Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed

thehill.com

271–280 of 565 posts

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

#271
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's too easy to come up with, spam and spread bad ideas, but actual work to refute them. As long as people are not paid to refute bad actors with an agenda, bad views will eventually stand unchallenged and make life worse for everyone for the profit an amusement of a view. As said refuting partially worked in small communities, but not on a global audience scale where the is no effective way of social sanctions, tha…

Yes. Also, you can refute all you want, but if the bad ideas are better clickbait than your refutations, they will spread faster.

That's why refutations also need to be good clickbait.

But of course that requires good communicators, while many people with in-depth knowledge are not even mediocre ones.

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

#272
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's too easy to come up with, spam and spread bad ideas, but actual work to refute them. As long as people are not paid to refute bad actors with an agenda, bad views will eventually stand unchallenged and make life worse for everyone for the profit an amusement of a view. As said refuting partially worked in small communities, but not on a global audience scale where the is no effective way of social sanctions, tha…

Yes. Also, you can refute all you want, but if the bad ideas are better clickbait than your refutations, they will spread faster.

A lie is half-way around the world before the truth has its pants on. — Mark Twain

Younger me was a free speech ultimatist. Alas, human nature.

Propaganda works, so well that people aren’t even aware of changing their minds. Overton windows. Blowback, where refuting further cements the falsehood. Belief as attire.

Etc, etc.

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

#273

Having read the article but not knowing anything about the posts themselves, I think most of this thread misses the point. Clearly Microsoft knew it was hosting Gab and what Gab was. There's a troll argument that suggests Gab is just "free speech twitter", but of course that's not the case: I've been screenshotting the front page for months, from a random anonymous account, and every time I've done it the front page…

For what it's worth: To the user, Gab is just "free speech Twitter". It just happens that the people whose speech is being repressed say things which make you want to repress their speech. Twitter used to be "the free speech Twitter" for many of these people, and their arguments shared a platform with unhindered common speech (and, as was my personal pleasure, were rebutted by many people who were at no personal risk of being repressed).

There happen to be plenty of people who go around collecting and rebutting white (and other ethnic) separatists/nationalists on Gab, and they aren't being repressed (in fact, some are receiving tips for the service).

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

#274
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…

What about good ideas that are squashed by corporations, and are never known about by most of the public, because it might threaten their profits?

This includes corporate influence on governments, so that the politicians act as their servants in also squashing said good ideas.

Not sure what some of these ideas might be, off the top of my head right now, but I know that some have to exist.

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

#275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, his "political views" are a call for violence.

Interesting, you see I see calls of violence on Twitter all the time but their hosting company isn't threatening to ban them. And if you mean "me" by "his": I don't call for violence.

Twitter hosts its own servers AFAIK.

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

#276
post #251
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are an infinite number of bad ideas in the world. No-one’s life would be improved by hearing them all.

In Saudi Arabia letting women drive was/is deemed a bad idea. Some cultures think it is a bad idea to not cut off the clit of girls. There are Islamic scholars that will go at length on how you should discipline physically your wife, for her own good. In those places/societies opinions against all of it would be considered wrong ideas. If you stiffen speech, you don't just stop the society from regressing, you also r…

Yes, proposing that a group have more rights that they don't currently enjoy is just like saying a group should be suppressed and have their rights curtailed.

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

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original story, is apparently not available at this link, but the footer, also written by Andrew Torba, owner of Gab.ai , is available: https://medium.com/@Torbahax/this-is-a-joke-and-it-is-fake-n... partial quote: " Gab is absolutely not a “white nationalist social media platform.” We are a free speech social media platform. We welcome everyone and have since the day we launched. My co-founder Ekrem is a Muslim…

That's an interesting thing for him to say, because Gab is absolutely and obviously a white nationalist social media platform. Want another example? Arguing with Ken White (Popehat) on Twitter, the official Gab account RT'd a white nationalist mocking Ken for having adopted Asian children. https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1026849669425520640

Granted it was in response to Ken making fun of "incels". Presumably the point is that an infertile person who is not particularly attractive has little to stand on when mocking people with poor romantic success... or something to that effect. It's not my Tweet (and I have no bone to pick with Ken White), but wouldn't take this as solid evidence that Gab (or the person operating the Gab Twitter profile) agrees in general with white nationalists (and clearly, the deeds of Gab as a company do not indicate that they do either).

Do you have a more straightforward example?

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

#278
post #183

I have an alternate solution especially for Gab and Voat. Rather than allowing them to become known cesspits, advertise them to people and say, "see how others' opinions exist" - people will sign up for curiosity, they'll sign up to argue, etc. But most importantly, they'll be there on that platform and perhaps some people will actually learn to communicate openly with people they disagree with or whose views they de…

Yeah, no. People will see the vile toxicity right up front (it's not hidden at all there), and they'll leave in 5 minutes.

Seriously. People have better things to do with their lives.

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

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have no complaints about the discussion I can see. I have no desire to go through Karma on people who would just rather down vote because they don't like what they read. Personally, I almost never downvote, would much rather engage and have a chat about things. Most of the time that happens here, on this topic it's obviously not.

And the whole thing is by no means definitive. I happen to have a very significant amount of experience with this.

If the speech is Criminal, then it can get people killed, (among other non trivial harm) so apply the law. Secondly, apply the law where it needs to be applied. Using a bludgeon, where Precision Instruments are more effective, only makes a bigger mess than intended.

There is a huge difference between, "fuck this guy we're done", and we're removing these because you're over the line. Even worse, what was done to Jones, is the bludgeon. And it was done without the precision, and consistent action needed to give the feedback necessary to justify and help people understand what just happened.

There will be negative and severe implications from all of that. It may seem fine now, but some precedents were just set, lines crossed. I'm not sure people thought that all through. Some important trust was just lost.

That stuff is different from speech that isn't Criminal, where the answer is more speech. It is also a matter of people learning to use all the tools they have, not just righteous indignation.

I'm not wrong at all.

However, I can tell the dominant mode here is some people think they can control other people. They also happen to think they know best for others, neither of which is true.

At the same time, recognizing our own personal agency in conversation, and educating people about that, and all the good it can do, is being near completely ignored in this discussion. That's an error.

And they are just going to have to learn the hard way.

I'll Stand By and Watch.

Wrote this on voice, sorry for the various spelling and other errors in this comment.

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

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not a platitude. And it's actually quite a good rule, when enforced consistently. That was not done in recent cases.

And, like I said. I'm just going to watch it play out. I'll be on the tail end of this thing to talk about it then. When people are more receptive.

Post reply on HN