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

Gab.com Booted from Hosting Provider Due to User Account

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 131 posts

Re: Gab.com Booted from Hosting Provider Due to User Account

#51

Post by ascorbic »

mohammedbin wrote: post #6
SwellJoe wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gab hosts many, many, white supremacists. It has become a dumping ground for every social network's rejects...the people who've been booted from Twitter, reddit, etc (platforms that have been criticized for being slow to remove hate speech and incitement to violence, etc.) have congregated on Gab. This isn't a free speech issue, it is an issue of whether Joyent wants to have responsibility for spreading that kind of…

You're arguing a tangential point. Why is it okay to say - "kill all whites" and the platform let's you be but not okay for a user to say "kill jews" and the platform boots the user and yet gets booted itself.

You missed an important step: nobody was on the platform saying "kill all whites" and then going and actually killing whites.

If there was a site that was filled with people saying "kill all whites", and the site was fine with this, and then one of its members went and murdered a load of white people, then yes I'd say they would probably be booted by their host too. They don't get points for booting the actual murderer after he'd done the murders.

Re: Gab.com Booted from Hosting Provider Due to User Account

#52

Post by jbarciauskas »

Inconel wrote: post #29
jbarciauskas wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no credible threat against white people as a group. Those who say this generally do so as a way to raise awareness of the very real threats posed by white supremacists, not as a real threat. Taken in context, the distinction is easy to make.

As a non-white person who is wholly unsympathetic to the ideas espoused by white supremacists, partly out of reasons of self preservation, making statements such as "kill all whites" doesn't seem like a particularly good method of raising awareness of the dangers posed by hateful and bigoted ideologies. Then again I don't spend much time on Twitter so maybe such statements are able to lead to constructive dialogue th…

I think we can argue tactics in good faith, while understanding that there is not actually a credible movement to eliminate white people. On the flip side, there are active and organized white supremacist groups advocating for the elimination of any number of minorities.

Re: Gab.com Booted from Hosting Provider Due to User Account

#53

Post by aldoushuxley001 »

jbarciauskas wrote: post #12
mohammedbin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're arguing a tangential point. Why is it okay to say - "kill all whites" and the platform let's you be but not okay for a user to say "kill jews" and the platform boots the user and yet gets booted itself.

There is no credible threat against white people as a group. Those who say this generally do so as a way to raise awareness of the very real threats posed by white supremacists, not as a real threat. Taken in context, the distinction is easy to make.

Your comment gives some incredible insight into the mental gymnastic people are capable of in order to justify their own violence & intimidation.

Re: Gab.com Booted from Hosting Provider Due to User Account

#54

Post by jrs95 »

mohammedbin wrote: post #6
SwellJoe wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gab hosts many, many, white supremacists. It has become a dumping ground for every social network's rejects...the people who've been booted from Twitter, reddit, etc (platforms that have been criticized for being slow to remove hate speech and incitement to violence, etc.) have congregated on Gab. This isn't a free speech issue, it is an issue of whether Joyent wants to have responsibility for spreading that kind of…

You're arguing a tangential point. Why is it okay to say - "kill all whites" and the platform let's you be but not okay for a user to say "kill jews" and the platform boots the user and yet gets booted itself.

Media and activists that pressure social media platforms, advertisers etc. treat the two very differently. Yes, whites are generally the privileged group, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that excuses the type of behavior you're talking about happening on Twitter, and that sort of thing feeds into the conspiracy theories you'll find in places like Gab.

Re: Gab.com Booted from Hosting Provider Due to User Account

#55

Post by dna_polymerase »

jbarciauskas wrote: post #28
dna_polymerase wrote: post #4

Joyent is a private company, they can choose to refuse doing business with anyone they like to, I think this was confirmed (by supreme court) a few weeks ago when some baker refused the business of a gay couple. (That decision is protected by the same first amendment that Gab claims to be protecting! Brilliant really.) However, for everyone looking to host at Joyent: Beware they might cancel on you, too. And giving a…

It doesn't seem like this scenario should make you nervous unless your platform is a venue for discussing genocide.

There were many cases in which hosting companies decided to terminate accounts for whatever reason. And that's generally not a big problem, but 2 days notice on a weekend is just outright shitty behaviour. I can understand Joyent trying to cut ties to Gab, but seriously guys, give them time to migrate.

