Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed • Hacker News Board

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

#351

Post by manfredo » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 3:21 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #146

Having read the article but not knowing anything about the posts themselves, I think most of this thread misses the point. Clearly Microsoft knew it was hosting Gab and what Gab was. There's a troll argument that suggests Gab is just "free speech twitter", but of course that's not the case: I've been screenshotting the front page for months, from a random anonymous account, and every time I've done it the front page…

> learly Microsoft knew it was hosting Gab and what Gab was. There's a troll argument that suggests Gab is just "free speech twitter", but of course that's not the case: I've been screenshotting the front page for months, from a random anonymous account, and every time I've done it the front page was full of horrible Islamophobic, racist, and anti-Semitic crap. That and bot content.

This seems to accurately describe "free speech twitter". All the content that would get people banned on twitter is displaced into sites like Gab and 4chan. The few occasions I've perused these sites supported this: there were lots of hateful speech against minorities, but a few instances of hateful speech against the majority. A very narrow minority were the latter, but as far as I could tell these sites upheld their commitment to freedom of any legal speech for all and didn't censor them.

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

#352

Post by stale2002 » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 3:22 AM UTC

adamsea wrote: post #172

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…

Inciting violence is not free speech, just like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is not free speech. The article clearly states that the removed comments incite violence: > "Microsoft received a complaint about specific posts on Gab.ai that advocate ‘ritual death by torture’ and the ‘complete eradication’ of all Jews. After an initial review, we have concluded that this content incites violence, is not protected…

In the USA, it is only direct threats of imminent violence that is illegal.

So yes, according to the supreme Court, those posts are probably legal.

It would only be things like "everyone, let meet up at this specific person's house tonight and attack them" that would be illegal.

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

#353

Post by retsibsi » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 3:22 AM UTC

rainbowmverse wrote: post #198

Forge36 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you source that? Otherwise I can't tell if I'm arguing with you, your source, or a straw man.

No one asked for a citation on the widespread claim that exposing bad ideas to the light makes them go away, or at least decline in popularity. It's stated and taken as truth, but no one provided proof that it's true. I matched the standard of evidence applied to the original claim. It might be wise to actually investigate that bit of "common sense" before betting the future of the world on people's ability to deal w…

> You could wisely point out I claimed there's research, and I could at least provide it. The research I've seen tells me this won't help since people tend to discount research that goes against their beliefs, and use research that supports those beliefs as reinforcement. It won't do you any good if you start out with a strong belief in the unsupported original claim, as seems to be the case with most people I see here making it.

Come on man, I think I'm on your side here, but this is a cop-out. If you're not sure where to find the studies, just say so -- otherwise, why hold them back at this point? (Surely you don't hold the extreme view that everyone is completely impervious to evidence, so you can't just say that the evidence proves itself not to be worth sharing.)

I too remember reading about evidence contradicting the 'sunlight is the best disinfectant' meme -- for example, studies demonstrating that false claims stick with people and continue to affect their thinking, even to the point of being held as beliefs, after they are convincingly refuted (or perhaps even withdrawn by the person who presented the original claim, who admits that they completely made it up). If I have time later, I'll see if I can find some good sources to link to.

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

#354

Post by stale2002 » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 3:25 AM UTC

xfer wrote: post #348

Ajedi32 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Phone conversations are private.

And what if they weren't?

Would you have a problem with a phone company listening into your conversations and determining if you said something bad or not?

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

#355

Post by anigbrowl » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 3:26 AM UTC

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #292

anigbrowl wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, proposing that a group have more rights that they don't currently enjoy is just like saying a group should be suppressed and have their rights curtailed.

People don’t get more rights than others. All individuals get the same unalienable rights, and that is a universal truth which is self-evident.

I disagree, but in any case you seem to be disregarding the context of my comment above, without which it is empty of meaning.

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

#356

Post by jewelthief91 » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 3:28 AM UTC

xfer wrote: post #348

Ajedi32 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Phone conversations are private.

