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

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

#461

Post by betterunix2 » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 12:55 PM UTC

test001only wrote: post #423

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…

I am of the assumption that in the US ISPs no longer have to deal with net neutrality. So why would large hosting companies have to?

Hosting companies never had to, because net neutrality is only about the Internet itself, not the edge services that host websites and whatnot.

One bit of hilarious irony is that the only reason people in the US can access the Daily Stormer is net neutrality (now just de facto), yet the Daily Stormer was full of people calling for the end of net neutrality.

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

#462

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 12:57 PM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #455

TeMPOraL wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> lie is almost always a matter of perspective This meme I do not understand. There is one physical reality[0]. A thing either happened, or it didn't. Physics doesn't change its workings because of perspective . A precise enough statement about reality can be either true or false, there's no middle. There's no "depends on perspective". If I say, "the Sun is shining", the truth of that fact does not depend on perspect…

That is what I call 'thermodynamic truth', or the truth we would see if we ran time backwards. The problem is, we can't run time backwards and because of information loss there, many times, can be many possible situations that create the outcome we see.

> The problem is, we can't run time backwards and because of information loss there, many times, can be many possible situations that create the outcome we see.

We can still quantify that fact and include it in our reasoning.

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

#463

Post by api » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 12:58 PM UTC

tremon wrote: post #432

tuxxi wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Off the top of my head: - banking crisis and the complete lack of judicial redress - the WMD lies for the second Iraq war and the lack of judicial response for the perrpetrators - tobacco/health disinformation campaigns and the lack of judicial response - widening income disparity and the lack of political will/power to reverse it - climate change disinformation and the lack of any meaningful political action - syste…

> the authorities simply have no credible authority left.

But it's the Russians!

I do think there was a Russian bot campaign. It was kind of obvious. But the rush to blame the entire phenomenon on them strikes me as disingenuous.

Even worse is the desire to blame the whole thing on human cognitive shortcomings while citing likely-not-reproducible mushy soft psych studies. It's a high-brow with-citations way of dismissing people as just "stupid."

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

#464

Post by computerfriend » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 12:59 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #352

adamsea wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And even then, only if it is deemed likely that that speech would actually incite people to do it.

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

#465

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 1:04 PM UTC

Amezarak wrote: post #443

TeMPOraL wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> lie is almost always a matter of perspective This meme I do not understand. There is one physical reality[0]. A thing either happened, or it didn't. Physics doesn't change its workings because of perspective . A precise enough statement about reality can be either true or false, there's no middle. There's no "depends on perspective". If I say, "the Sun is shining", the truth of that fact does not depend on perspect…

The idea that objective truth about reality not only exists but is accessible to the sufficiently enlightened, at least if they use the right "tools and frameworks", is a bold philosophical thesis that has undergone quite a lot of criticism in the past few thousand years. The idea that advocates of 'perspectivism' are simply trying to confuse people is absurd. "There are not facts, only interpretations" people are ju…

At no point I was trying to argue against free speech. Just about the notion that "lie is almost always a matter of perspective". I'm aware there has been criticism of the concept of objective reality in philosophy, but I'm also not aware of any framework of thought that would fit the observable reality better. In fact, all the progress of science and technology, as well as all communications we do with each other, are based on assumption that there is an objective reality which we can observe, and about which we can exchange information that lead us to create a consistent, shared view.

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

#466

Post by computerfriend » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 1:05 PM UTC

aliakhtar wrote: post #456

Vinnl wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the term makes sense, because that's what it is, and that's the reason why people want to shut it down. It also brings into focus the main point of: where do you draw the line? When is a political opinion unpopular enough to warrant shutting it down?

The difference is incitement to violence.

But that's not really the difference, since there is plenty of incitement to violence that is politically palatable.

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

#467

Post by betterunix2 » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 1:07 PM UTC

CM30 wrote: post #131

394549 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, they're the internet equivalent to the electricity company or the water company. They're the internet equivalent to a phone service provider or ISP. Exactly this. When the First Amendment was authored, I don't think it was even conceivab…

When the First Amendment was authored, I suspect people thought public property was going to be where the largest audience was, with the town hall and park and square and what not being the main platform for discussion. Reaching the crowd meant going out with a handbell or standing on a box passing out pamphlets. Stopping the government from arresting someone advertising in the town square was more important than sto…

Sorry, but you seem to be confusing "the right to speak" with "the right to be heard." Your right to speak freely is not lost simply because the town square is empty and everyone is inside private clubs that will not allow you in.

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

#468

Post by computerfriend » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 1:07 PM UTC

aliakhtar wrote: post #457

stale2002 wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you broke the law by saying something, yes. Incitement to violence is not protected free speech.

That's not quite the definition. But suppose some piece of speech is not protected: that doesn't necessarily make it illegal, just that it is legal for the state to censor you.

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

#469

Post by carry_bit » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 1:11 PM UTC

braythwayt wrote: post #82

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…

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…

Is it possible for a bad idea to be true?

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

#470

Post by ubernostrum » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 1:11 PM UTC

moduspol wrote: post #402

ubernostrum wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unless/until you're a customer of an ISP and hosting something on the connection they provide, there's no content.

Now, think through the logical consequences of your argument for a moment, and ask whether you really want to legally require every ISP and every hosting service and every website everywhere to be legally required to accept absolutely anyone, absolutely any behavior and absolutely any content, without exception. Do you really want to live in that world? Or are you just grasping at straws to try to maintain an argument you made in bad faith from the beginning?

(hint: it's the second one)