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

Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 565 posts

Re: Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

#221

Post by s73v3r_ »

tinalumfoil wrote: post #126
braythwayt wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That argument works well in relatively small social groups where people generally can be relied upon to act in good faith, and where there are social disincentives to clinging to bad ideas after they have been refuted. When you have a small group with social bonds, you don't have to worry about a bad actor constantly repeating their already-refuted arguments to people who haven't heard the refutation. But when you ha…

People are better off hearing a bad idea and hearing it refuted then never hearing a bad idea. You could say, "well then detractors of the idea will have to keep refuting it" and you'd be right. That's how public forums work, and I hope you don't take everything your parent's believed for granted just because their detractors have already been "refuted".

So tell me how the "refuting" of the idea that Sandy Hook was a hoax caused the harassment of parents of children murdered there to stop?

Re: Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

#222

Post by gamblor956 »

DanAndersen wrote: post #125
gamblor956 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, in the real world, cases like these actually reinforce the applicability of legal rights. Because in the real world, judges are able to protect the rights of pedophiles and neo-nazis while also upholding the laws against child pornography and hate crimes. In fact, a fair number of modern legal rights were established in cases involving fairly heinous defendants. For example: in recent decades, a lot of non-politi…

The main difference we are seeing in this new world of large tech companies is that the role of the "judge" is diminished. Groups figure out the fine lines on which to make judgment, but only as a matter of internal company policy, behind closed doors, which none of us get to have a say in or even read the guidelines. When a judge sentences you to prison, you know pretty well exactly what sentence of which law was th…

A website ban isn't even remotely the same thing as a legal sanction.

If you want to control the platform, create your own. You'll need the hardware and the software, and it could get expensive. But if you want to spread hate speech or libel, suck up the cost.

If you want to be on someone else's platform you accept the restrictions of using that platform. Hate speech is on the list of almost every major platform (except Twitter).

Re: Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

#223

Post by s73v3r_ »

drb91 wrote: post #129
braythwayt wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That argument works well in relatively small social groups where people generally can be relied upon to act in good faith, and where there are social disincentives to clinging to bad ideas after they have been refuted. When you have a small group with social bonds, you don't have to worry about a bad actor constantly repeating their already-refuted arguments to people who haven't heard the refutation. But when you ha…

> But when you have the whole internet as your audience, no matter how many times you are refuted, you can say it again and a whole group of people will be hearing it for the first time. Why is that a problem? You can't force people to believe in reality. Might as well have this process happen in the open to actually provide a disincentive to believing conspiracy theories/propaganda/ads/fake news/whatever. Hell, I'll…

"Why is that a problem? "

Ask the parents of children murdered at Sandy Hook.

Re: Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

#224

Post by s73v3r_ »

will_dev_4_food wrote: post #89
braythwayt wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That argument works well in relatively small social groups where people generally can be relied upon to act in good faith, and where there are social disincentives to clinging to bad ideas after they have been refuted. When you have a small group with social bonds, you don't have to worry about a bad actor constantly repeating their already-refuted arguments to people who haven't heard the refutation. But when you ha…

When you say it’s like this one way but not the other, you have conceded to relativism. You have basically said there is a time and place for stealing someone’s wallet, and that acting as a moral agent in society can be suspended under the right conditions.

Or, it could be that the two things being compared have entirely different contexts to them, and thus do have different rules.

Re: Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

#225

Post by microcolonel »

GL;HF Microsoft Azure, attempting to force your customers' content policy (in cases for which Azure is clearly not liable) is one more excellent reason not to buy Azure, right around only supporting IPv6 on load balancers (not directly on hosts).

Though on the flip side, I think some of these posts could violate Gab's own ToS, so even if their OP didn't remove them voluntarily, they would likely not have survived long anyway.

Re: Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

#226

Post by woodruffw »

Nadya wrote: post #31

A common argument in philosophy is that bad ideas should occur in the open - where everyone may ridicule them. When they are cast to the shadows they can grow, under everyone's noses, in private where only there are they allowed to exist. In private, these bad ideas cannot be challenged by others and people will be convinced to believe in them, with nobody challenging the idea as a genuinely terrible idea. It gives b…

> A common argument in philosophy is that bad ideas should occur in the open - where everyone may ridicule them.

Then let them occur in the open. I welcome them to the nearest soapbox.

It's not clear at all, to this student of philosophy, why neo-Nazis are entitled to time on Microsoft's servers.

Re: Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

#227

Post by s73v3r_ »

ddingus wrote: post #157
anigbrowl wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lane Davis's dad tried that approach, arguing to his son that he (the son) had fallen down a neo-nazi rabbit hole. Davis denounced his dad as a 'leftist pedophile' and stabbed him to death. I could supply a laundry list of examples, but the basic point I'd like to communicate is that once someone signs up to an eliminationist philosophy we have (to misquote Churchill) established what they are, and the only question…

If it's actually criminal speech, enforce the law. If it's not actually criminal speech, the answer is more speech.

That's a very nice platitude, but as reality has shown, it's a terrible rule.

Re: Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

#228

Post by jackvalentine »

autoexec wrote: post #154
lylecubed wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A common argument in philosophy is that bad ideas should occur in the open - where everyone may ridicule them. Not to get too far off topic, but is this actually true in practice in the real world? Scientific studies have shown that the idea that gets repeated the most often is the idea that "wins". A bad idea gets repeated and spread every time it gets criticized. If the idea proves more "credible" than the critic…

You can never stop bad ideas from spreading, but you can decide if you'll ever hear about them or have the opportunity to fight them. If the most repeated idea wins but bad ideas are forced to spread in hidden places without refute then bad ideas are the only ones getting any voice and they win by default.

> but bad ideas are forced to spread in hidden places without refute then bad ideas are the only ones getting any voice and they win by default.

They win by default in those dark places. Important distinction.

Re: Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

#229

Post by s73v3r_ »

ddingus wrote: post #161
anigbrowl wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lane Davis's dad tried that approach, arguing to his son that he (the son) had fallen down a neo-nazi rabbit hole. Davis denounced his dad as a 'leftist pedophile' and stabbed him to death. I could supply a laundry list of examples, but the basic point I'd like to communicate is that once someone signs up to an eliminationist philosophy we have (to misquote Churchill) established what they are, and the only question…

Let's just say I am not getting upvotes on this. :D Rather than actually have a real discussion, people prefer to "solve the problem." It won't go well. I will bow out of this discussion for now. There are places where a real conversation can be had, and this isn't one of them.

No, you're being pointed out that you're wrong. That "more speech" doesn't help, and can actually get people killed.

Re: Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

#230

Post by qu4z-2 »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #164
yifanl wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the problem is "what determines truth", then there isn't an organization out there that could resolve the issue (barring something like the Chinese government, I suppose)

Did you just organically come up with the Ministry Of Truth?

I think their point was that unless you're willing to accept Minitrue you don't have an authoritative source of truth to check against.
Post reply on HN