Gab has been hacked and 70GB of data leaked • Hacker News Board

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

#691

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Mar 02, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

slfnflctd wrote: post #624

sneak wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#692

Post by ggggtez » Tue, Mar 02, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

nailer wrote: post #365

ggggtez wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the gray area is why the far right thinks that "free speech" means "free-from-consequences speech". They have their free speech already. They go on various platforms, and say whatever they want until people get mad and private companies make a money-based decision to ban them. According to the libertarian view of the world: this is all working exactly as intended. Everyone in the system is making a private de…

> They go on various platforms, and say whatever they want until people get mad and private companies make a money-based decision to ban them. The far right is general taken to mean ultra nationalists that attack minority groups. Every major social network has hate speech in their terms of service, and very few people complaining about censorship are complaining about enforcement of rules against actual hate speech.

> very few people complaining about censorship are complaining about enforcement of rules against actual hate speech.

Citation needed. But honestly, it doesn't matter because it doesn't change the fact that this is the libertarian ideal situation. The government is not mandating anything. All "cancel culture" is created from private individuals making their own private decisions, and that includes corporations banning anyone they like for any reason. It's right there in the name "culture". No one is required to do anything, it's just that it's an advantageous decision at the cultural level to do what most people want.

Any suggestion that there is a problem with this is in contradiction to the libertarian idea of free speech.

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

#693

Post by orf » Tue, Mar 02, 2021, 5:11 PM UTC

SaintGhurka wrote: post #676

orf wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tech's obsession with hating on Gab/Parler is based upon on the identity of the people in them, not on whether offensive or not-sanctioned speech should be allowed in general. Because it’s often one and the same: the “identity” of the people on them are the ones spreading hate speech and disinformation. You don’t need to sugar coat it as “not-sanctioned speech”, nobody is banning anyone for saying “hey I support Do…

>nobody is banning anyone for saying “hey I support Donald trump!’ They most certainly are. That exact phrase will literally get you banned on some forums. [0][1] If you want to radicalize people, a good way to start is to marginalize them. [0] https://www.ravelry.com/content/no-trump [1] https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/new-ban-do-not-post-...

Two irrelevant niche forums banning you does not make an argument.

Go to /r/conservative and say “I support Biden” and you will be banned within a minute. Does that mean liberals are being brutally silenced by oppressive moderators and therefore we have no choice but to helplessly become radicalised by racists?

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

#694

Post by JohnTHaller » Tue, Mar 02, 2021, 5:12 PM UTC

ghostpepper wrote: post #566

Why is the second sentence of this article about how the CEO of Gab used a Transphobic slur? It kind of seems like the author threw that in there to make sure the reader agrees with their political views, but the article doesn't say what the slur was, and I don't think the author would defend the idea that being transphobic makes it okay to hack a person's website, but it kind of feels like that's the point implicitl…

The CEO literally used a trans-phobic slur when describing the hack. Plus, it speaks to the purpose of Gab, to allow the voicing of the types of bigoted views held by the far right. It's the reason for its creation. Communities that were removed from reddit, Twitter, etc for expressing such views.

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

#695

Post by folknor » Tue, Mar 02, 2021, 5:13 PM UTC

lynndotpy wrote: post #608

pid_0 wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said “trannies” I wouldn’t say it’s a transphobic slur. He said it to clearly piss off people though. The ceo sounds like a very secure, happy person with no mental problems. Also, transgender issues aren’t political. Modern monetary theory can be political. Immigration policies are political. Human rights are not political. I’m not a liberal or anything, just a rational person.

"Tranny" is certainly a transphobic slur.

I think you mean "is certainly a slur." It's not "transphobic" - the word "tranny" is not irrationally afraid of transgendered people.

:-D

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

#696

Post by jki275 » Tue, Mar 02, 2021, 5:13 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #18

mikepost001 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"you can say anything that is not directly illegal in the US without fear of being banned or other mode“ For a non-American, could you explain how this is far right? Sounds pretty liberal.

Because the people there are far right. When you go to a website and the first thing you see is calls to murder jewish people and the n-word repeated ad nauseam, all but the far right decide to just leave. The end result is that gab/parler/etc don't become places where all speech exists but instead places where extreme racism, homophobia, and sexism suck the oxygen away from everything else.

Neither of the things you claim are tolerated on either platform. I suspect you've never looked for yourself.

