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

521–530 of 565 posts

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

#521

Post by autoexec »

anigbrowl wrote: post #282
autoexec wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can never stop bad ideas from spreading, but you can decide if you'll ever hear about them or have the opportunity to fight them. If the most repeated idea wins 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.

then bad ideas are the only ones getting any voice That's irrational, resting on the assumption that good ideas which encounter opposition in public discourse thereby cease to exist.

I'm not saying anything about ideas ceasing to exist. Only that ideas discussed in closed communities which have become echo chambers are never challenged. Members of those communities will never hear anything but the rhetoric of the group they are isolated to.

This is just as true of good ideas as it is of bad ones, but that's far less of a problem because groups of people spreading good ideas among themselves isn't typically dangerous, although there are a lot of advantages to having diverse perspectives in every group.

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

#522

Post by autoexec »

toasterlovin wrote: post #365
lylecubed wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A common argument in philosophy is that bad ideas should occur in the open - where everyone may ridicule them. Not to get too far off topic, but is this actually true in practice in the real world? Scientific studies have shown that the idea that gets repeated the most often is the idea that "wins". A bad idea gets repeated and spread every time it gets criticized. If the idea proves more "credible" than the critic…

FWIW, I think the real question is whether or not people’s inclinations can really be changed by exposure to information. To me is seems more likely that people seek out the information which confirms their world view. And if that’s true, then I think the imperative to shut down hate speech is greatly undermined.

People do seek out the information which confirms their world view, but people also can really be changed by exposure to information. Read accounts of racists who have reformed. It's always the same story. Their beliefs were slowly chipped away by exposure to information and (most importantly) a diverse group of people. They spend time with one person who doesn't conform to their prejudices and then another and eventually it clicks for them.

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

#523

Post by toasterlovin »

autoexec wrote: post #522
toasterlovin wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I think the real question is whether or not people’s inclinations can really be changed by exposure to information. To me is seems more likely that people seek out the information which confirms their world view. And if that’s true, then I think the imperative to shut down hate speech is greatly undermined.

People do seek out the information which confirms their world view, but people also can really be changed by exposure to information. Read accounts of racists who have reformed. It's always the same story. Their beliefs were slowly chipped away by exposure to information and (most importantly) a diverse group of people. They spend time with one person who doesn't conform to their prejudices and then another and event…

Right, but what about the people who don't reform? Are they somehow not exposed to all the same stuff as somebody who does reform?

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

#524

Post by s73v3r_ »

Endy wrote: post #519
s73v3r_ wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the people who are there are the ones who agree with that vile toxicity. "we looked at what they're saying and what's caused them to feel a need to say it." While that might be needed, Gab is not the place to do it.

Where, pray tell, is the proper place to engage with these people as fellow human beings then in your opinion? Is it loosely defined as a place that the rhetoric and world-view you prefer (and which I probably prefer as well) rules with an iron fist, with people who are actively censoring what someone says and forcing them into changing the way they address you? Over time, lines have been drawn, and many people have…

"Where, pray tell, is the proper place to engage with these people as fellow human beings then in your opinion?"

Somewhere not blocked by the anonymity of the internet. When online, especially at a place like Gab, or even Twitter, people are predisposed to behaving in more of a trollish, uncharitable way. In person, many of those behaviors don't happen.

"with people who are actively censoring what someone says"

I'm sorry, but I can't continue after this. You set up this sob story about not treating those on the alt-right as people, yet decry others telling the alt-right that they have to treat others as people, and not, for example, say that Jews should be treated as livestock. Its part of this really shitty mindset that people must tolerate the alt-right, but they don't have to tolerate anyone else, and should be encouraged, even, to shit on others.

If they want respect, they need to show it to others. If they're not willing to do that, then it's no surprise that they feel they get no respect in turn.

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

#525

Post by s73v3r_ »

zkms wrote: post #378
s73v3r_ wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don't buy that. If Stormfront and Daily Stormer can still be up, then there can't really be any credibility to that argument.

> Yeah, I don't buy that. If Stormfront and Daily Stormer can still be up, then there can't really be any credibility to that argument. That those two loathsome websites are still up doesn't mean that the technique I described is invalid; it just means it doesn't have a 100% kill rate, and it certainly works on less resourced and less indefatigable targets. I'm not worried about those specific websites -- I'm worried…

"Is it fine for me to pressure and suborn an electric company into cutting off service to someone I don't like (after all, without electricity, they can't make those bad internet posts!). If I can rile up enough of an internet mob, can I get them evicted from their residence, simply by annoying their landlord until the trouble's not worth the monthly rent cheque?"

The really funny, and by funny I mean sad, thing about your argument, is that you're all upset about this happening to racists and bigots, but you completely ignore that this was a fact of life for many of the marginalized communities that they terrorize.

"I've seen firsthand these tactics used by internet mobs and it's a very ugly process, and it's not something whose prevalence I'm happy to see expand."

You know what's even uglier? The tactics used by white supremacists to terrorize marginalized communities.

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

#526

Post by dragonwriter »

zkms wrote: post #378
s73v3r_ wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don't buy that. If Stormfront and Daily Stormer can still be up, then there can't really be any credibility to that argument.