Re: Gab.com Booted from Hosting Provider Due to User Account

#56

Post by syshum »

dna_polymerase wrote: post #4

Joyent is a private company, they can choose to refuse doing business with anyone they like to, I think this was confirmed (by supreme court) a few weeks ago when some baker refused the business of a gay couple. (That decision is protected by the same first amendment that Gab claims to be protecting! Brilliant really.) However, for everyone looking to host at Joyent: Beware they might cancel on you, too. And giving a…

No that actually was not confirmed at all by the US Supreme Court which ruled in favor of the Baker is very very very narrow technical grounds based solely on the comments/action of the Civil Rights agency that issued the fines. The 1st amendment did not factor into the case at all really.

Please try to actually understand the law before commenting on a legal position.

Re: Gab.com Booted from Hosting Provider Due to User Account

#57

Post by happytoexplain »

mychael wrote: post #16

I don't visit Gab, but I will definitely be closing my Joyent account. If you're not a courageous and principled defender of free speech, you should get out of the cloud business.

I think it's unconstructive to command people to get out of a business because the line they draw on how disgusting and hateful content can be before they'll disallow it on their platform is different from the line (or lack thereof) that you'd draw. I also think it's probably purposeful disingenuous to frame that distinction as a righteous free speech decision where anybody who doesn't agree with your interpretation is not courageous.

Re: Gab.com Booted from Hosting Provider Due to User Account

#58

Post by partiallypro »

There is a lot of strawmanning when it comes to free speech. Virtually no one claims the 1st Amendment guarantees people a platform or that it applies to corporations. Yet, I see people clarifying that constantly...when no one is saying otherwise. Free speech as an American ideal, that's all people are really saying.

Anyhow, Joyent has every right to shut down their hosting services to anyone they feel...and no one really says otherwise on that point either. The sticking point is, are we headed down the right path on this issue? Are we setting the right precedent, because while we all likely agree that things like Daily Stormer and Gab are platforms for truly hateful people...are we emboldening them by driving them underground?

Likewise, as cloud providers beginning to show too much discretion over content? Let's take it outside of politics and into copyright. What if AWS hosted a new video streaming service, and some corporation XYZ claimed a (false) copyright violation. Amazon has a large contract with corporation XYZ because of Prime Video and kicks the video services off of AWS with short notice. Would that be acceptable, essentially putting that company out of business? Sure, it would legally not be a problem but would it be a moral problem?

Back to politics. Let's say GCS hosted DailyCaller or something, and employees internally find out and force it off because they find it as morally outrageous as the pentagon contract. It sounds crazy, but it could totally get to that point.

That seems like a bit of a leap from where we are now, but with cloud providers starting to show more and more discretion of what they host, I don't rule out that we could slip our way to things like that happening. It also seems increasingly likely that the more politicized the major players become, the more likely political disagreements could effectively ruin alternative platforms.

Gab might rightfully deserve being kicked off, but we do need to tread carefully on what type of precedent we are setting going forward as things like this become normalized.

Re: Gab.com Booted from Hosting Provider Due to User Account

#59

Post by jrs95 »

ascorbic wrote: post #51
mohammedbin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're arguing a tangential point. Why is it okay to say - "kill all whites" and the platform let's you be but not okay for a user to say "kill jews" and the platform boots the user and yet gets booted itself.

You missed an important step: nobody was on the platform saying "kill all whites" and then going and actually killing whites. If there was a site that was filled with people saying "kill all whites", and the site was fine with this, and then one of its members went and murdered a load of white people, then yes I'd say they would probably be booted by their host too. They don't get points for booting the actual murder…

No post body was provided.

Re: Gab.com Booted from Hosting Provider Due to User Account

#60

Post by jbarciauskas »

paraditedc wrote: post #24

I have been following the issue of Internet polarization since 2014 [1], and I propose two different ways to mediate the situation on a societal level: - Have a neutral platform to facilitate discourse and mutual understanding. This is hard as it requires a largely informed populace. - Complete segregation of groups having different opinions. This proves to be also hard because of incidents like this. [1] https://par…

What if, instead of either of these, we made it clear as a society that advocating violence against or the elimination of a class of people is unacceptable and we gave no venue for that conversation whatsoever?
Post reply on HN