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

Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 92 posts

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#31

Post by RickS »

sjtgraham wrote: post #28
RickS wrote: post #7

From the screenshot he himself provided [1], it looks like he was confronted about making people at YC feel unsafe, and responded by saying they "shouldn't be on the internet". Contrarian views are one thing. Addressing the people who fund your company like a belligerent troll is another. You're entitled to free speech, you're not entitled to a captive ear to hear it. [1] http://i.imgur.com/ReFx2Mr.png

> You're entitled to free speech, you're not entitled to a captive ear to hear it. Ironically a captive ear is exactly what SJW's demand, and if you fail to oblige you're a (delete as appropriate) straight/white/male/able-bodied/cis-gendered/dudebro who is "part of the problem" and "literally Hitler". I'm so disappointed in how partisan YC has become, capitulating completely to prevailing meme of SJWs. It's becoming…

The thing you're talking about is, regardless of its accuracy, distant from this situation.

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#32

Post by VaChildAbuse »

VaChildAbuse wrote: post #10
hyperpape wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...you mean Twitter?

Twitter shadowbanned me for posting details of child abuse I experienced that left me disabled. These details included the names of people involved and summaries of acts committed against me. Some of the principals in these acts and all of the accessories to them are employees of a school board, police department, city government, and political boards. I posted links to articles from local media showing that there's…

Interesting! I've become unshadowbanned in the past hour. Now maybe the names & photos I've tweeted will go back in Google's search results.

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#33

Post by internaut »

Torba, if you're reading this, consider that Curtis Yarvin's Tlon receives angel investment from well known SV VCs and he also posts here regularly.

So the guy who literally invented neoreaction isn't suppressed by YC because of his views then it is pretty unlikely you're getting persecuted because of yours.

Nick Denton constantly overreached in using freedom of speech as a cover for just simply fucking with people until it blew up in his face. Don't be the alt-right's version of that. You can afford to be magnanimous and give some gesture of conciliation.

Do you really want to be giving Pao material to work with?

Fighting censorship is serious business, forget this teacup war, nobody will remember any of it in a year.

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#34

Post by angersock »

kapitza wrote: post #29
RickS wrote: post #7

From the screenshot he himself provided [1], it looks like he was confronted about making people at YC feel unsafe, and responded by saying they "shouldn't be on the internet". Contrarian views are one thing. Addressing the people who fund your company like a belligerent troll is another. You're entitled to free speech, you're not entitled to a captive ear to hear it. [1] http://i.imgur.com/ReFx2Mr.png

Usually when people make this argument they're wrong, but not in this case. I'm disturbed by OP's low-quality trolling. When you're a dissident or ideological minority in any context, it's absolutely essential at all times to be the kindest, gentlest, sweetest person in the room. That way, when they ban you for "feeling unsafe," it's obvious to everyone what's going on. Obviously OP wasn't actually a danger to anyone…

> But there isn't any world where you can be a dissident and also be a dick, and get away with it.

Unless you're Peter Thiel or rich or connected, right?

:|

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#35

Post by Torgo »

hyperpape wrote: post #9
gfosco wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter has been extremely heavy on censorship this year. Dozens of high-profile users banned, hundreds 'shadow-banned', and unbelievable levels of hashtag manipulation. Twitter is not in favor of free speech, on top of being a terrible business.

Which users were banned for expression of opinions? I initially wrote "high profile", following your comment, but I don't actually care. High profile or not, that would make me worry. I know Milo was banned based on the accusations that he'd orchestrated harassment of Leslie Jones, but I haven't heard of anyone being banned simply for expressing a political position. As far as hashtag manipulation goes, I'm not sure…

Look into why Charles Johnson was banned. They took a statement he made that obviously meant "I am going to write a news story about this person that will be very bad for them" and tortured it into a death threat, and banned him for life.

There is literally no defense of this because it was so obviously a bad-faith interpretation, and yet other people have very obviously put people in actual danger, like Spike Jones tweeting George Zimmerman's parents home address, and nothing happened to them. Johnson, whatever you might think of him personally, was banned forever for something he obviously did not even do when you look at the tweet. If they like you, you can say almost anything. If they don't almost anything can get you suspended.