> Yeah, I don't buy that. If Stormfront and Daily Stormer can still be up, then there can't really be any credibility to that argument. That those two loathsome websites are still up doesn't mean that the technique I described is invalid; it just means it doesn't have a 100% kill rate, and it certainly works on less resourced and less indefatigable targets. I'm not worried about those specific websites -- I'm worried…

> Is it fine for me to pressure and suborn an electric company

By using this analogy, you are implicitly arguing that Azure (and presumably cloud hosting generally) is a public utility and ought to be regulated like one, with tariff controls, neutrality requirements, universal service subsidies, etc.

If that's the argument you wish to make, fine, lets have that discussion.

> Just because in these cases the targets are generally disgusting doesn't mean it's something that should be tolerated

No, it should be tolerated because the nature of the service is not one which has been established to warrant utility-like treatment.

It should be cheered, given that it is already within the class that should be tolerated, because the targets are despicable. But, were the type of service outside the kind that would warrant tolerating this independently of the targeting (presuming its not against a generally protected class for a service offered publicly), then it wouldn't be acceptable even with this target group.

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

#527

Post by tryitnow »

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…

"In one post, Little said he would livestream himself destroying an unspecified Holocaust memorial in the U.S."

Ugh. Did you even bother to read the article? This has absolutely nothing to do with "bad ideas." MSFT asked Gab to remove content that "incites violence." MSFT is not cracking down on anyone because they have some disagreement with their public policy positions or political philosophy.

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not an "bad idea" it's deliberately putting people in immediate danger. Likewise advocating that we physically harm people or commit acts of terrorism against specific locations are not "bad ideas," they're advocating specific actions that will physically harm other people.

Obviously, there's no censorship of edgy and extreme ideas by MSFT, if MSFT wanted to do that they would not be hosting Gab to begin with.

Instead, all they're doing is cracking down on content which incites violence, which is in violation of their terms of service, and is absolutely not protected by the First Amendment.

Finally, can you cite any evidence from the psychological literature showing that shining light on bad ideas changes anyone's mind? Just about everything I've read has suggested that's not the case.

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

#528

Post by adamsea »

computerfriend wrote: post #464
stale2002 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good points. However, Microsoft's Acceptable Use policy may add other restrictions. Context isn't the only important thing but it does matter, and there is a context - both historical and contemporary - around the deleted comments in question.

And of course someone could always take MS to court if they feel their First Amendment rights have been violated. The ACLU has supported the freedom of speech of the KKK and Neo-Nazis plenty of times, so it's not as if there aren't resources.

Also, while IANAL, Wikipedia says, with regards to the "Brandenburg Test" used to determine "imminent lawless action", there is a "bad tendency" test which may also apply:

"In Schenck v. United States[5] the Court had adopted a "clear and present danger" test that Whitney v. California subsequently expanded to a "bad tendency" test: if speech has a "tendency" to cause sedition or lawlessness, it may constitutionally be prohibited. Dennis v. United States, a case dealing with prosecution of alleged Communists under the Smith Act for advocating the overthrow of the government, used the clear and present danger test while still upholding the defendants' convictions for acts that could not possibly have led to a speedy overthrow of the government."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

It would be great if a lawyer could weight in.

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

#529

Post by autoexec »

toasterlovin wrote: post #523
autoexec wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People do seek out the information which confirms their world view, but people also can really be changed by exposure to information. Read accounts of racists who have reformed. It's always the same story. Their beliefs were slowly chipped away by exposure to information and (most importantly) a diverse group of people. They spend time with one person who doesn't conform to their prejudices and then another and event…

Right, but what about the people who don't reform? Are they somehow not exposed to all the same stuff as somebody who does reform?

Well, yeah. A lot of racists never get to know the people they claim to hate as actual people or even interact with them beyond the most superficial encounters (passing one on the street, having one hand them change change at the store, etc). They even tend to stick to media which leaves them comfortable in their world view. Getting them out of their comfort zone is crucial for change (likely true for everyone really). Not everyone will change either. There are some remarkably stubborn people, but the only chance any of them have involves them being confronted with information outside of the narrow echo chamber they live in.

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

#530

Post by jazzyjackson »

jewelthief91 wrote: post #506
jazzyjackson wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that the alt-right panic (as in, if I thought white genocide was a thing I'd be panicking too) + nihilist troll tactics elected Trump, which has caused much harm. I think a world where those people were no-platformed more often might be a better world, but of course I can't know. And getting no-platformed isn't losing rights, you can always make your own platform, it gets easier and cheaper every day.

You can't really "make your own platform" though. Ultimately the ISPs could shut down access to any website they don't think their customers should have access to. The only recourse would be for the censored to somehow construct their own physical internet infrastructure, which was so difficult and costly the first time that it was highly subsidized by the government. And do you honestly think you should have the rig…

I'll keep your points in mind.

I would only insist on making a distinction between "a public form" and "the public forum"

As an owner of a machine, I see no reason I should be forced to host some conversation I consider harmful.

OTOH I would encourage ISPs to maintain a common carrier status just out of pragmatism. Once you memory-hole connections to some IP address, I think you become responsible for the content you serve. All or Nothing.

Post reply on HN