A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming • Hacker News Board

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#311

Post by michaelmrose » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 12:40 PM 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…

Making the Nazis blog stop working CAN help us contain their crap. Propaganda works full stop. People perceive what is normal and correct based on repetition and social proof.

If you want to sell your brand of hammer you spend millions putting it in front of everyone's faces in ads on tv, in magazines, if you can organically by getting people to talk about it among themselves. This last is better because it seems more authentic.

You do this because the biggest barrier is not getting someone to pick between foo and bar brand hammers its to consider foo a legitimate choice when they need a hammer so that they will spend their finite time learning about foo or their finite money on it.

People spend billions on this industry because it works whether you're selling hammers or hate. Imagining what works to sell hammers doesn't work to sell hate is a lack of imagination.

Incidentally the basic infrastructure to facilitate communication is dns and http not facebook pages. The sooner people learn that the better.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#312

Post by michaelmrose » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 12:47 PM UTC

mattsfrey wrote: post #192

tptacek wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

If enough people are actually impacted perhaps they can start their own name registration system or adopt one of several upstarts that have come into being over the years.

Here are 8 such

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#313

Post by superkuh » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 12:47 PM UTC

As long as the ISP stays as a dumb pipe there will always be alternatives. Self hosting is the best hosting and these days ISP connections are definitely fast enough to host anyones' small personal site up to a medium size forum.

Hopefully as this wave of authoritarian practices sweeps the globe and the 'net people will simply adopt federated services like IRC or notabug for communication and host it among themselves.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#314

Post by michaelmrose » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 12:50 PM UTC

mattsfrey wrote: post #204

wpietri wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

As far as I am aware people can usually call for nonspecific violence without ending up locked up in America today either de jure or de facto.

At the very least I have seldom seen lunatics locked up for sharing such sentiments as "Kill all the jews"

I would be happy if this changed.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#315

Post by CM30 » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 12:56 PM UTC

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; online platforms needed to be treated like their offline equivalents. Why can an ISP not censor traffic but a web host can? Why can the utility company or a credit card processor not 'shut down' customers they disagree with while the likes of Cloudflare or PayPal or Stripe can?

There's no logic behind this. No, you can't just say 'offline stuff has a monopoly', because it doesn't. It might in some parts of the US (where choice in ISPs is limited), but it certainly doesn't in much of Europe, other parts of the US or other countries around the world. You've got multiple choices for banks and building societies, multiple choices for electric companies and multiple choices for ISPs, yet we're sane and don't let them discriminate by political views at will.

It's time similar standards were set up for online services too. If you market yourself as a platform or network or service that should be morally neutral, then you should be obligated to act that way, just like your offline equivalents generally do. There should always be a way to host a platform for your views, no matter how many people hate them and you in the process.

Google and Apple should also be looked into in regards to their app stores too. They're defacto monopolies on their platforms (unless you jailbreak them), and their standards for what's 'acceptable' are clearly broken and biased to all hell. Apparently something like Gab isn't allowed, but dozens of copyright/trademark/whatever infringing ripoffs are? It's fine for apps to ripoff consumers and target kids with exploitative in app purchases but not provide a platform for 'questionable' views?

Yeah, that doesn't add up much, and it's clear they're falling short as both a platform and a publisher.

Finally, something should definitely be done about the whole 'contact their employer and try and get them fired' crap. I'm not really sure what, but there should be a legal way to stop people trying to screw over people's livelihoods based on online disagreements. Maybe an actual ban on contacting someone's employer/company/coworkers unless it's about illegal activity? I don't know, anything I can think of seems like it'd hurt freedom of speech more in the attempt to save it.

But something does need to change, before the laws basically become ineffective and trial by media/mob becomes the judge, jury and executioner.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#316

Post by kasey_junk » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 1:02 PM UTC

pppaul wrote: post #214

tptacek wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Faith Goldy literally said the 14 words and claimed they weren't controversial in a recording.

If we aren't putting her in the white nationalist classification I'm not sure who does end up there.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#317

Post by michaelmrose » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 1:02 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #143

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…

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

The first amendment says that the government cannot restrict free speech it has nothing whatsoever to do with a private entity tolerating "free speech" on their property.

The totality of the public space being private property in the aforementioned scenario sounds like a unique situation and a poor position to reason from.

In general not only do you not have a free speech interest in communicating on someone else's property the government forcing facebook to carry your message would actually be compelling them to communicate their approval of your message.

You would be protecting a wholly imaginary free speech interest while trespassing on a real one.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#318

Post by ryukafalz » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 1:09 PM UTC

PeterisP wrote: post #287

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.

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 p…

Were we still talking about platforms like Facebook or Twitter, I would agree with you. But I think it's a bit different now that platforms like Gab are themselves getting deplatformed, because those are the places these people would go to communicate with people who share their viewpoints.

I have no desire to listen to that speech, so I just don't visit Gab. It's not like I've ever been forced to.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#319

Post by drewbuschhorn » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 1:16 PM UTC

hakfoo wrote: post #228

amputect wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What makes the 'deplatforming' threat viable is that so many critical aspects of an online business are a choice between private-enterprise players. Stripe or Authorize.net. AWS or DigitalOcean. GoDaddy or Namecheap. As you suggest, they have no individual legal obligation to serve a business that may cause bad press/high risk/whatever. But when you can enough of them pointing in the same direction, it creates the ch…

I'd love to see Republican senators voting to fund an antifa 24/7 channel. I mean, they can't even get behind Sesame Street so I'm sure that wouldn't be a problem.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#320

Post by drewbuschhorn » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 1:18 PM UTC

OpenBSD-reich wrote: post #306

amputect wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Freedom of [dis]association has already been torpedoed. If political leanings were protected tomorrow like sexuality and sexual orientation are protected today, it'd significantly reduce the deplatforming. Joyent couldn't deplatform for politics anymore than christian* bakers couldn't refuse gays their cake! Interestingly, political opinion is not something protected in progressive-pushed instruments (take the Creati…

Makes you wonder why they haven't, despite controlling all three branches of government.