331–340 of 473 posts
So, they're saying "I won't help your speech reach millions" runs the risk of being as bad as encouraging the idea that "all $ethnics must die" - speech which as very real and deadly consequences.
I don't know where to even with that. Someone has not though it through at all. Is the rest worth reading?
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.
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…
“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.” No. Surely not. Those networks felt they’d stop being cool or PC or untargetted by hordes of angry people, or something. But being seen as a trusted payment provider? That’s not threatened in the least, except by kicking people off. So he’s r…
Stripe/Paypal's constituents include their employees, businesses, and end users, all of whom have lots of choices about which network to align with. Their job is to project both a service and identity that align those folks to maximize the value of their network effects. They decided that the wedge of people who are worried about deplatforming (either Gab specifically or in some holistic way) is smaller than the wedge of people who would rather not be in the same ecosystem as Gab. I seriously doubt you know those audiences better than them, but if you're right then you have a great idea for your own fast-growing business.
BTW, the above doesn't have to be interpreted some cynical, 5-dimensional chess game analyzing user segments. Individual and brand identities and ethics are part of how people make purchasing/participation decisions, whether they are calculated or sincere. Sometimes a part of what makes people and their companies succeed really includes values they articulate that don't seem like part of the core product. You may dismiss those ethics as chasing some sort of trivial coolness-or-PC-ness, but enough other people take them seriously to move a lot of the world's money and time around. If it's tempting to dismiss that chunk of peoples' motivation as some sort of NPC ignorance (edit: apologies for putting words in your mouth if not), you might actually be defending your lack of effort to understand and adapt.
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.
You are mistaking "good faith" for satisfying others' entitlement The spirit of your complaint here is "there should be a reasonably easy path for me to widely distribute my message without getting the rug pulled out from under me". There is exactly one way to distribute your message, and whether it is easy or hard is up to you. That is: satisfy the requirements of every platform you build on top of, and fill in the…
This sounds simple, until you realise the requirements aren't well-defined, or that the definitions can be changed arbitrarily (and retroactively) by the platforms.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, flagging is not like "downvoting", this isn't reddit. As somebody else here already pointed out: > From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. This isn't spam and given the interest it's garnered it's obviously not off-topic. So if you're flagging it you're basically throwing your opinion over it and preventing others from seeing it and from upvoting it. That'…
Can I offer a different complaint? Mine is: you updated your post to reflect that it had been flagged by HN users, but not with material new information you acquired from the thread before that flag had occurred. That feels a little dishonest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> But when you can enough of them pointing in the same direction, it creates the chilling effect-- a business that's technically legal but can't get the services they need. It basically creates am unspoken private regulation well beyond the actual law of the state. Yes, but this is how the free market works. That my $.25 artisanal dog cupcake business can't get the services it needs at the price I can afford doesn't…
If you can't get services you need at any price isn't that when competition authorities [ought to] start investigating?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are mistaking "good faith" for satisfying others' entitlement The spirit of your complaint here is "there should be a reasonably easy path for me to widely distribute my message without getting the rug pulled out from under me". There is exactly one way to distribute your message, and whether it is easy or hard is up to you. That is: satisfy the requirements of every platform you build on top of, and fill in the…
>> satisfy the requirements of every platform you build on top of This sounds simple, until you realise the requirements aren't well-defined, or that the definitions can be changed arbitrarily (and retroactively) by the platforms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> satisfy the requirements of every platform you build on top of This sounds simple, until you realise the requirements aren't well-defined, or that the definitions can be changed arbitrarily (and retroactively) by the platforms.
No argument, and it wasn't meant to sound simple -- just depends on how deeply you are aligned with the goals of the platform. I agree from painful experience that platforms can be capricious and even disingenuous. But that's also part of how they adapt to a changing world and business. Still boils down to: nobody said it would be easy (to get others' attention).
"We don't want your sort on our platform because reasons" ought to be concerning at a much wider level (and not just to the sort that apparently aren't wanted on the platform).
> 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…