A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming • Hacker News Board

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#361

Post by skedaddle » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 3:56 PM UTC

orangecat wrote: post #157

skedaddle wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they didn't. In the two situations he is clearly alluding to 1) the person admitted it was hurtful and unacceptable and that they should not have said it, and the mainstream publisher said they would not have hired her without this understanding 2) the argument the person made before being fired was not simply that there is a non-zero amount of sexual dimorphism in humans, it was concretely that womens' neuroticis…

it was concretely that womens' neuroticism, agreeableness, and other feeling-sy tendencies may explain why they are on average worse leaders, underrepresented, underpaid, etc. Remove "worse leaders" (which was not in Damore's memo), and it's a plausible theory supported by quite a bit of evidence.

I'm sorry to say that it was in the memo, in the personality differences section. In any case my point isn't to get into the debate about whether sexist outcomes may actually be valid. I was pointing out that GPs examples of white/male victimization were misrepresented and dishonest.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#362

Post by ForHackernews » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 4:16 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #296

Mirioron wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 permis…

> 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.

This is true and you might think that recent history would give the left pause about calling for increased censorship, but that does not appear to be the case.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#363

Post by joshuamorton » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 4:23 PM UTC

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #360

mcguire wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, once again, " Are you willing to compel Stripe by threat of force to keep processing credit cards for nazis? "

In the 1950s, your question would've been " Are you willing to compel Stripe by threat of force to keep processing credit cards for leftists and commies? " You believe because your political faction has a little leverage currently that it will always remain that way; not so. If you legitimize deplatforming, it is a weapon that will someday be turned against you. Given the unwelcome resurgence of the right worldwide,…

If memory serves, at least in the US this was the opposite. The free market was fine with serving least wing groups. It was the government that stepped in and told individuals to not be leftist, under threat of force.

Only then did businesses stop associating with those people, because the government was implicitly threatening them.

It was exactly the government's interference that caused the deplatforming of potential leftists during the red scare.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#364

Post by oever » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 4:24 PM UTC

teddyh wrote: post #321

DoreenMichele wrote: post #65

Gab illustrates a “catch-22” around setting out to be specifically a “free speech platform”. You initially appeal to the most fringe elements of public discourse. Your first wave of users are going to be people for whom this has been a problem, and if you’re an absolutist and let them on then suddenly that’s your base. For me, this is one of the more profound take-aways from the article. This piece is very thought pr…

Yes, the first wave defines the project; if the first wave has problems, the project is infused with these problems. This is true of free software projects also. I have a couple of examples: • The KDE project (to create a nice graphical desktop environment based on the X windowing system) was initially formed around using the Qt library for graphical user interface widgets. The Qt library had, at the time, a somewhat…

You use your hypothesis to prove your point. So you prove nothing.

The KDE project is very focused on software freedom and does not consider proprietary software A-OK. This is written in the https://manifesto.kde.org/

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#365

Post by Pfhreak » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 4:24 PM UTC

kakarot wrote: post #358

Pfhreak wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one is going to stop using Paypal and Stripe because they support a platform. This is objectively false. I would stop supporting a business based on who they support. I have done so many times. From web services to food services, and everything in between.

They're a payment processor. If you believe in a non-discriminatory economy, where anyone with a legal, useful service or skill should be able to collect payment for it, then you simply can't have this position. Payment processors must follow the law like anyone else and have no obligation to process payments for illegal services, but we can't start mass boycotting them based on the clients they legally do business w…

I disagree. I doubt we'll get to any sort of shared position via internet forum, I was simply pointing out that the parent comment was objectively false.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#366

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 4:25 PM UTC

archagon wrote: post #224

philwelch wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People are surprisingly easy to reprogram. Not you, though. No way could YOU be under the influence of a totalitarian ideology despite the fact that you are openly advocating restricting basic human rights .

I am advocating the right for private organizations to ban fucked-up ideologies from their services. That this is being framed as some sort of totalitarian assault on free speech shows just how far the right-wing rot has gotten. The balance fallacy will be the death of democracy in America.

> I am advocating the right for private organizations to ban fucked-up ideologies from their service.

Can we start with yours? /s

This has nothing to do with "right-wing rot". We already have ample historical examples of what happens when those wielding power, whether religious, royal, or financial, can suppress views and speech and it wasn't a good thing! The Enlightenment and the birth of the liberal movement (now classical liberalism, I suppose) were in reaction to those abuses and they fought many hard battles to get us the rights we enjoy today. It would be insane to throw that away for a little temporary advantage.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#367

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 4:29 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #363

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 1950s, your question would've been " Are you willing to compel Stripe by threat of force to keep processing credit cards for leftists and commies? " You believe because your political faction has a little leverage currently that it will always remain that way; not so. If you legitimize deplatforming, it is a weapon that will someday be turned against you. Given the unwelcome resurgence of the right worldwide,…

If memory serves, at least in the US this was the opposite. The free market was fine with serving least wing groups. It was the government that stepped in and told individuals to not be leftist, under threat of force. Only then did businesses stop associating with those people, because the government was implicitly threatening them. It was exactly the government's interference that caused the deplatforming of potenti…

[deleted]

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#368

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 4:35 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #363

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 1950s, your question would've been " Are you willing to compel Stripe by threat of force to keep processing credit cards for leftists and commies? " You believe because your political faction has a little leverage currently that it will always remain that way; not so. If you legitimize deplatforming, it is a weapon that will someday be turned against you. Given the unwelcome resurgence of the right worldwide,…

If memory serves, at least in the US this was the opposite. The free market was fine with serving least wing groups. It was the government that stepped in and told individuals to not be leftist, under threat of force. Only then did businesses stop associating with those people, because the government was implicitly threatening them. It was exactly the government's interference that caused the deplatforming of potenti…

The government isn't an entity with its own independent will; the US public broadly voted in officials that put in place those policies. Leftists who openly identified as such faced all sorts of problems doing business even without government intervention.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#369

Post by emiliobumachar » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 4:39 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #236

mattsfrey wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Domain names aren't mandatory. IP addresses still work.

For now. The question of "where does it stop" is still on the table.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#370

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 4:43 PM UTC

8note wrote: post #265

prepend wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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…

The basic infrastructure is there regardless.of whether you can access the internet. People will still have eyes and ears and can walk to each other, just like they always do.

[deleted]