Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension

hub.packtpub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 150 posts

Re: Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension

#71

Post by belorn »

dagw wrote: post #46
Grue3 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can't 'debate' hate speech away. Surely you can. To believe otherwise is to believe that hate is logically sound. It's just that people's standards for what constitutes "debate" have lowered so much (thanks to Twitter and its ilk) that it no longer holds any persuasive power. Consider that most people in the West were extremely racist just a few decades ago. It didn't take free speech suppression to change this…

Anybody who has done any amount of debating knows that the 'winner' of any debate is the person who is more prepared and better at the abstract skill of "debating", not the person that is 'right' in any meaningful way. As someone who did a fair amount of debating in school I'm confident I would have won/lost every debate I partook in in exactly the same way even if I was debating the other side of the argument.

That implies that election is not about values or politics, but rather which candidate is more prepared and better at the abstract skill of "debating".

There is some major amount of cynicism to that world view, and I prefer to behave as if the world did not exist like that.

Re: Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension

#72

Post by busymom0 »

WAHa_06x36 wrote: post #59
busymom0 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would disagree. There is a difference between publisher and platform. If Gab was publishing illegal stuff themselves, then it would be different. Gab actively takes down speech which is illegal (action to violence type). But simple hate speech (even if it's offensive and rude) is still free speech and legally covered by the first amendment in the US. Same way Google isn't held liable for hosting illegal pirated con…

The law does not define morals, or ethics. They invite the worst kind of hatemongers to their site. That makes them as bad in my books. If all you care about is whether they are following the letter of the law or not, that is a very naïve and childish view.

The argument boils down to what exactly is hate speech. Something which you find offensive could be totally okay to a lot of other people. Culture, language, satire/comedy/sarcasm etc all play a huge role in what's offensive to someone. I am an immigrant from another country and things which are said there is offensive here and vice versa.

Re: Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension

#73

Post by dagw »

untog wrote: post #63
kshatrea wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you consider communism as far left, then yes the far left has absolutely killed millions. If you do not consider communism far left, I don't know what to tell you.

Expanding your criteria to encompass all of history isn't really all that helpful. Today, in the actual situation we are experiencing as opposed to political movements that have been dead for decades, the far right are more violent than the far left by a large margin.

far right are more violent than the far left by a large margin.

Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but you're going to have to define your terms more narrowly if you want your argument to hold. Which countries, who's "we", are we talking state actors or individuals, how to Maoist rebel groups in Asia and South America feature into your calculus etc.

Re: Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension

#74

Post by dagw »

belorn wrote: post #71
dagw wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anybody who has done any amount of debating knows that the 'winner' of any debate is the person who is more prepared and better at the abstract skill of "debating", not the person that is 'right' in any meaningful way. As someone who did a fair amount of debating in school I'm confident I would have won/lost every debate I partook in in exactly the same way even if I was debating the other side of the argument.

That implies that election is not about values or politics, but rather which candidate is more prepared and better at the abstract skill of "debating". There is some major amount of cynicism to that world view, and I prefer to behave as if the world did not exist like that.

Far from it. I believe that values and politics are very important and specifically because of that we have to get away from overvaluing the traditional debate format which does nothing to effectively highlight either.

Re: Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension

#75

Post by untog »

dagw wrote: post #73
untog wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expanding your criteria to encompass all of history isn't really all that helpful. Today, in the actual situation we are experiencing as opposed to political movements that have been dead for decades, the far right are more violent than the far left by a large margin.

far right are more violent than the far left by a large margin. Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but you're going to have to define your terms more narrowly if you want your argument to hold. Which countries, who's "we", are we talking state actors or individuals, how to Maoist rebel groups in Asia and South America feature into your calculus etc.

Given what we're talking about here (i.e. Gab) I'm referring to US-based groups.

Re: Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension

#76

Post by maeln »

Grue3 wrote: post #30
madeofpalk wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If everyone jumped on the bandwagon and started using the extension as a generic comment section, then the bright light of day would cleanse it Browser extensions aside, if we've learn anything over the past two years of 'Online', it's that this simply isn't true. You can't 'debate' hate speech away.

>You can't 'debate' hate speech away. Surely you can. To believe otherwise is to believe that hate is logically sound. It's just that people's standards for what constitutes "debate" have lowered so much (thanks to Twitter and its ilk) that it no longer holds any persuasive power. Consider that most people in the West were extremely racist just a few decades ago. It didn't take free speech suppression to change this…

If you can surely debate hate away, it is extremely costing for your mental health.

My own experience is that, when doing it face to face it's more easy, you can really get through someone. People are less "protected" and have more emotional connection.

But on the Internet ? I stopped trying. Every time it's the same thing: People prefer to be 'trolls' and just throw insults and bullshit all day. Unless the person is actually willing to have a real discussion, it's almost impossible to "debate" anything. As soon as you are going to try to have a real argument, an horde will just "dunk" on you throwing colorful name all around.

It's sad but i stopped believing in the possibility of having any interesting argument on the internet if it is not amongst a small community or a very moderated one.

Re: Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension

#77

Post by Funes- »

WAHa_06x36 wrote: post #65
Funes- wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But they literally kill people. And they will kill many more if they gain more power. Do you think those dead people will thank you for your brave efforts? Who are "they"? Who is literally killing people? Those are very serious accusations to just be thrown around within such a broad, imprecise, and vague message. Moreover, who are you to decide for the rest of us what kind of speech is deemed dangerous or otherwise…

You are aware that most of recent mass murderers have been from the far right, many even posting on gab?

You are aware that mass murdering is and has been carried out by people encompassing the whole religious and political spectrum, right?

Re: Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension

#78

Post by belorn »

dagw wrote: post #74
belorn wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That implies that election is not about values or politics, but rather which candidate is more prepared and better at the abstract skill of "debating". There is some major amount of cynicism to that world view, and I prefer to behave as if the world did not exist like that.

Far from it. I believe that values and politics are very important and specifically because of that we have to get away from overvaluing the traditional debate format which does nothing to effectively highlight either.

So the obvious question is then, how do we change the debate format so that we can discuss hate speech away.

I don't think banning is a working debate format.

Re: Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension

#79

Post by dagw »

xfitm3 wrote: post #39
WAHa_06x36 wrote: post #9

Good. Far-right hate is unacceptable, and no company with a conscience should ever support it.

Far left is no better than far right - nobody is even listening to each other anymore.

Far left is no better than far right

Perhaps true in aggregate across all countries and history. Absolutely not true in any given local situation.

Re: Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension

#80

Post by saithir »

Ygg2 wrote: post #38
WAHa_06x36 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What "tools" do you need to "create" to "ban certain types of speech"? What does that even mean? You don't need tools to kick nazis off your platform. And who cares what homophobes do on their platforms? Don't use them.

Laws and practices that help you exclude certain opinions. Like for example in this case the Mozilla Acceptable Use Policy. Change a few words, add some statements, and it can be used against Antifa. Homophobes were just an example, you can substitute with Nazis or others.

You don't even need to change anything. The article already mentions promoting violence was one of the reasons.

So yes, the whole point of Antifa is already unacceptable by that policy.

Post reply on HN