Live data from Hacker News

Gab has been hacked and 70GB of data leaked

arstechnica.com

621–630 of 868 posts

Re: Gab has been hacked and 70GB of data leaked

#621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complete nonsense false equivalence. Gab is _dominated_ by far-right racist content and conspiracy theories. My mum uses Twitter and doesn't see a single far-left opinion, 99% of the content on Twitter is that way. You're comparing an entire polluted pool that is unfit to swim in with a single floating turd in the ocean.

Really? It literally isn't possible to look at the "trending" panel in Twitter without seeing far-left talking points. For example, today's trending topics include the "cancellation" of Dr Seuss (with many tweets giving examples of why he should be cancelled in the author's opinion) and the use of the words "latinx" and "womxn" to avoid offending people by using gendered language.

I just looked and nothing about seizing the means of production from our capitalist overlords, or that money is a construct that needs to be abolished is trending on Twitter today.

Re: Gab has been hacked and 70GB of data leaked

#622
post #611
post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Karunamon said in a sibling comment, labels facilitate reasoning. Yes, labels have their inherent risks, especially such vague labels as left and right (as applied to politics). But we live in an age of political parties. It seems we can't do representative democracy without them, for better or worse: And given that, we need a language to talk about parties' politics in broad terms. And then we inevitably come up…

>labels facilitate reasoning this is the claim, what is your supporting reasoning? >we need a language to talk about parties' politics in broad terms Why? Why should we strive to generalize something so inherently complex and impactful as policy. >once fronts harden and the tribal impulse sets in I'm not understanding how simplistic labels can contribute to anything other than this outcome.

> Why? Why should we strive to generalize something so inherently complex and impactful as policy.

Because we (most of us, myself included) don't have the capacity to reason about the entire complex mess at once. To some extent, all thinking about the real world must be simpler than reality. This is true even of mathematical models of physical reality, even more so of mental models of politics. Yes, we should strive to improve our understanding, and I struggle with this daily, but if you remove all broad categories from consideration, leaving only the details, I for one will be lost. The usual metaphor is something about forests and trees, I believe.

Re: Gab has been hacked and 70GB of data leaked

#623
post #614
post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You put your finger at an important point there. When applied to a single policy, labels can indeed get in the way of reasoned discussion of the policy. I think the labels are more useful as applied to the entirety of someone's political outlook. But if we were to apply labels to UBI, I imagine that the left would mostly be in favour, and the right would mostly be against it. Ideally, everyone should consider the not…

I think you're arguing my point for me here! If we don't immediately try to label something with simplistic labels people would be forced to reason about the policy based on merits rather than labels (or just not consider it at all, which I contend is entirely better than making decisions based on tribal labels)

You do have some valid points, but presently we seem to be talking past each other, so I think I'll let the matter drop for now. But thanks for giving me something to mull over.

Re: Gab has been hacked and 70GB of data leaked

#624
post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the paradox of tolerance. If you allow the people who want everyone not like them to be forcibly marginalized or killed to have the same rights as all others, they will relentlessly try to flip that around until they're the only ones with those rights. We have to stop such behavior at almost any cost. This was made blindingly obvious to the majority of the population during WWII. It's a damn shame how so many ar…

Speech and violence are different things. You don't have to be tolerant of bad ideas (and indeed you should not be) but you do have to protect the rights of all human beings to express them. Protecting the legal rights to publish, and personally/morally tolerating the publication of abhorrent things are two entirely different concepts. No one person or group should ever be permitted to declare themselves the arbiter…

> You don't have to be tolerant of bad ideas [...] but you do have to protect the rights of all human beings to express them

Is there no limit to this? Knowing how horrible human beings can be to each other, is there really no point at which we draw the line and say, no further? Because there very much are numerous examples of where we do so according to the law.

As uncomfortable as it may be, the conversation about who should be silenced must continue. For as long as we face the prospect of fellow humans encouraging their peers to harm other fellow humans for bad reasons, there is no sane alternative. It's probably something we'll have to deal with until/unless the dubious promises of transhumanism become real.

Re: Gab has been hacked and 70GB of data leaked

#625
post #623
post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're arguing my point for me here! If we don't immediately try to label something with simplistic labels people would be forced to reason about the policy based on merits rather than labels (or just not consider it at all, which I contend is entirely better than making decisions based on tribal labels)

You do have some valid points, but presently we seem to be talking past each other, so I think I'll let the matter drop for now. But thanks for giving me something to mull over.

thanks for the engagement and respect - always feels great to take the opposite position against a respectful individual

Re: Gab has been hacked and 70GB of data leaked

#626
post #622
post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>labels facilitate reasoning this is the claim, what is your supporting reasoning? >we need a language to talk about parties' politics in broad terms Why? Why should we strive to generalize something so inherently complex and impactful as policy. >once fronts harden and the tribal impulse sets in I'm not understanding how simplistic labels can contribute to anything other than this outcome.

