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

Gab.com’s Response to Congress

news.gab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 254 posts

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#121

Post by kyuudou »

mc32 wrote: post #101
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What consequences should there be for exercising the right to free speech? None. For organizing a violent insurrection? Several.

If there were people who organized a violent movement to overthrow the government, they should be prosecuted. Just like organizers who organized the burning of police stations should be investigated and prosecuted. However, I don't think we should prosecute people for having attended an event that got co-opted and where they had no intent on participating in an insurrection or burning police stations.

What if the FBI had a large part in organizing such a movement? Should they be prosecuted too?

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#122

Post by [deleted] »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #118
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Before the masses were corralled into walled gardens The total audience for the internet was far less in those days.

It's weird to think back to a decade or 15 years ago where it was shameful to be an "internet addict". Spending a lot of time online was generally frowned upon, and not something you would talk about. Now the entirety of society is an "internet addict". I'll admit the nerd inside me feels a bit vindicated, even if horrified overall with where the internet has taken us.

[deleted]

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#123

Post by tw04 »

aww_dang wrote: post #82
drewrv wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me like there are more forums for free speech now than ever before. When in our history has it been easier for the average citizen to find a platform to host their views?

>When in our history... Before the masses were corralled into walled gardens. If a free and open Internet was a threat to gatekeepers, walled gardens are the solution. You can say anything you want on their platforms, as long as it adheres to the party's content guidelines. The gate-kept illusion of freedom is arguably more toxic, because it normalizes the curated garden of propagandized views. Yes, you have more opt…

>Before the masses were corralled into walled gardens.

I'm not sure how old you are, but when is this time you speak of? AOL had users in a walled garden for decades. Then those users moved to myspace, then facebook. You're going to need to be more specific about this magical time when the average user was somehow "free of walled gardens".

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#124

Post by tomp »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #81
mc32 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What consequences should there be for exercising the right to free speech? What say aclu?

> What consequences should there be for exercising the right to free speech? None. For organizing a violent insurrection? Several.

It's similar to college rape accusations.

If the accusation is true, then it's a crime and the punishment should be much more severe. If the accusation is false, then it's a non-issue (and clearly not a crime), and there should be no punishment.

Big tech and universities do not have the skills, experience, resources or obligation to resolve the question of guilt clearly and fairly. Let's leave that to the courts.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#125

Post by mc32 »

kyuudou wrote: post #121
mc32 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there were people who organized a violent movement to overthrow the government, they should be prosecuted. Just like organizers who organized the burning of police stations should be investigated and prosecuted. However, I don't think we should prosecute people for having attended an event that got co-opted and where they had no intent on participating in an insurrection or burning police stations.

What if the FBI had a large part in organizing such a movement? Should they be prosecuted too?

You know, the FBI has a long history of provocation. Yes, they should be prosecuted. Often times they enlist people who are very malleable and little education or have mental issues. I think it's a shame this happens and I wish we had an administration with the guts to put an end to this kind of entrapment.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#126

Post by josephcsible »

bambax wrote: post #87

> we believe – as Justice Brandeis did – that “sunlight is the best disinfectant, electric light the most efficient policeman.” Not true. There is no evidence that electric light helps deter crime (and of course sunlight is not a disinfectant either). https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:33WBZA...

That's an obvious metaphor. Why are you interpreting it literally?

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#127

Post by debacle »

prvc wrote: post #105
drewrv wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me like there are more forums for free speech now than ever before. When in our history has it been easier for the average citizen to find a platform to host their views?

Yesterday. After that, last week, easier; then last year, yet easier; 5 years ago, easier still, and so on. I will not speculate as to when the maximum was reached, but it was somewhere between the creation of the internet and the present.

I would argue that the peak was on reddit, very briefly before the culmination of the Democrat primary in 2016. The descent was a panic response to two populists nearly winning the major party nominations in the US.

We can likely reach pre-2016 levels of Internet freedom again. I'm not sure if Gab is a critical piece of that, but they seem to be doing mostly the right things right now (though I would like to see some sort of /r/all mechanism for popular activity, right now feeds appear to be completely self-curated).

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#128

Post by Ajedi32 »

allsystemsgo wrote: post #59
pauldavis wrote: post #36

Wow, look at the previous post on that site, from the same guy: "They are rigging elections, they are botching troop withdrawals to flood western countries with refugees, the American border is being invaded by hundreds of thousands of people, they are buying up single family homes and pricing you out of the market, they are printing endless money and inflating your currency."

I mean, he’s using his first amendment rights. That’s the point. What does his prior comments have to do with this?

Tribalism. "Look! This person disagrees with you on this other unrelated topic. He's with the enemy, all his opinions are invalid!"

Kind of a sad state of affairs, but that's where we're at right now with political discourse in the United States. (And probably the whole world, to some extent. It's human nature.)

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#129

Post by debacle »

commandlinefan wrote: post #79
minikites wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, because it's not about having a platform for speech, it's about escaping consequences for speech.

"I can guarantee freedom of speech. I cannot guarantee freedom after speech" -- Idi Amin (the murderous dictator)

This is a wonderful response to that line of thinking. Thank you. This appears to be the actual quote:

"There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech."

But I can't find an official source.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#130

Post by mc32 »

otterley wrote: post #102
mc32 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they have a right to ask for specific information on specific individuals via court order but not a dragnet. Remember when Quest was the Only one to buck the Bush admin for access to its logs and everyone else just bent over because mumble terrorism mumble?

The legal discovery process actually is a dragnet. The major operational difference is that discovery is responsive — that is, you turn over the records yourself - vs. a search warrant, where law enforcement comes in and searches everything within its scope.

But this is like there being a rape in town and the police asking all males, no exceptions, to submit a sample of their DNA to clear them. No, thanks!
Post reply on HN