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

31–40 of 565 posts

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

#31

Post by Nadya »

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 bad ideas a breeding ground to foster and you'd never even know about it. By publicly prohibiting speech all that happens is it is brushed under a rug and people pretend it doesn't exist. That doesn't make the problem go away, it's the same as shutting your eyes and covering your ears and pretending the monster in front of you no longer exists. If you get to define certain speech as unspeakable you justify the censorship of any speech determined to be unspeakable when you lose power and someone else steps up to the plate. As history has shown - it's a matter of "when" not "if".

Actions like this serve to placate the public. The general public won't be angry at Microsoft for censoring platforms "known for" or "complacent of" hate speech (or worse). It's always a slippery slope though. Once you open up the can of worms that is censorship you justify future censorship.

I wait to see what will be next on the chopping block.

Edit: A few too many responses to respond to everyone, but if anyone would like to speak with me on it more in depth feel free to email me - information on how to contact me can be found on my profile.

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

#32

Post by [deleted] »

lainga wrote: post #28
awakeasleep wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your scenario, are the datacenters and ISPs immune to political pressure?

Maybe not, but there are a much more diverse set of ISPs in different countries than there are cloud-hosting providers. We know that some of them are looser with what they will or won't enforce as long as you keep paying them. Can you imagine all those spammers from Bulgarian ISPs hosting their C&C servers on Azure? I'm not saying there's a bulletproof-safe way for Gab, or any other site for that matter, to host - wh…

[deleted]

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

#35

Post by drak0n1c »

amyjess wrote: post #8
sadris wrote: post #4

In which the left now suddenly no longer supports network neutrality.

Nobody on "the left" has ever argued that companies can't have a terms of service that prohibits bad behavior. Net neutrality has always been about preventing the companies that control the last mile for consumers from extorting additional money from server operators that are already paying their own ISP for bandwidth.

Not quite nobody. There were arguments that without Net Neutrality ISPs may develop TOS that target certain data/content services with paywalls, throttles, or blocks - to the point where politically motivated censorship would be a big concern.

This censorship argument played a core part in the Net Neutrality campaign. Note the specific reference to censorship being the biggest problem in the headlines and leading paragraphs of the following popular articles:

1) https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/ending-net-neutrality-... 2) https://qz.com/1158328/what-will-happen-now-that-net-neutral... 3) https://www.vox.com/2017/12/14/16774148/net-neutrality-repea... 4) https://futurism.com/ny-attorney-general-fcc-net-neutrality/

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

#36

Post by gamblor956 »

cm2187 wrote: post #29
PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well you can host your own website on your own server. Of course, I do wonder how far this goes. What happens if the DNS server refuses to host the IP lookup? Host your own DNS server? What if the browsers refuse to allow access to the site? Build your own browser? What if ISPs refuse to transfer the data over the wire? Make your own internet? People have defended that this vs. Net Neutrality (at least the extent of…

And like for everything else, first a precedent is created with an indefensible case of terrorism/pedophilia/neo-nazism, then the rule gets progressively applied more broadly.

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-political free speech cases involve pornography or hate speech.

[Note: terrorism is different because nationality matters. Domestic terrorists get the benefit of their constitutional rights, foreign terrorists do not, especially if said foreigners have renounced the citizenship (and thus protections) of another state. This is why Guantanamo was legally defensible, if morally reprehensible.]

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

#37

Post by BryantD »

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…

That common argument rests on norms established by millennia of relatively difficult communication. Best not to assume that the same people would come to the same conclusions today.

For example, QAnon believers have not had their speech restricted. That conspiracy theory is as open as anything you could name. People have challenged it. It's still going.

If you believe that challenging terrible ideas makes those who hold them think twice... why hasn't the exact argument you're using gotten rid of the terrible idea that we should restrict speech? Answer: because logical refutation doesn't work.

I am not arguing against the slippery slope. This is a very, very hard and risky problem. I am refuting the misconception that shedding light on bad ideas makes them go away.

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

#39

Post by tim333 »

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…

Not much is actually getting censored. The bad stuff just gets moved to less respectable sites. The Stormer for example is still up there if you want to read it.

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

#40

Post by kodablah »

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…

> I wait to see what will be next on the chopping block.

I wish we didn't have to wait. I wish there was a large enough group of people that would boycott companies that make up the internet infrastructure (e.g. ISPs, registrars, DNS, CDNs, cloud providers, etc) for censoring lawful content. I wish we didn't require mass media articles to get groups of consumers to act in a common interest. And I would prefer it was absolute, regardless of content, because it's frustrating to watch lots of people agree with one decision and then get shocked when these companies become more choosey on the foundation of acceptability that was previously built. To be clear though, I want no government involvement in any way (on the censoring or non-censoring side).

I for one will point an Azure sales rep (or hiring recruiter) to this as a reason I will not engage with them. I have the same feeling about CloudFlare's decision. And I really don't like either of the censored groups.

Post reply on HN