Gab.com’s Response to Congress • Hacker News Board

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#231

Post by fragmede » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 10:58 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #168

josephcsible wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know of a perfect formal definition, but this kind of gives a rule of thumb: is the content considered their own voice? For example, The New York Times is a publisher, because if an article on their website says X, then saying "The New York Times says X" would be reasonable, but Facebook is a platform, because saying "Facebook says X" just because a post on their website says X would not be reasonable.

Whether you say "The New York Times says X" or "Astead Herndon said this" is entirely subjective, and has more to do with what culture currents you pay attention to than with anything particular about the NYT. Illuminating counterexample: a pretty good chunk of nerd Twitter routinely refers to "what HN has said". So no, that won't work. Try again.

Abstracting out the subject becomes a problem, and the hated gatekeepers of knowledge become the necessary filter in front of the firehose.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#232

Post by nobody9999 » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 11:18 PM UTC

jrochkind1 wrote: post #146

Ajedi32 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they are speaking as if the first ammendment somehow requires them to do this What portion of their statement are you referring to? I didn't notice anything in this post suggesting that they're required to support free speech, only that they agree with the underlying principles which inspired that provision in the constitution.

For instance: > It is not our place, nor should it be the place of any technology company, to interfere with Americans’ civil rights and sit in judgment over their lawful expression. To me suggesting a private company "interferes with Americans civil rights" by deciding what content to publish, suggests that private companies have some kind of first ammendment obligation. But I'm not really interested in arguing abou…

>...suggests that private companies have some kind of first ammendment[sic] obligation.

Yes. private companies have the obligation to protect their first amendment rights, as part of their obligation to their investors/owners to maximize profit.

Claiming that private companies has some sort of obligation to you by allowing you a platform for your speech without interference or moderation assumes that such private entities have no first amendment rights.

That's obviously false.

If private entities (which you and I and most everyone else) are required to host the speech of others whether they agree with such speech or not, then I can use the same argument for me being able to come over to your house and play gay, furry, midget, scheiser porn on all your screens, project it on the exterior of your house and you have to allow it. If you don't, you're infringing on my first amendment rights.

Which is, of course ridiculous on its face. Whether it's a screen in your home or a server in one of Facebook's data centers, the principle is the same.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#233

Post by slumdev » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 11:33 PM UTC

bradlys wrote: post #227

slumdev wrote: post #211

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. 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

More deflection.

Using language to dehumanize people who disagree with you is immature and demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of the left.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#234

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 11:38 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #83

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sunlight is the best disinfectant when it comes to freedom of speech, but that does not imply the government should have full access to the communication of individuals and trounce the fourth amendment Congress isn't claiming full access. It's asking Gab to preserve certain information while it goes through due process. You have a right to free speech, and the government has the right to investigate persons who thr…

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?

[deleted]

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#235

Post by gruez » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 12:23 AM UTC

ohgodplsno wrote: post #224

gruez wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

1. someone holding up a racist sign at a protest doesn't mean they're going to go around committing violence against minorities. You're going to have a hard time convincing a judge that falls under "self defense".

2. You'd be fine if republicans commit "self defense" by punching ANTIFA and BLM activists, right?

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#236

Post by AmericanChopper » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 12:27 AM UTC

coldacid wrote: post #72

AmericanChopper wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should, on every occasion, first inquire with the government before exercising their most fundamental rights. It is the only way to ensure that the people maintain the ongoing approval of their government.

I think you forgot the sarcasm tag at the end there.

Do you think I was downvoted more by people who disagree with my actual sentiment, or people who couldn’t see I was being sarcastic?

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#237

Post by bjowen » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 1:41 AM UTC

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…

A historian’s word for this might be inclosure. A wag’s might be the hostile corporate takeover of everyone’s private life.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#238

Post by 1634347773432 » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 2:27 AM UTC

slumdev wrote: post #233

bradlys wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

More deflection. Using language to dehumanize people who disagree with you is immature and demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of the left.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Every single scientific study done on immigration shows that immigration benefits the host country, or maybe, to quote Tucker Carlson, it turns out that immigration doesn't really make our country "poorer and dirtier".

THOSE are OUR "fundamentally American values".

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#239

Post by slumdev » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 2:35 AM UTC

1634347773432 wrote: post #238

slumdev wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More deflection. Using language to dehumanize people who disagree with you is immature and demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of the left.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" Every single scientific study done on immigration shows that immigration benefits the host country, or maybe, to quote Tucker Carlson, it turns out that immigration doesn't really make our country "poorer and di…

> "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

This quote might not be what you wanted to use.

Everyone who entered at Ellis Island was a legal immigrant.

They didn't pay a coyote to help them jump a fence and elude border patrol.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#240

Post by kthejoker2 » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 3:57 AM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #147

josephcsible wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I maintain that until Fox News or conservative talk radio is mandated by the government to stop suppressing my free speech rights to have access to the network to say whatever I want, that Facebook and Twitter should not be forced to support insurrection and violence masquerading as free speech. You don't think there should be a difference between platforms and publishers?

... how do you distinguish between a platform and a publisher?

A notice board in town square is a platform; no endorsement by anyone is presumed by content posted there.

A billboard is a publisher; the content there is clearly governed.

So the criteria seems simple:

* is content freely posted? What is the approval process for content?

* if content is freely posted, are the rules for removing content uniformly applied and viewpoint neutral?

* what mechanisms exist for appeal, protest, modifying the rules, etc?

Platforms are defined by what they don't allow.

Publishers are defined by what they do allow.