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

381–390 of 565 posts

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

#381

Post by snowwrestler »

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #300
moomin wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are an infinite number of bad ideas in the world. No-one’s life would be improved by hearing them all.

Maybe not. But is one’s life diminished by hearing bad ideas? I don’t think so. For instance, the idea that the Earth is flat is laughable. But my life doesn’t deteriorate nor improve based on that idea. We can all agree it’s a stupid idea, laugh at it, and move on.

Depends on the bad idea.

If the bad idea was that you and your family should be killed or forcibly expelled from your jobs and homes, and you heard it discussed seriously and frequently by your neighbors, police officers, and elected officials--yeah, I think that might diminish your quality of life in some ways.

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

#382

Post by MaupitiBlue »

stale2002 wrote: post #347
rainonmoon wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I own a nightclub and it becomes a hotspot for the alt-right, who don't align with my values, and I close down that nightclub for that reason, am I censoring them? No, I'm excluding them from my privately-owned space and refusing to associate with them. Nobody's right is being infringed upon here; they're free to go to any other bar. "Whether they can host their own site" is absolutely relevant to what is and isn'…

Censorship has absolutely nothing to do with the government, and I am confused as to why you think so. Censorship is when any group at all, uses their power, any power, to attempt to silence others.

Because censors were originally Roman government officials, because the dictionary reflects this, and because censor in common usage reflects this definition.

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

#383

Post by snowwrestler »

mikec3010 wrote: post #264
ezoe wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I hate censorship, There always a bunch of idiots who believes the bad ideas. Those neo-nazis are the least evil compared to the alternative medicines. Even if you don't believe your parents, you still got no vaccine, and other crazy medical treatments even the comic books can't imagine.

Isn't this very similar to what Tipper Gore's group tried in the 80s to censor rap and "hard rock" artists ? "Oh! We need to block this harmful speech. Think of the children! "

If a record store chooses to carry less than every album ever made, does that mean it's censoring the ones it doesn't carry?

Because the subject of this thread is Microsoft deciding what they want host, not the government telling Microsoft what they are permitted to host.

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

#384

Post by xfer »

jewelthief91 wrote: post #356
xfer wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> What makes them private?

The law. Wire-tapping isn't legal.

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

#385

Post by s9w »

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…

[flagged]

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

#386

Post by jackvalentine »

api wrote: post #362
jackvalentine wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I don't think you could show me enough inane neo-Nazi videos to make me a Nazi. Insane, ready to gouge my eyes out with an egg beater... maybe... but conversion is not likely.

This seems to be a common enough retort in this thread, but it's really just a single person's opinion about themselves that doesn't mean much. You think you're not susceptible, good for you!

The topic of radicalising people via mainstream social media to become nazis or fight for ISIS or whatever gross extremism they're susceptible to has been around for years now and it's pretty much settled that yes, you can radicalise people via these channels.

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

#387

Post by SamReidHughes »

kevinmchugh wrote: post #256
jewelthief91 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For better or worse foreign and domestic terrorist speech is treated separately. If ISIS was a domestic terrorist organization afaik they would have 1A rights.

What's the connection to the first amendment? Did the government dictate bans? I saw very little concern from the "free speech" crowd about the government's ability to censor US publishers from publishing content by foreign authors.

There's been plenty of concern about that. See the Mehanna case from a few years back. Also, the USG was giving Twitter shit about having terrorist content on their site for years.

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

#388

Post by ubernostrum »

sheepmullet wrote: post #375
ubernostrum wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservatives generally want the bakery to be able to refuse to bake the cake. Why aren't they also in favor of the ISP refusing to offer service, or the host refusing to offer use of their servers? Do you believe a baker ought to be able to refuse service to someone over religion? If so, do you believe a baker whose beliefs condemn homosexuality should be able to refuse a same-sex couple? Do you believe a baker whos…

> Conservatives generally want the bakery to be able to refuse to bake the cake. Why aren't they also in favor of the ISP refusing to offer service, or the host refusing to offer use of their servers? It’s a very different scenario. It’s more like people are hiring private investigators to follow gay people around and get a list of businesses they frequent and then organising harassment of those businesses until they…

There's a line in one of Terry Pratchett's books where Sam Vimes (commander of the City Watch) muses that what he's doing isn't really secret surveillance because he has to stand back a bit to avoid being deafened by how loudly some guy is yelling his jingoistic crap in a public place.

Gab isn't some stealthy hidden dark-web thing that you can only access from behind seven proxies after a thirty-step initiation process. Same with Alex Jones. Nobody's breaking into their homes and secretly recording statements they'd never ever make in public; these folks are getting up on soapboxes and gleefully shouting at the top of their lungs in the explicit hope that as many people as possible will hear and know about them.

So, yeah, it's 100% fair for people to point to the person standing on a soapbox in the public square who's screaming at the top of his lungs, and say "I don't want to be associated with him, or with anyone who supports him". That's freedom, and the guy doing the screaming has no grounds to try to forbid that; that would be censorship of others' opinions.

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

#389

Post by Endy »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #241
Endy wrote: post #183

I have an alternate solution especially for Gab and Voat. Rather than allowing them to become known cesspits, advertise them to people and say, "see how others' opinions exist" - people will sign up for curiosity, they'll sign up to argue, etc. But most importantly, they'll be there on that platform and perhaps some people will actually learn to communicate openly with people they disagree with or whose views they de…

Yeah, no. People will see the vile toxicity right up front (it's not hidden at all there), and they'll leave in 5 minutes.

I think I understand what you're saying, but if it was so vile and so toxic, why would people keep returning to it and stay so involved? Whether you happen to like it or not, these are communities just as much as any other. I think it would be better for the human condition if, instead of dismissing them as "vile toxicity", we looked at what they're saying and what's caused them to feel a need to say it.

Then again, that takes more than five minutes.

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

#390

Post by pvg »

tptacek wrote: post #150
minimaxir wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've been screenshotting the front page for months Out of curiosity, why?

I honestly don't know why. Something just made me think I was going to want data about it someday.

I'm getting pretty close to getting some Citation artwork commissioned.
Post reply on HN