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

211–220 of 254 posts

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#211

Post by slumdev »

bradlys wrote: post #196
slumdev wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask yourself: Is someone a white supremacist simply because he thinks his country ought to defend its borders? That every citizen ought to be given the same opportunities but not be guaranteed the same outcomes? That true racism is the belief that some races are incapable without special help? That true racism is in discriminating against the Asians, Jews, and everyone else who studied hard to do well on their SATs?…

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 opponents racist and classist and then quickly change the subject to US foreign policy.

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.

I've examined my motives and have no trouble sleeping at night. What are your motives? Why do you need to calumniate people who disagree with you?

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#212

Post by slumdev »

krapp wrote: post #204
slumdev wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you would use the actions of a few agents provocateurs to smear the rest of the peaceful protestors who were let in by police? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiF4EIReuY4

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 government has done.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#213

Post by tw04 »

aww_dang wrote: post #148
tw04 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not even sure how to respond other than to point out AOL is literally where the term walled garden in reference to the internet came from. They were WORSE than what is around today by an order of magnitude.

I never used them and don't know of the political parallels. I know they had more biz relationships for search results as an example. Maybe start by explaining how they were worse?

Early AOL didn't give you access to the broader internet, you got access to the content they allowed you access to. That was far, far worse than today when individual platforms choose not to host certain content whether by force or choice. Your ISP isn't curating a tiny subset of the internet for you.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#214

Post by seattle_spring »

piokoch wrote: post #84
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?

Good luck posting your doubts about Covid vaccination results on Twitter, FB or YT. You will not even notice how fast your wrongthinking will be detected and removed.

If this garbage was actually filtered and censored, then how is it still rammed down my throat at every turn?

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#215

Post by debacle »

BeFlatXIII wrote: post #205
debacle wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

On Reddit, it would have been right before Gamergate became the political opinion spam that never went away. 2014 rather than 2016.

I forgot about gamergate. You are probably right.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#216

Post by pandaman »

bradlys wrote: post #196
slumdev wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask yourself: Is someone a white supremacist simply because he thinks his country ought to defend its borders? That every citizen ought to be given the same opportunities but not be guaranteed the same outcomes? That true racism is the belief that some races are incapable without special help? That true racism is in discriminating against the Asians, Jews, and everyone else who studied hard to do well on their SATs?…

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…

Why is it most effective, can you give a price estimate? The USSR had the longest and very well defended border with 230 thousand strong border guard. Let's say the US, with a much shorter border needs as many troops just to be sure. At this time the CBP has 62k troops and 18.2B budget. So for 47B more we could get the stronger border guard than the USSR to guard a shorter border than the USSR. Meanwhile, we spent 47B on average in pure foreign aid in 2013-2018, not counting indirect spending through trade agreements and such and still get hundreds of thousands foreigners crossing illegally every month. I don't see how the money spent on foreign aid are effective at all.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/08/04/new...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Customs_and_Border_Prot...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Border_Troops

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#217

Post by ladyattis »

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'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. But the moment the mailed fist of the State decides to smash them they squeal as loud as possible. I'm not taking their bait. They're not the good guys. When they universally agree that the rights of life and liberty are to be respected for all parties including leftists like myself then I might consider helping them. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time with them nor should you.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#218

Post by tootie »

ppp_qqq wrote: post #182
tootie wrote: post #144

"In each case, these people – good people, normal people without political power – were persecuted because their viewpoints were, in one way or another, perceived as a threat to the established order" That's true, but the investigation is specifically about criminal actions, not persecution for beliefs. And if I am reading the subpoena correctly, they're basically looking for data on moderation activity and policies.…

Not exactly. Some points are about Gab's policing. But the subpoena requires all "data" about "misinformation", "disinformation", "efforts to challenge election results", etc. Why does data about people freely expressing/protesting viewpoints should be handed to government? It is also not clear why people /talking/ about overturning election is criminal, if they do nothing? Second, when government need to know about…

My reading is that they are not asking "give us your disinformation" they are asking for their policies and data regarding the moderation of disinformation. Their response to the request seems to more or less answer the request by saying "we don't have any because we consciously don't try". This request appears to also be just a request. Nor a subpoena. But that being said, Congress isn't law enforcement. They're allowed issue subpoenas for information relevant to informing legislation. Mark Zuckerberg wasn't under indictment, nor was a material witness when he testified to Congress. They just wanted a public forum to understand how social media functions, how it could function and if additional oversight was warranted.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#219

Post by UncleMeat »

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…

Total disagreement. There has never been a time in history where people have had anywhere near the capacity to express completely free speech, including wild bigotry, than today.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#220

Post by UncleMeat »

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)

Watch how swiftly the alt right retreats on their support for free speech should they ever dominate politics.
Post reply on HN