What makes them private? They're operated on the phone company's lines and by talking on their lines you're compelling them to carry certain speech. The logic that states private communication carriers have an unlimited right to ban what they want to on their networks leads to the conclusion that "private" phone calls can be censored.

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

#357

Post by api » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 3:28 AM UTC

tuxxi wrote: post #343

api wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like there's an elephant in the living room nobody is seeing, and that's general loss of trust in our institutions. These kinds of ideas have more traction today than they did 20, 50, or 100 years ago because people trust their government and their public institutions less today than they did back then. IMHO a certain amount of this calling for censorship is people from those self-same institutions refusing to…

Just curious - what are the notable cases that you're referring to which burned credibility of our institutions? By "our", I assume you mean NATO countries (or even just the USA).

Iraq and the bank bailouts followed by absolutely no reform are two massive ones, but there had also been a death by a thousand cuts. I've lost track for example of how many nutritional recommendations have later been retracted. Those are small but they add up. Each time it's another reason to take official pronouncements with a grain of salt.

To this I would add a profound economic hollowing out. That always boosts distrust and brings out racism and xenophobia.

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

#358

Post by autoexec » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 3:29 AM UTC

jackvalentine wrote: post #340

autoexec wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many videos would you need to watch on youtube before it turned you into a nazi? The people watching those videos are already true believers, or they are researchers, police, and others concerned about what racists are saying, how many of them there are, how they operate, etc. It's invaluable to have ready access to what they're up to. Access that would be lost if they were forced into their own closed circles aw…

> The people watching those videos are already true believers No they're not. The YouTube algorithm (for example) encourages people to slowly ramp up how extreme the content they view is little by little. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/youtube... > but every little thing that chips away at the lies they've been told helps. You're assuming they even see this content. The way "the algorithm" works…

It is true that the algorithm does work against them, but it isn't a perfect bubble. I'm sure every racist on youtube had that same casting an obsidian sword video recommended to them I've been seeing. I spent a couple months looking into the alt right a couple years ago and I saw it for myself. The algorithm is just going by what gets the clicks so when a major topic comes along it's not too uncommon to see different sides pop up as long as they are on the same subject.

The backfire effect is real, but it's obviously not impossible for a person to change their views on something. Even something somewhat fundamental. It can take a long time for a person to come around and they need to come to terms with the truth on their own but it can be overcome. Even the things they don't accept today will be in the back of their mind when they come across something similar in the future. It's not easy to make that kind of change, but people do it all the time.

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

#359

Post by superioritycplx » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 3:32 AM UTC

NTDF9 wrote: post #147

makomk wrote: post #5

The posts in question are frankly pretty awful, but this does kind of put the lie to the idea that if you don't like FaceGoogleBook's censorship you can just set up your own website.

Would you be ok is an islamic terrorist group threatens the west using Microsoft's services?

ISIS is pretty much running unchecked on twitter.

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

#360

Post by jewelthief91 » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 3:34 AM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #222

DanAndersen wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main difference we are seeing in this new world of large tech companies is that the role of the "judge" is diminished. Groups figure out the fine lines on which to make judgment, but only as a matter of internal company policy, behind closed doors, which none of us get to have a say in or even read the guidelines. When a judge sentences you to prison, you know pretty well exactly what sentence of which law was th…

A website ban isn't even remotely the same thing as a legal sanction. If you want to control the platform, create your own. You'll need the hardware and the software, and it could get expensive. But if you want to spread hate speech or libel, suck up the cost. If you want to be on someone else's platform you accept the restrictions of using that platform. Hate speech is on the list of almost every major platform (exc…

> A website ban isn't even remotely the same thing as a legal sanction.

The Supreme Court seemed to have very different take (Packingham v. North Carolina):

"Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate with one another on any subject that might come to mind. With one broad stroke, North Carolina bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights."