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

221–230 of 254 posts

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#221

Post by uniqueid »

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?

It's a reminder that Torba didn't create Gab to facilitate 'free speech'.

Gab is a site that censors 'obscenity' and whose CEO refuses to deal with journalists if they don't practise the same religion as him.

Gab exists only to facilitate far-right extremism, and 'hate speech' is the only form of unpopular speech for which Torba shows enthusiasm.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#222

Post by SergeAx »

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 am not from US, but even I see and partially feel USD inflation due to money printing (not sure, by the way, if this or previous administration is currently winning the printing contest). The troops are now withdrawn, and refugees are following and a lot more will follow.

I mean, the US society is definitely divided, and it seems that the division is surely not 90/10, but probably more like 60/40. What I think is better way for majority is to take over the burden of criticizing the current administration, thus partially disarming opposition.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#223

Post by ohgodplsno »

mc32 wrote: post #115
ohgodplsno wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the state ? Most likely none, unless you are actively calling for harm, rebellion, terrorism, things like that. From individuals ? I would be more than happy to punch you for preaching nazi rethoric, for example, and so would thousands of us.

I think we can all agree we vehemently disagree with people who threaten our existence. We still do not have a right to inflict physical violence upon those who are voicing their opinions, no matter how vile they are. Now, of course you may be rightfully upset and unwind, but that is not a protected right. If you disagree with the above, I'm afraid it's a misunderstanding of the intentions of the first amendment to t…

The first amendment to the US Constitution only applies to the US Government. The government cannot prevent you from spewing your bile. It in no way applies to interactions between individual citiizens. You a dreadfully mistaken if you think it's a free pass because "muh free speech".

Additionally, hate speech is also violence, and you cannot hide behind free speech to say "but look, you're doing physical violence to me". So, yeah, beat up nazis.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#224

Post by ohgodplsno »

gruez wrote: post #119
ohgodplsno wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the state ? Most likely none, unless you are actively calling for harm, rebellion, terrorism, things like that. From individuals ? I would be more than happy to punch you for preaching nazi rethoric, for example, and so would thousands of us.

>From individuals ? I would be more than happy to punch you for preaching nazi rethoric, for example, and so would thousands of us. Isn't that literally terrorism? >The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create public fear through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.

No, it's self defense. Especially not when the actual nazis are the ones committing acts of terrorism in your very own country.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#225

Post by 1MachineElf »

ladyattis wrote: post #217
fragileone wrote: post #9

> American citizens may have freedom of speech, but they find themselves with vanishingly few public forums in which to exercise it fully. Well put. As we've also seen from numerous leaks and incidents over the years, big business and government often works hand-in-hand, with revolving door policies and barely legal indirect bribes happening regularly. That the government is now seeking to curtail the First Amendment…

I don't believe Gab and other alt-righters really are being honest about the issue. They're only raising alarm because they're a small segment of society that doesn't get along with the rest of us so they don't have many or any lifelines to call on. For the rest of us, it's just a Tuesday, we've been acclimated to the sad reality that the State can and will infringe on rights whenever it sees fit to do so. This doesn…

>This doesn't justify what the Congressional committees are doing but that the alt-right in general would be completely fine with having Congress sending out subpoenas to Food not Bombs or the IWW because they're looney leftists or some other spiel.

Imagine all of the people who have been arbitrarily labelled as "alt-right" in social and traditional media. Do you actually think this is what they generally want?

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#226

Post by dbbk »

sergiotapia wrote: post #7
satronaut wrote: post #2

we need that web 3.0 now more than ever

The future is decentralized, how do we make it happen? It makes me sad that my children and their children are heading towards a sanitized internet where only the corporate mainstream is allowed and the rest is crucified.

I thought the Dark Web already exists?

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#227

Post by bradlys »

slumdev wrote: post #211
bradlys wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should really examine why people want to “defend” borders. It’s mostly racism and classism. The most effective way to defend your borders is to improve the lives of the people across the border. Yet… does anyone advocate for that? Nope… We undermine their governments and extract their resources to plunder from them instead. We create instability and allow violent regimes to be created and prosper. Could always no…

> You should really examine why people want to “defend” borders. It’s mostly racism and classism. The most effective way to defend your borders is to improve the lives of the people across the border. Yet… does anyone advocate for that? Nope… We undermine their governments and extract their resources to plunder from them instead. We create instability and allow violent regimes to be created and prosper. You call your…

> The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your opponents are motivated by race and class rather than peace and the rule of law.

Cause all those countries we plunder are clearly not full of POC. /s

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#228

Post by nobody9999 »

sergiotapia wrote: post #7
satronaut wrote: post #2

we need that web 3.0 now more than ever

The future is decentralized, how do we make it happen? It makes me sad that my children and their children are heading towards a sanitized internet where only the corporate mainstream is allowed and the rest is crucified.

Start with high speed (1gb/sec+) symmetric consumer network links and IPv6.

Easily implemented, decentralized/self-hosted platforms already exist, but you can't stream/share your vacation videos with your large family because your upload capacity sucks.

Centralized services exist because individuals don't have the capacity to support a Mastodon or Diaspora instance on their own network connections.

And more's the pity.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#229

Post by krapp »

slumdev wrote: post #212
krapp wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your implication that they were "agents provocateurs to smear the rest of the peaceful protestors" is lacking evidence, where there is plenty of evidence, both in testimony and captured communications from various groups of protestors intent on committing violence and mayhem, to the contrary. At best, those "peaceful" protestors (who somehow in their naive purity managed not to be able to read the vibe of a crowd tha…

Trespassing charges would be thrown out immediately if they were ever presented to a jury. The police exercised apparent authority when they ushered the crowd in, giving them permission and the right to enter. Vandalism would only apply to those who stole or defaced something, certainly not the majority. And neither of these charges justifies holding a political prisoner for 6+ months without trial, as the US governm…

>Trespassing charges would be thrown out immediately if they were ever presented to a jury. The police exercised apparent authority when they ushered the crowd in, giving them permission and the right to enter.

I'll let the Justice Department know they can drop all charges because slumdev from the internet has rendered their verdict.

>Vandalism would only apply to those who stole or defaced something, certainly not the majority.

The majority didn't enter the Capitol, and the majority haven't been charged with anything. If your assertion is that people are being arrested and charged with simply being there the actual criminal charges levied prove otherwise[0,1]. People who have been accused of committing actual crimes are being charged for those crimes.

>And neither of these charges justifies holding a political prisoner for 6+ months without trial, as the US government has done.

They aren't political prisoners. They aren't being persecuted for their political beliefs. Most people charged are out on bail, and the ones who aren't are the ones charged with serious crimes.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_brought_in_th...

[1]https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/six-months-january-6th-attac...

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#230

Post by dang »

thrwaway9871 wrote: post #37

Funny test: this post has 61 votes, 16 comments, is 21 minutes old and is on front page. It will be "dead" and off the front page in the next hour if usual hn moderation is applied. This usually happens to thread where majority of comments go against the grain. Edit: thread is a bit over 1 hour old, 125 points, 119 comments and on page 4. All the other threads on page 4 are of comparable vote/comment count but at lea…

Users flagged it, and it set off the flamewar detector. Those are routine HN phenomena.
Post reply on HN