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

301–310 of 565 posts

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

#301

Post by moduspol »

wmf wrote: post #281
moduspol wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that the point? There are a lot of people here completely in support of this, and it's not hard to trace an IP address to an ISP. When brigades start calling for ISPs to stop serving these sites, do you really think that's when they'll stand up for free speech? Keep in mind in the span of just a few days, we've seen the jump from application platforms (Facebook, Google) to now infrastructure providers. The leap to…

Historically if you have your own AS number it's very very hard to get kicked off the Internet. But maybe Nazis are revolting enough to make it happen.

That misses the point.

As long as there is an ISP that can be publicly pressured to block the source of content, and the source of that content can be easily differentiated (to avoid blocking other content), we're one Twitter mob away from "existing on the Internet" not being enough to avoid censorship.

And it doesn't even need to be their ISP. It could be yours or mine.

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

#302

Post by pcwalton »

manfredo wrote: post #297
tptacek wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think it's important to distinguish between platforms that host content of a given topic, and platforms that are specifically set up for a certain topic. For example, Reddit has /r/motorcycles, but I wouldn't call it "a motorcycling discussion platform". I'd call advrider.com or bayarearidersforum.com motorcycle discussion platforms. They're websites specifically set up for motorcycling related discussion. A websit…

Andrew Torba is obviously a neo-Nazi, so can we put this argument to rest.

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

#303

Post by reader5000 »

true_religion wrote: post #214
reader5000 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe there's a reason a "bad idea" is clickbait.

Hatred simply feels good. Unless you are saying that is something defensible or praiseworthy, then I am not sure where you are going with this thread of thought.

Who gets to determine what is "hatred"? The natural upvote/downvote economy of the internet or a self-appointed anonymous class of bigtech mass-censors? When you go on the internet would you prefer to see reality or an artificial selection of on-canon content pre-approved by the priest-media class as in the age of television? In many ways it doesn't matter because infotech decentralization will slowly find a way, and forcible censorship will no longer be possible.

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

#305

Post by torpfactory »

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…

It’s certainly possible the people working at Microsoft believe they have a moral duty to keep hate speech like that off their platform. I know that if I worked at a platform company and there were folks advocating physical harm to anyone on that platform I’d been pretty keen to remove them.

I don’t think free speech means a platform company has some imperative to offer a level playing field to racists.

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

#306

Post by pdkl95 »

BryantD wrote: post #37
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 h…

> logical refutation doesn't work.

It can work, if-and-only-if if it is done after real communication has been established. Most people trying to refute "obviously wrong" ideas skip the first step and start with arguing in a language and framing that they understand. This is noise when the other person uses a fundamentally different framework for what counts as "facts", "evidence", "authority", etc.

One of the better explanations of what I'm talking about is this[1] essay. While it discusses the creationist "debate", the ideas about trying to educate people that are resistant to science and logic apply generally.

Yes, logical refutation rarely works. However, did you bother to learn their language so there is a foundation of actual communication to build upon? Or did you argue in a language they don't understand? Even worse, did your argument appear to contain a lot of phatic expression that is hostile from their point of view?

[1] http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-resi... (see the heading "Hierarchical View of the World" and "The Problem of Language" for the main argument)

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

#307

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

From Robert Bolt's A Man For All Seasons (substitute "principle of free speech" for "law").

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

-----------

People in positions of power generally assume that they will always be in power. Many of people during the Obama presidency, wished that the president was less susceptible to gridlock between the various branches of government. In January 2016, most people never even considered the possibility that in 1 year, Donald Trump would be sworn in as President.

Right now, the progressive, center left is in a very strong position with regards to the tech industry. All the major players are sensitive to their causes, and against the alt-right. A lot of people are unhappy that the current norms of free speech are causing the social media companies to be slow in taking down alt-right, hate content.

People forget, that things change. What if Zuckerberg decides that as a rich, white, male who is accused of indirectly helping Trump get elected, his future political prospects are better if he goes all in and casts his full support behind Trump? What if Twitter continues to have monetization problems and get bought out by a group of wealthy GOP donors?

How easy would it be to call any discussion of European colonialism and imperialism or of slavery in the United States, hate speech against whites? How easy would it be to label any discussion of increasing taxes because the 0.1% are not paying their fare share as hate speech against the rich. How about labeling any post advocating protest against ICE as targeted harassment?

If you knew that in 5 years, it would be the right that was running Facebook, Twitter, the ISPs, etc, what mores concerning free speech would you want to preserve, even when it involves a private entity.

I think a successful democracy in a polarized country involves both sides realizing that there will come a time when they will be out of power and encouraging cultural mores and norms that make sure they are able to communicate freely and have employment even when the other side is in power - either in government or in the private sector.

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

#308

Post by Ajedi32 »

theclaw wrote: post #262
CM30 wrote: post #86

This sort of thing illustrates the biggest issue with web hosting, domain registrars and the internet's infrastructure in general; everything is privately owned by companies who get unlimited rights to decide who and what they want to host. The solution is to require all hosting and domain companies to act as utilities, and require neutrality in regards to any content that's legal. They're not private forums or homes…

The phone company would be a better analogy, and they absolutely can cut off your service if you’re being a nuisance. The first ammendment says your government won’t pass laws against you saying stuff, it stops you from going to jail for the things you say, and it’s there to protect the people’s right to criticise the government. It is not there to force companies to serve you if they don’t want to.

Okay, so sticking with that analogy, can your phone company cut off your service if you're making racist comments or discussing unpopular political ideas with your friends over the phone? Or, perhaps more importantly, _should_ they be able to?

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

#309

Post by patrickg_zill »

pcwalton wrote: post #295
patrickg_zill wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just created a Gab account to try to find hashtags or accounts that are not WN. There are some, but of course, Gab just passed 500K accounts (no idea how many are active: they are privately held and don't publish a breakdown unlike publicly-traded TWTR, which has 335 million monthly active users) so it's tough to find exactly which non-WN communities there might be... I am not sure if you are saying that Gab is "ma…

> I just created a Gab account to try to find hashtags or accounts that are not WN. You did what Andrew Torba wanted you to do. He wants people to come for "free speech", to "give it a fair chance", and so forth, so that they can be exposed to, and grow to accept, neo-Nazi rhetoric. It's a scam. Don't fall for it.

There's already a bunch on Twitter, where I've had an account for a while.

So it's too late for me, but save yourself...!

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

#310

Post by lesserroneous »

I'm not convinced this is a true example of censorship. Historically, censorship relates to an institution's ability to prevent information before it becomes public, or to manipulate information to serve its own means. It assumes an almost complete control over the means of information production, whereby a populace barely even sees a glimpse of the censored information. Since Little's neo-nazi propaganda is public and is being openly discussed, he cannot truly be censored. It's more a publicity stunt by Microsoft. There is certainly censorship in the U.S., but this doesn't seem like a true example of it to me. I also think it's a slippery slope fallacy to say that removing a forum about torturing Jews (and other hate speech) will inevitably lead to totalitarian censorship of all provocative ideas. Please show me an example where a government or a private institution withdrew its support of speech like this, which then led to the wholesale censorship of free speech in a country.
Post reply on HN