> Why? Why should we strive to generalize something so inherently complex and impactful as policy. Because we (most of us, myself included) don't have the capacity to reason about the entire complex mess at once. To some extent, all thinking about the real world must be simpler than reality. This is true even of mathematical models of physical reality, even more so of mental models of politics. Yes, we should strive…

I definitely agree that it needs to be simplified, but I think there has to be balance and nuance. I would think a simple left vs right is the most simplistic view one can take and thus has swung entirely too far in the direction of simplifying a view.

Re: Gab has been hacked and 70GB of data leaked

#627

I've been following Hacker News for over a decade and my sense of the community is that it has always been overwhelmingly pro free speech at any cost (even in the cases where it would protect something outright illegal). Now I'm hearing from many in the same community that free speech has been "weaponized" and must be controlled for the greater good. What happened? Seriously.

Every society that grows past the point where people are largely self-sufficient needs some way to settle on common truth if it is to remain stable. But it also needs a way to update what it considers to be true, because sometimes what it decided is true turns out to be wrong or later becomes wrong as circumstances change.

That update mechanism needs to have some friction, though, so that you don't make too many wrong updates.

Free speech is a mechanism that helps with the updates, and up until maybe 30 years ago we also had an effective form of friction on it.

That friction took the form of the cost of getting an audience. You could say or publish pretty much anything you wanted other than things that were outright illegal. But it cost money to get your speech to a wide audience. The bigger the audience, generally the more the cost.

If what you wanted to say was close to the current common truth, it was a lot cheaper. The farther from that you got, the harder it was to find someone who would pay to get you a large audience.

In those cases where what you wanted to say was far from the common truth and so you could not come up with the money to get a large audience, you'd have to resort to spreading your message on a small scale. You might even have to start out spreading it in person one on one or by writing letters to people one on one.

If what you were trying to spread was actually true, it would eventually overcome that friction. You'd slowly convince people, until you might have enough who would pay for your self-published book or subscribe to a newsletter. They might start spreading it. It might take a while but eventually you'll get there.

If what you were trying to promote was just flat out wrong and borderline insane, such as that California's large wildfires last summer were actually ignited by space lasers run by the jews, or that the elites are kidnapping children and drilling holes into their heads to harvest adrenochrome, you'd have a real hard time getting that message out. And if you did manage and it started to gain a little traction, debunkers would quickly get debunkings out which would spread faster, making it harder for your thing to spread.

With a lot of people getting almost all their information from social media, that form of friction has to a large extent gone away. It is a lot easier and cheaper to get a large audience.

Debunking takes time, and by the time a debunking is out there for the false stuff to have already taken root. On top of that, people are now exposed to a lot more information (both true and false), leaving much less time per item for evaluation. And it is much easier to create new false things than new true things. This means that even if a debunking of something does come around to your social media feed, you might miss it in the flood of new false stuff in there.

And on top of all that, its not just cranks and crackpots producing the false ideas now. First, you've got state sponsored entities doing it to try to harm rival states. Second, you've got content farms that make up sensationalistic stuff designed to generate clicks, so that they can run ads on it.

We need some mechanism to put friction back.

Re: Gab has been hacked and 70GB of data leaked

#628

I spent a number of years living in America in the past, and made friends with people across the political spectrum there. And what has always stood out to me is how much hatred and animosity the American right and left have for each other. Talk with someone over beers long enough and they really open up about it, probably because I'm an outsider. As far as political orientation goes, by worldwide standards America a…

> by worldwide standards America actually ranges from center-right (Democrats) to far-right (Republicans) OhBoyHereWeGo.jpg It's stupid to try and condense the political ideology of the US (or almost any nation) down to one spectrum and then try and map that onto the rest of the world when we (and the rest of the world) have a lot of ideology based on "well party X took position Y because party V had position W back…

> a lot of ideology based on "well party X took position Y because party V had position W back in year Z and they needed to be opposite and it stuck around".

That's not ideology: that's literally not at all what "ideology" means. What you're describing is dogma, and the fact that the two are often conflated in public perception speaks to the OP's point.

Re: Gab has been hacked and 70GB of data leaked

#629
post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, I'm willing to have that discussion, sure. I am accepting the challenge to accept the rules of engagement you dictated. Are you willing to accept the challenge of accepting the rules of engagement I put forth - Acknowledge that neo-nazis are a problem, briefly state why? --- I think the GME stuff is a bit nuts, personally. I found the whole thing entertaining, but I find it hard to believe that most participants…

> I do think it's useful to have the data there to show how much the platform is for hate and organizing around hate. I think for a proper useful evaluation, we equally need to see a similar full dump from other platforms like Facebook, Twitter etc. who are the standard when it comes to social media. I am personally not too convinced the content is that different, but rather some platforms just have more diverse poli…

Well no not at the outset, but we know fb, to follow this example, pays a small army of moderators. I suspect that has some kind of measurable effect.

Re: Gab has been hacked and 70GB of data leaked

#630
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can cherry-pick several thousand twitter messages I've heard this claim asserted before. I am unconvinced. Can you show me some examples?

https://terfisaslur.com/

How many of these posts are still up? The problem with "pictures of tweets" is that we can't check whether or not these were moderated. The controversy is not over whether garbage get posted, it's over what happens afterward.
Post reply on HN