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

401–410 of 565 posts

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

#401

Post by microcolonel »

tptacek wrote: post #392
microcolonel wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yikes, hadn't seen that one. That really is too bad, I hope this attitude doesn't permeate the company, because the platform is gaining steam.

No, it isn't. It's floundering, because it is a site that caters to white supremacists, with an aspirational sideline in catering to normal people. Among people who have any name recognition for Gab whatsoever, simply having a Gab account with your name on it is a pretty icky social signal to be sending. In practice, what I see as I regularly check up and screenshot it is a whole lot of bot content punctuated by an o…

> In practice, what I see as I regularly check up and screenshot it is a whole lot of bot content punctuated by an occasional neo-Nazi post. I don't even think the white supremacists are all that invested in it.

For what it's worth, I think that's just the effect of the default feed. If you actually follow anyone it completely changes. If what you're saying about the bots is true, maybe I don't see them so much as a result of a sort of WoT effect by follows.

I certainly find the default feeds grody, but after adding "jq" and a few others to my muted words list, it's worth looking at some of the feeds for the occasional hidden gem. I will say, the space is not rich and diverse like Twitter used to be (yet).

I honestly really liked the Twitter crowd, but it seems like conversation on Twitter is dying; I shuttered my account a while back, and if Gab doesn't grow a broader base I don't really know what there will be to take its place.

Minds doesn't look too bad, but it seems to suffer from a (milder, potentially thanks to the influx of desperate refugees of Facebook in Vietnam) form of the same disease: being populated largely by untouchables (some so vile they cost you job prospects by mere proximity).

> simply having a Gab account with your name on it is a pretty icky social signal to be sending.

Yeah, I have it on good authority that merely having a Gab profile has cost me a job offer, which is why I closed it a few months ago. Reopened it today because if I die tomorrow I'd like to go with my spine intact.

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

#402

Post by moduspol »

ubernostrum wrote: post #398
moduspol wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm open to simply acknowledging the Internet is no place for free speech. My point is that ISPs are just as vulnerable to brigading as Facebook or Microsoft, so arguing that it's not a big problem because they're still free to host content on their own hardware is missing the point. It just seems odd how rabidly pro-Net Neutrality places like this were only to make cases like yours a few months later when free speec…

I'd argue that the pipe -- that is, the entity which owns and controls the physical fiber/wires/etc. through which the packets flow -- should operate under a certain level of enforced neutrality, in the sense that if A and B each are customers of C paying for access to the pipe, C shouldn't decide to disallow, filter, or throttle traffic between them. C (the ISP) should only be able to choose whether or not to take o…

That you can selectively interpret net neutrality to justify ISPs arbitrarily blocking access to content is unsurprising, but nonetheless irrelevant.

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

#403

Post by throwaway-hn123 »

ddingus wrote: post #161
anigbrowl wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lane Davis's dad tried that approach, arguing to his son that he (the son) had fallen down a neo-nazi rabbit hole. Davis denounced his dad as a 'leftist pedophile' and stabbed him to death. I could supply a laundry list of examples, but the basic point I'd like to communicate is that once someone signs up to an eliminationist philosophy we have (to misquote Churchill) established what they are, and the only question…

Let's just say I am not getting upvotes on this. :D Rather than actually have a real discussion, people prefer to "solve the problem." It won't go well. I will bow out of this discussion for now. There are places where a real conversation can be had, and this isn't one of them.

Bye!

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

#404

Post by throwaway-hn123 »

ddingus wrote: post #279
s73v3r_ wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you're being pointed out that you're wrong. That "more speech" doesn't help, and can actually get people killed.

I have no complaints about the discussion I can see. I have no desire to go through Karma on people who would just rather down vote because they don't like what they read. Personally, I almost never downvote, would much rather engage and have a chat about things. Most of the time that happens here, on this topic it's obviously not. And the whole thing is by no means definitive. I happen to have a very significant amo…

Bye!!!!

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

#405

Post by charlesism »

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.

    > But is one’s life diminished by hearing bad 
    > ideas? I don’t think so
You may think that it's harmless to thousands of racist theories floating around the internet. I don't. I think it plants seeds of doubt. "Group X must have done something to make so many people hate them" etc.

Let's say I publish an article alleging you murdered your previous girlfriend/boyfriend. It goes viral. A month later, the truth airs! Someone publishes a follow-up explaining that you are innocent. Do you think your life will just go back to normal?

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

#406

Post by superkuh »

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 solution is not to create more laws which will give the real danger (governments) more power to use their violence.

The solution is to simply have everyone host themselves. Even a moderate home broadband connection is more than enough to serve up your personal website.

Once you start relying on third parties you've lost. That's their property, not yours. When you claim it is yours and use government violence to enforce your wishes you are doing more damage to society than what you're trying to stop.

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

#407

Post by pjc50 »

tinalumfoil wrote: post #126
braythwayt wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That argument works well in relatively small social groups where people generally can be relied upon to act in good faith, and where there are social disincentives to clinging to bad ideas after they have been refuted. When you have a small group with social bonds, you don't have to worry about a bad actor constantly repeating their already-refuted arguments to people who haven't heard the refutation. But when you ha…

People are better off hearing a bad idea and hearing it refuted then never hearing a bad idea. You could say, "well then detractors of the idea will have to keep refuting it" and you'd be right. That's how public forums work, and I hope you don't take everything your parent's believed for granted just because their detractors have already been "refuted".

A certain percentage of people ignore the refutation and end up believing the bad idea. For certain bad ideas (racism, anti-vax etc) this can result in people getting killed.

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

#408

Post by pjc50 »

drb91 wrote: post #129
braythwayt wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That argument works well in relatively small social groups where people generally can be relied upon to act in good faith, and where there are social disincentives to clinging to bad ideas after they have been refuted. When you have a small group with social bonds, you don't have to worry about a bad actor constantly repeating their already-refuted arguments to people who haven't heard the refutation. But when you ha…

> But when you have the whole internet as your audience, no matter how many times you are refuted, you can say it again and a whole group of people will be hearing it for the first time. Why is that a problem? You can't force people to believe in reality. Might as well have this process happen in the open to actually provide a disincentive to believing conspiracy theories/propaganda/ads/fake news/whatever. Hell, I'll…

> White supremacy doesn't help white people

It absolutely does help the people who believe in it: it gives them a sense of superiority and someone to blame. People walked away from lynchings with a sense of satisfaction and justice, not a recognition that they'd just committed a horrible crime.

These aren't rational reasons, but since people can go through most of their lives without really having to do things for rational reasons that doesn't matter.

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

#409

Post by pjc50 »

autoexec wrote: post #286
jackvalentine wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but bad ideas are forced to spread in hidden places without refute then bad ideas are the only ones getting any voice and they win by default. They win by default in those dark places. Important distinction.

The people in those dark places the ones you have to worry about. Most people don't hold dangerously wrong ideologies like neo-nazis do. What amount of rhetoric or marches or speeches would convince you to be a nazi? If you are like most people no amount ever would. The most vulnerable out there are the ones who find themselves isolated. Those who end up in the dark places or are simply raised in them from childhood.…

> What amount of rhetoric or marches or speeches would convince you to be a nazi?

There's a historical answer to this and it's found in the number of people who were convinced to join and vote for the Nazis in 1930s Germany. They were very good at propaganda.

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

#410

Post by baud147258 »

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…

Another argument against prohibiting speech on some platform is that it will push people platforms without any speech restriction, radicalasing their view.
Post reply on HN