Gab looks like a version of Facebook that's mostly populated by Christian conservatives. Parler looks like a version of twitter that's mostly populated (or was, before) by Christian conservatives with a small side of some conspiracy theories.

Christian conservatives don't subscribe to the beliefs you think they do.

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

#697

Post by throwaway19937 » Tue, Mar 02, 2021, 5:15 PM UTC

relaxing wrote: post #646

throwaway19937 wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claims about electoral fraud are a regular occurrence in American politics. Democrats made similar claims about at least the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections. Trump's claims about election fraud and the sheer number of lawsuits are an escalation but it isn't a difference in kind. Edited to add the following. The child post correctly points out that I should have mentioned Trump's inciting a violent attempt to overthrow…

What were the fraud claims of 2004 and 2016? 2000 was a unique case, and both sides were upset with the process (rightfully so.) On the left I see claims of disenfranchisement done through legal means, which whether you agree with or not is at least something real and concrete.

The 2000 election was a mess. (https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_pa...) makes what I consider a credible argument that Gore was in the wrong.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_vo...) has a pretty good summary of the issues. The voting machine claims were a big deal at the time; I remember a lot of news coverage about that the voting machine companies were owned by Republicans.

I think the 2016 fraud claims were about Russian hacking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia...). (https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2018/09/11/many-democrats-...) claims that many Democrats questioned the 2016 election.

> On the left I see claims of disenfranchisement done through legal means, which whether you agree with or not is at least something real and concrete.

I agree that disenfranchisement is an issue and am in favor of federal voting standards and protecting the voting rights of convicted felons.

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

#698

Post by mint2 » Tue, Mar 02, 2021, 5:19 PM UTC

lom888 wrote: post #498

pii wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might want to listen to them more closely, I can't answer on their behalf. If, by chance, they're anything like me, then I agree that there's giant categories of prohibited speech that should remain so. Lying about medicine, slander, libel, incitement to violence to name a few.

They want the first amendment repealed as they say it protects racists, homophobes and transphobes. They say that liberal free speech laws led to Trump and free speech should be curtailed for that reason. They openly say that they are opposed to free speech. I am trying to present their views as neutrally as I can, but this is what they say and support.

Maybe it’s a bit “one true Scotsmanny” but there are many who identify left or right who fall in the bottom 10% of well thought out perspectives. Being on the left does not make your friends immune and they may fall into that tier if their argument is portrayed accurately. They get the general gist of things right, I.e. neonazi propaganda is harmful, but go about things in a hamfisted manner.

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

#699

Post by dagmx » Tue, Mar 02, 2021, 5:20 PM UTC

xupybd wrote: post #237

dagmx wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This only works if you put cold war blinders on and equate the word communism to being left wing. Their policy and actions were decidedly not left wing.

The problem is left and right are not a single dimension. Liberal left wing policies can often overlap with libertarian right wing policies. This is because the align on the freedom dimension. There are other examples but I don't think you can argue that Mao and Stalin are not left wing. They both push the idea that the state can and should supply the needs of the people. This is a very left wing view on both the fin…

I agree that there's overlap in certain areas.

However it also depends are you simply looking at the economic beliefs of left/right wing idealogies or also social rights? It also depends on which era of left vs right is being considered, since the traits of the spectrum have changed over the decades.

Perhaps the issue is many consider only the economic models as the indicator, whereas many others consider the entirety of policy with regards to equality and rights.

If we're only looking at economic policy, then sure, Mao and Stalin are left wing.

If you look at it socially, then I'd argue they were not because they violently impugned on the freedoms of people to install totalitarianism.

Maybe one could argue they're far left, or alt left in todays vernacular however. But even that would be eschewing much of the social aspects of leftism. Mostly because their aspects of "equality" only applied to the people they deemed equal. Which was unequal to start with.

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

#700

Post by folknor » Tue, Mar 02, 2021, 5:23 PM UTC

Delmania wrote: post #463

cies wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not even sure what right leaning or conservative means these days. The "right" was merely copied from an ancestor post.

Conservative means what it has always meant. The political belief that the law should bind outsiders but not protect them and that it should protect insiders but not bind them.

That's not what conservative means in my country, and frankly without a prefix it's indecipherable. If someone at the pub here says "I'm a conservative", you can actually infer nothing from that statement.

In most cases, you'd probably be correct in thinking that the person would be more inclined to preserve the status quo than changing it too quickly, for fear of unforeseen consequences.

Also, a simple Google search and 30-second skim of Wikipedia throws a wrench in your assertion.