341–350 of 473 posts
> The next challenger to Twitter will not be another centralized platform like Gab. It will be decentralized – perhaps a federation like Mastodon, where each node runs its own CoC and community standards – similar to IRC days. You might want to ask Wil Wheaton what he thinks about Mastodon...
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…
They can get it, but have to pay for that. Just like the porn industry had to build their own payment providers.
The chilling effect is working as intended. You need something in society to make people find common ground and live in a similar reality. The current US seems like a great example of people not being able to do so. They blame more and more blame other side for their problems. And i wonder if that trend can be reversed before you guys start shooting each other.
Recent developments like social media made and the US TV landscape make it easier than ever to live in your favorite filter bubble. Algorithms getting better and better at giving you what you want to hear. I don't see developments emerging to counteract that.
If de-platforming is bullet we have to bite for society to keep functioning, than so be it. It's still somewhat mild tool you can work around... i take that over government intervention any time.
> 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…
Deplatforming fuels polarization, so one thing I would look at the PEW research study that shows how the center has collapsed, making it impossible for moderates to win elections: http://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart-pt-1/
The center collapsed because the establishment discredited itself in the 2000s: Iraq, the housing bubble, banks-before-people bailouts, etc. Now everyone is flailing around looking for alternatives. The hard right was first to the dance, but I see a lot of signs of growth on the hard left too.
I wonder if the hard left will get deplatformed too if the rhetoric starts sounding really extreme? They might, especially if there is a loud call for wealth redistribution.
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.” 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…
So, you think these businesses took an existential risk with their reputation for the ephemeral benefit of looking cool? You are seriously underestimating the acumen of the folks who each went from zero to critically central providers in a cutthroat industry in less than 10 years. Stripe/Paypal's constituents include their employees, businesses, and end users, all of whom have lots of choices about which network to a…
Well, yes and no. As you pointed out, they are the 800lb gorilla in the room now. Sort of like FB and Twitter. Others have pointed out that Twitter, for example, started out championing free speech, and that’s part of how they grew to their huge size. Now they have no need to grow in that way, and staying that way can do damage. But beyond potential damage to their platform, you also have the fact that they can afford to lose money now to stay “cool” in a way they couldn’t before.
This is somewhat similar, but we’re talking about a company for money transfer, not communication.
Google grew by saying they wouldn’t be evil. The fact that they are being evil now poses very little short or medium term danger to them.
Long term? Yes. I think they chose short-term profit that will come with a cost later on. Not necessarily in people leaving. (They are the 800lb gorilla, after all.) Maybe in regulation or who knows what.
Having said that, I’m now thinking about other options. As is EasyDNS.
> 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…
Deplatforming fuels polarization, so one thing I would look at the PEW research study that shows how the center has collapsed, making it impossible for moderates to win elections: http://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart-pt-1/
More citations needed! This is a bare assertion that is not widely agreed upon. The polarization was getting worse long before the deplatforming trend started.
Since you started out the game, I'll add a bare assertion of my own. Constantly being bombarded with extremist views fuels polarization! Under that thesis, deplatforming actively works against polarization.
The moral of the story is that you can make almost any argument as long as you are allowed to rely on unproved premises.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What material new information is that?
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
>> That my $.25 artisanal dog cupcake business can't get the services it needs at the price I can afford doesn't raise complaints. 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.
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…
That is, power that is wielded over you by corporations even though they're not your employer because you essentially have to do business with them (Visa and MasterCard come to mind - they're essential infrastructure to the point where it really should just be a function of government, but isn't for historical reasons)