The hashtag trending thing is another case of this, if they basically like your message then they'll let it trend, if they don't then they'll suppress it. You can only really derive that this is happening from observing in very specific ways, no one actually tells you they do this. They have other tricks too, if an undesirable hashtag gains popularity, out of nowhere a misspelled hashtag autocompletes, to "nudge" you to a dead end hastag that nobody is listening to. It's fairly obvious once you become aware of it, because popular hashtags autocomplete, unpopular or not-trending ones don't, but "roach motel" hashtags somehow bypass this. Nobody knows globally what this single corporation decides to let be widely heard and what it invisibly suppresses. It is a free speech issue because private or not, as the Arab Spring stuff demonstrated how much influence Twitter has on society, which makes it one. This is the bog-standard, not-full-of-shit liberal position. It's even Chomsky-endorsed.

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#36

Post by sama »

We support free speech, obviously. And we're happy to fund people with all sorts of different political views.

We do not allow harassment, for which Andrew unfortunately set a new bar in our community. You can look at his Twitter or Facebook for plenty of public examples, to say nothing of what he's said privately.

As per our previous comments, when a founder violates our ethics statement, we remove them from the community.

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#37

Post by Torgo »

VaChildAbuse wrote: post #19
gfosco wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter has been extremely heavy on censorship this year. Dozens of high-profile users banned, hundreds 'shadow-banned', and unbelievable levels of hashtag manipulation. Twitter is not in favor of free speech, on top of being a terrible business.

And some incendiaries are left alone. Look at @rabite aka weev.

These days he seems to actually be pretty careful about not crossing the line. But one day someone will be annoyed enough to suspend him anyway.

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#38

Post by jaf656s »

rebootthesystem wrote: post #17

Freedom of speech does not mean one is free from the consequences of speech. This is something a lot of young folks don't seem to understand. You can say anything you want. Go for it. And you will own the consequences of what you said, whatever they might be. I offer this as a general comment. Not taking sides on the issue highlighted by the post. I simply think it is important to point out this reality in case it is…

Freedom of speech also only applies to the state. The government cannot suppress your free speech.

It says absolutely nothing about what private parties (or companies) can do about speech.

e.g. If you come into my house and start shouting racial slurs, I don't have to honor your "free speech". I can rightly kick you out of my house. The same goes for any private company.

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#39

Post by [deleted] »

merb wrote: post #30
exolymph wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> insulting people or a group of people is not free speech anymore it's actually a crime. This is incorrect. https://popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-her...

well maybe not in america. in my country (germany) you get into jail for insulting, see StGB (§ 185 Beleidigung). https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=h...

[deleted]

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#40

Post by kapitza »

angersock wrote: post #34
kapitza wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually when people make this argument they're wrong, but not in this case. I'm disturbed by OP's low-quality trolling. When you're a dissident or ideological minority in any context, it's absolutely essential at all times to be the kindest, gentlest, sweetest person in the room. That way, when they ban you for "feeling unsafe," it's obvious to everyone what's going on. Obviously OP wasn't actually a danger to anyone…

> But there isn't any world where you can be a dissident and also be a dick, and get away with it. Unless you're Peter Thiel or rich or connected, right? :|

That's actually the point. You've defined "being a dick" as "supporting Emmanuel Goldstein, who wants to reverse all the great work the Party has done for the proles."

I understand how you get there, logically. But perhaps Emmanuel Goldstein actually thinks the Party is bad for the proles? Maybe it's not that he hates the Party, because he hates the proles? Maybe you could ask him why he hates the Party, which as we know has done so much for the proles?

But if Emmanuel Goldstein is actually an asshole in the normal sense of the word -- someone who's rude and unpleasant to the actual people around him -- it's hard to argue that there's a difference between these very different concepts.

Pretty much guarantee you Peter Thiel is never, ever rude and unpleasant to the people around him. That's the difference.

Post reply on HN