Gab will become a Mastodon fork • Hacker News Board

Re: Gab will become a Mastodon fork

#331

Post by CompanionCuuube » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 6:00 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #316

CompanionCuuube wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was that censorship in order to conform to US law? If not, sorry but you're comparing apples to oranges.

Yes. Abridgement of speech in any form is censorship. In this case, the speech of people who want to discuss activities the US government deems illegal is being censored. Censorship can be (and in the most heinous cases, is) compelled by a government, and can even arguably serve the public good, as is often argued with hate speech laws, or (less controversially) with laws against libel and slander. But as far as free…

>> Was that censorship in order to conform to US law?

>Yes. Abridgement of speech in any form is censorship.

That wasn't the question asked.

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

The question was whether the other examples were compelled by government law. That puts them in a different category. Unless you would like to argue that the other censorship was performed to keep the organizers out of prison, your argument falls flat.

Re: Gab will become a Mastodon fork

#332

Post by repolfx » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 12:35 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #324

repolfx wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those politicians disagree! This seems a rather tortuous definition of "interfere" regardless. Censorship is ok, speech isn't ok?

Freedom of association means that businesses can generally serve who they want. Declining to serve spammers is not "interfering in foreign commerce". Declining to serve abusive jerks is not "interfering in foreign elections". Freedom of speech is not a right to a platform. Freedom of speech also isn't the freedom of consequences from one's speech. I'm free to say what I want. Other people are free to, based on that s…

You just shifted the goalposts on a massive scale. You weren't talking about "abusive jerks" were you? You were talking about actual British citizens who ran for election, which makes them politicians. Whether you like them or not is irrelevant - if "abusive jerk" was the bar, no politician at all could use social media, as there'd be a significant number of people who felt that way for all of them.

In practice I can see that you're fully in support of censoring politicians you disagree with, whilst allowing those you support free reign. That's an exceptionally dangerous path. You certainly cannot hold that view and also make arguments about "foreign interference in elections" being bad - beyond the total absence of proof around what you're thinking of (Russia), Facebook blocking local politicians is by any definition a foreign company interfering in local elections. The fact that you support the move because it's against people you dislike is irrelevant for avoiding a charge of hypocrisy.

Re: Gab will become a Mastodon fork

#333

Post by anon12345690 » Mon, Jun 10, 2019, 4:59 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #216

anon12345690 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so people who care about free speech are racists? or do you just throw that word around? and theyre going to come for you too and youll be shedding a lot of tears then when its too late. its how it goes.

>so people who care about free speech are racists? Aw. No, racists are racists. Nice try, though. Keep it up and someday you'll grow up to be a real troll. >and theyre going to come for you too and youll be shedding a lot of tears then when its too late. its how it goes Why would people opposed to racists come for me? I'm not a racist.

you are a racist though. you cant prove otherwise.

Re: Gab will become a Mastodon fork

#334

Post by anon12345690 » Mon, Jun 10, 2019, 5:08 AM UTC

ptah wrote: post #298

anon12345690 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but you want to remove freedom from people just for saying something you dont like. thats bad too.

it is not about something i don't like. it is about stopping people from ruining people's lives: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48458850

what does this have to do with anything? censorship doesnt fix this

Re: Gab will become a Mastodon fork

#335

Post by kerkeslager » Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 3:22 PM UTC

vikingcaffiene wrote: post #329

kerkeslager wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stand by what I said: you ARE ignoring my core points. If you want to prove otherwise, please provide answers to these simple questions: 1. What do you think happens to racists when they are no longer allowed to talk? Do they suddenly become not racist? Disappear in a puff of smoke? 2. How do you propose we change racists minds if not by talking to them? 3. Do you think corporate platforms will always only make pro…

Theres that caps lock again... 1. Of course not. I am not an idiot. Fringe viewpoints belong on the fringes. It's why they are called that. 2. You don't and can't. It's been shown that when they do change their minds it's often through indirect means. 3. A company has a right to do whatever it wants within the confines of the law. I am saying they should make better choices and shame on the ones that don't. This argu…

> Theres that caps lock again...

I capitalized two words in my entire post, for emphasis to make the meaning clearer. I'm not sure what your objection to this is.

> 1. Of course not. I am not an idiot. Fringe viewpoints belong on the fringes. It's why they are called that.

Okay, so that's a straightforward admission that you're demanding companies do something that doesn't create the change you're looking for.

> 2. You don't and can't. It's been shown that when they do change their minds it's often through indirect means.

I think it's been shown that it's difficult, not that it's impossible.

> 3. A company has a right to do whatever it wants within the confines of the law. I am saying they should make better choices and shame on the ones that don't.

Okay, but I'm saying that the choices you're shaming them for are the better choices.

> This argument has gotten circular and pointless. The tone of your responses has gotten frankly combative and rude and your counter argument is based upon a false premise. I've clarified my original intent as much as I care to. If this is how you engage with those that you disagree with I would encourage you to find a better approach. I am out of this conversation.

I don't think I'm being combative and rude. Every step of the way I've attempted to attack your assertions rather than attacking you personally. You have not given me the same courtesy.

This reaction is consistent with my assertion that your actual position is just to avoiding people who you disagree with, rather than actually creating any change.