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

A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

easydns.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 473 posts

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#301

Post by YouAreGreat »

stcredzero wrote: post #148
adamrezich wrote: post #21

The problem with free speech on the Internet is that our human minds have not sufficiently evolved to even remotely begin to understand just how fundamentally the Internet changes our perception of our fellow humans. Dunbar's number shows that we're only able to keep track of a very small number of ongoing human relationships relative to the Internet-connected population of the planet, and at a societal level we're u…

The problem with free speech on the Internet is that our human minds have not sufficiently evolved to even remotely begin to understand just how fundamentally the Internet changes our perception of our fellow humans. Douglas Adams understood. (Babelfish)

> our human minds have not sufficiently evolved

They're also not evolved to deal with TV news.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#302

Post by guitarbill »

stcredzero wrote: post #216
DoreenMichele wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some very real problems where oppressed people of various sorts have a real need to be able to "speak the unspeakable" in order to sort their own problems. New ideas are also inevitable heretical. Sorting the wheat from the chaff is a challenge. Trying to not throw the baby out with the bathwater is a challenge.

oppressed people of various sorts have a real need to be able to "speak the unspeakable" There's a difference between letting people express themselves and ratifying hate to fuel more outrage. Doing that is throwing the justice baby out with the bathwater -- also because it's more viral and you make more money and get more political power that way.

> There's a difference between letting people express themselves and ratifying hate to fuel more outrage

Maybe, but then somebody has to make that call and get it right. Who's going to do that? You? The mob?

Giving all ideas the same platform and letting it sort itself out isn't the worst strategy humanity has come up with. You might even call it democratic.

And I don't remember refusing to judge something being the same as ratifying it, I thought that was tolerance. But I guess you're either with us, or against us - there can be no other option. /s

If letting a few people talk about hate is magically going to convince a large majority, either that's condescending or we're fucked as a species.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#303

Post by YouAreGreat »

StuntPope wrote: post #116
pvg wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing 'ironic' about it, flagging is like downvoting. You aren't being 'deplatformed' by some inscrutable power, users just don't think it's a fit for the site.

No, flagging is not like "downvoting", this isn't reddit. As somebody else here already pointed out: > From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. This isn't spam and given the interest it's garnered it's obviously not off-topic. So if you're flagging it you're basically throwing your opinion over it and preventing others from seeing it and from upvoting it. That'…

> flagging is not like "downvoting", this isn't reddit.

"Flag" on HN has devolved into an overpowered downvote button.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#304

Post by michaelmrose »

Mirioron wrote: post #278
pjc50 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are already a large number of fights over this. And the solution is the same: complain and hope for the court of public opinion to go your way. E.g. breastfeeding on Facebook, lgbt content generally, the drone strike reporting app on iOS, sex work adverts after FOSTA etc. Then there's the illegal stuff like fraud websites, ddos control domains, and anything to do with copyright infringement. It's noticeable whi…

But gab isn't far right. As I understood it, it's just a Twitter alternative. It doesn't make it inherently left or right. Many people pointed towards lgbt content being taken down and said: "Look, you guys brought this on yourselves." The implication being that some vocal lgbt people were pushing for censorship of other people, but it ended up being used against themselves. I think the solution is to require platfor…

Twitter, reddit, facebook, hacker news aren't the public street. They are someone else's public meeting hall that you may rent out for the small price of contributing useful dialog and not being an asshole. The fact that they don't allow all comers is a feature not a bug because some would be patrons are hateful vandals whose presence is liable to discourage your more useful patrons from visiting.

The public street is the broader net where everyone can have a voice and decentralization is probably a more useful strategy. If you feel strongly that free speech on the internet is essential don't ask facebook to tolerate deplorables while others demand it kick them off.

When the deplorables kick puppies and blow up children you will certainly lose the argument.

Instead consider building or contributing to decentralized communications that are challenging to block under the ideal that a platform where its hard to block deplorables from communicating with one another is also free of interference for more savory communications.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#305

Post by sanderjd »

geeostation wrote: post #281
stcredzero wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wind up in a monopoly, or a near-monopoly position, and you can practically suppress the free speech of people, then yes. There is a lawsuit where a company owned this mining company town, including all of its roads and sidewalks. A Jehova's witness won a lawsuit on the basis of the First Amendment, enabling her to walk about that town and distribute her pamphlets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc Orig…

why is this downvoted? seems very good counterpoint to private companies can do whatever they want. The reality of the free speech online is that US constitution comes stapled with a "Terms of Service" by tech oligopoly

I see a tag that says "dupe" on the comment, so maybe that's why. I did see that anecdote about the company town elsewhere in the thread.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#306

Post by OpenBSD-reich »

amputect wrote: post #211
im3w1l wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First people get kicked off their platforms "build your own platforms" Then platforms got kicked off the platform platforms "build your own platform platforms" What reason is there to assume those platform platforms will not get kicked off the platform platform platforms? These people are not arguing in good faith.

What's the alternative to "build your own platforms" though. Are you willing to compel Stripe by threat of force to keep processing credit cards for nazis? Are you willing to completely torpedo freedom of association, as long as the people demanding your company continue associating with them are sufficiently monstrous?

