Post by pjc50 » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 11:29 AM UTC

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…

Gab's frog logo is not a coincidence. The network was created by people who believed they were being censored by the left.

> Many people pointed towards lgbt content being taken down and said: "Look, you guys brought this on yourselves."

Nah, LGBT content being taken down or deemed obscene despite not being explicit or pornographic is the default state of society and has only recently (past 20 years) been more permissive.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#297

Post by johnny22 » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 11:38 AM UTC

prepend wrote: post #206

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 t…

please show me the content neutral platforms on the internet that are optimal for creative and productive exchanges of ideas.

4chan is good for the memes, but i'm not sure what else.

It mostly sounds like a truism to me, but I'd like to be proved wrong.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#298

Post by johnny22 » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 11:42 AM UTC

Canada wrote: post #207

tptacek wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

how much of this has to do with whether you personally care? It's about whether their customer base cares.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#299

Post by zimablue » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 11:45 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?

This is such a common thing that you're doing.

There are four levels of power (kind of) => government, employer, social, individual. Whenever you're in an argument, assume that the other side is advocating for the top level to enforce something so you can call them oppresive, and claim that you're advocating for the bottom level (and that that level should be free to do as it likes).

Nothing in this article mentions passing a law and he even mentions several times that it's within their rights. It's therefore clearly discussing level 3 and 4 (trying to effect cultural change at the level of the individual. For you to weigh in as if he's arguing for passing an insane freedom of speech is disingenuous.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#300

Post by YouAreGreat » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 11:49 AM UTC

wisty wrote: post #266

While Americans seem obsessed with defining "free speech" as being exactly the same thing as the 1st Amendment, it might help to ask exactly why the 1st Amendment is a good idea. JS Mill argued that censorship is wrong on a rights basis, that it leads to bad ideas being unchallenged, and it leads to people not being able to understand the reason why ideas are rejected. If censorship by a government is harmful, how is…

> "trigger the conservatives" to force them to attack the actions of private companies

Conservatives will come to understand that big capital is not a conservative.