Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

easydns.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–473 of 473 posts

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#471

Post by kakarot »

dagenix wrote: post #469
kakarot wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea who is the "above", and nothing on which to speculate. The internet's two largest payment processors both pulling out at the same time that Gab loses hosting, and becomes the target of a widespread slander campaign, definitely seems orchestrated. You can't dismiss that as "conspiracy theory material". Sure, it could be distributed social pressure, but even that would just be a standalone event resultin…

The definition of conspiracy theory is: "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theo... ) So, here we have an event - payment processors refusing to serve Gab. The theory is that this is explained by from some entity "above" that we don't know anything about and that clearly acte…

Oh, hush.

"Conspiracy theory material" has a strong connotation that a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators doesn't capture at all.

The connotation heavily implies that the theory is to be disregarded as ridiculous and false.

But you know that already, so why am I even telling you?

Re: A Heretic's Guide to Deplatforming

#472

Post by evrydayhustling »

colllectorof wrote: post #470
evrydayhustling wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It usually involves partisan press, activist organizations and whipped-up online crowds with no stake in the platform they're trying to affect. For someone claiming the moral high ground enfranchising speech, you seem pretty free basing arguments on knowing that certain voices should be ignored. Fortunately, we can skip the boring discussion about the character of different activist groups because it's the listener…

> why don't you put forward a concrete vision of what your definition of free speech is? Because that is not the correct response to someone who casually describes eight hundred thousand users as "a few jerks". Or someone who smugly dismisses a well-reasoned article by saying the author "beats an ocean with a stick". If you insist on promoting gross misrepresentations of reality, all you will get in response is well-…

Got it, seems like you plan to keep misrepresenting my words instead of explaining your own. Nobody deplatformed 800k Gab users and I didn't call them jerks (I'm sure there are all kinds). They deplatformed Gab's jerk founder/operators who specifically marketed to dangerous crazies, including by bragging about profiting from a tragedy. Anyone who has a problem with that has every right to sever ties. Gab's users have alternative homes on 4chan and Reddit, or the next platform which prioritizes diverse expression without marketing to hate so actively that upstream providers stop doing business with them.

As for the article, I obviously disagree that it was well reasoned, but I regret implying that the author is foolish. The point of the ocean metaphor is that you can't and shouldn't try to stop people from making their own choices about whom to associate with - which is what you are doing when you say all views are entitled to an audience. I've dug in with you on this thread because I think that "free speech = free audience" is a potentially attractive fallacy that risks degrading both individual rights and tractable notions of free speech.

But at this point it looks like we're done talking to each other, and nobody else cares about this thread. Nuff said.

Post reply on HN