Freedom of [dis]association has already been torpedoed. If political leanings were protected tomorrow like sexuality and sexual orientation are protected today, it'd significantly reduce the deplatforming. Joyent couldn't deplatform for politics anymore than christian* bakers couldn't refuse gays their cake! Interestingly, political opinion is not something protected in progressive-pushed instruments (take the Creative Covenant's CoC for example). If the right got smart, it'd modify the legal devices of civil and sexual rights to include political rights, or at least strip legal liability protection from political deplatformers (moderate a little -> then moderate in totality).

*I'm a fedora tipping Atheist.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#307

Post by guitarbill »

8note wrote: post #259
int_19h wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't work in Europe. Just look at AfD. That in a country that goes so far in suppressing "toxic and hateful movements", its courts have the power to ban political parties, if their platform deviates too far from the norm.

I think Germany would be significantly more NAZI today if they hadn't been deplatformed after the war. not deplatforming didn't go too well in the US. look at all the white power folks who are showing up, even though they kept their platforms after the civil war.

The point he's making is it might be better to talk about it, instead of declaring it taboo. AfD is literally "Alternative für Deutschland". They aren't great, but enough people are voting for them because the other parties won't tackle thr issues they care about.

As for "all the white power folks", they may be loud and they may be a convenient boogeyman, but how many are there really? And isn't it better to know they exist, than have such speech stifled, only to have it surprise you e.g. at the next election? (Talking about the AfD here, before you draw too many parallels)

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#308

Post by expathacker »

spaginal wrote: post #186
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ain't gonna happen in this case, for two reasons: 1. Jehovah's witnesses tend not to shoot up synagogues, whereas an otherwise typical member of Gab did. 2. Antisemitism isn't a protected class. I can see from your comments that you are one of those, "I'd defend to the death your right to say it," people. I must admit, I would not defend to the death someone's right to spew hate toward Jews. That's not my hill to die…

A muslim shot up a gay night club, we don’t ban Islam or mosques or deplatform Muslims from the internet for holding similarly antisemitic views. To suggest such an action would be roundly decried and the person drummed out. Similarly, as much as anyone hates antisemitic speech, it IS protected speech because it’s free speech. At some point we are going to have to decide in this country if we wish to continue forward…

> A muslim shot up a gay night club, we don’t ban Islam or mosques or deplatform Muslims from the internet for holding similarly antisemitic views. To suggest such an action would be roundly decried and the person drummed out.

This is a false equivalency and a weak argument, where you are suggesting that all muslims are both terrorists and anti-semites.

A "terrorist" shot up a gay night club, and yes, we do ban terrorist propaganda from the public square, or are you advocating for allowing ISIS/Taliban/Al Qaeda, etc, to be allowed to preach their hatred and drum-up support?

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#309

Post by tomohawk »

A private company has quite a bit of latitude, until it becomes a monopoly (or part of an oligopoly). Monopolists always hide behind the "but, we're a private company" defense. Who wouldn't? Settled law and legal tradition holds that we tolerate a monopoly only when they are regulated and conduct themselves in a manner that is fair to all.

It is unacceptable for monopolists to infringe on peoples constitutionally protected rights. When a monopolist offers a service, they have to provide it to everyone. We can't have electric monopolists cutting power to people because they voted for the "wrong" party. We can't have banks and payment processors making it practically impossible for people to conduct commerce.

Going down that path leads us to where China already is. Calling someone on the phone leads to a message about how the person is socially unacceptable and that proceeding with the call may cause you to be similarly blacklisted. Or, you just get phone access cut off.

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#310

Post by michaelmrose »

golemiprague wrote: post #282
evrydayhustling wrote: post #152

Reading this article is like watching someone beat the ocean with a stick. What would it look like for an "anti-deplatforming" initiative to succeed? All ideas have equal access to all platforms? Just the big ones? The objective is so poorly formed, it's not even wrong. A platform's identity and ability to attract an audience are determined by the activities they accept / cultivate, not vice versa. Infowars wanted to…

The question is if there is alternative and if this thing applies consistently. If I want to create a club which only accept men or whites it will not be allowed and there was the famous case with the bakery that refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. The supreme court in the US actually sided with the bakery but then there is the question of alternative and whether it is a monopoly. The bakery was certainly not a…

This is very very difficult to read. Instead of writing extemporaneously as one thinks it would profit you to break your thoughts into paragraphs. A few minutes spent editing the end result, trimming the fat, and organizing what remains could profit innumerable readers.

I believe that the public interest is that the broader web be accessible to all comers. That means that it ought to it ought to be possible for information and money to pass between interested parties. This however does not mean that individual players like facebook have to help nazis spread hate. Facebook isn't the public street but you too can play there with your own server.

If this becomes challenging because registrars, hosts, colocation providers don't want your money or your hate the logical solution is decentralization not forcing facebook to give nazis a place to congregate.

Bitcoin is an unmediated exchange of money, stuff like tor hidden services are an unmediated exchange of ideas. This idea could certainly be expanded and made more user friendly if a substantial group of people felt like their ideas weren't welcome on the broader net.

If this isn't possible because the only people who can't play are a tiny minority of hateful idiots then it seems like the system is working.

Post reply on HN