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

61–70 of 565 posts

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

#61

Post by polanon »

mrguyorama wrote: post #46
BryantD wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That common argument rests on norms established by millennia of relatively difficult communication. Best not to assume that the same people would come to the same conclusions today. For example, QAnon believers have not had their speech restricted. That conspiracy theory is as open as anything you could name. People have challenged it. It's still going. If you believe that challenging terrible ideas makes those who h…

A number of other silly ideas that still hold traction and do actual damage despite being out in the open and actively refuted: Moon landing conspiracy Anti-vaccers/Vaccines cause autism Fad diets and "detox"s Anti-intellectualism Alex Jones (to the tune of millions of subscribers on his recently killed youtube) Global Warming etc

[flagged]

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

#62

Post by ddingus »

BryantD wrote: post #37
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 common argument rests on norms established by millennia of relatively difficult communication. Best not to assume that the same people would come to the same conclusions today. For example, QAnon believers have not had their speech restricted. That conspiracy theory is as open as anything you could name. People have challenged it. It's still going. If you believe that challenging terrible ideas makes those who h…

Thought experiment for you:

Say we remove Qanon from all platforms of reputable note. Do you believe 4chan would ever comply?

Secondly, what impact does that have on the reputable platforms vs 4chan?

How does that all break down for people?

My thoughts are:

1. 4chan will continue very liberal speech. People will continue to visit, and those numbers will increase due to the Streisand effect.

2. The number one and two responses to Alex Jones recent and wide spread ban are:

Who is next?

FINALLY!

And those trend along authoritarian lines most clearly. Anti authoritarians are more critical and make it clear they do not need to be protected from bad speech.

Authoritarians make it clear they value said protection because of what could happen.

I bet the same happens with QAnon, should that decision get made.

Net outcome:

Polarization along authoritarian lines.

Frankly, I think Jones is laughable. I also think specific speech he made should be removed because it is defamatory and or inciting in nature.

I think a blanket, "fuck this guy" is a grave error.

I think that because:

The answer to bad speech is more speech, and post removal is a form of speech, given it is used where speech is actually criminal. And it is understandable too.

Bans are not those things and can create martyrs as well as augment attention to other platforms where fans, supporters will quickly gather to discuss injustice.

I think the laughable should be laughed at too.

Civility is difficult here. Forcing that, as in nobody gets offended, dilutes speech down, and prevents "more speech" from working as it should.

That all forms a resonant cycle we probably will not like very much.

At the root of all this is forced trust and an abandonment of safe harbor. That will not be easy to undo, and it will divide people into those authoritarian vs non authoritarian camps too.

I gotta be honest and will gladly side with the anti authoritarians.

Do not need the protection, and I have a very, very thick skin. There are few ways to actually impact me, and I do understand my agency in conversation well.

I can't control others, but I can control me. Bad speech from clowns and asses is entertainment. It isnt something I give weight to. Nobody should.

That they do, and that they are enabled with this idea of protection being somehow needed is likely to do more harm than good.

Anyway, the Qanon types will find and communicate where the speech is, just as the Alex Jones types will. And then they will share that and martyr status should prove effective in rebuilding the lines of communication, only now we have doubt.

Who is next and why?

How do people know the difference between corruption and abuse of power / money from a genuine act to manage criminal speech properly?

What of things like profanity?

More basically, how do people understand they are having a real conversation as opposed to just a permitted, even encouraged one?

I want the real conversation and will seek that. Got no time for Disneyland type conversation.

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

#63

Post by lylecubed »

CommieBobDole wrote: post #54
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…

This has been my position as well for a long time, but I'm starting to feel like there's an unexpectedly enormous number of people out there with zero ability to critically evaluate information, and it seems as if all a terrible idea needs in order to gain critical mass is that it be emotionally satisfying and generally known. I honestly don't know where we go from here - I continue to believe that giving the state t…

> I'm starting to feel like there's an unexpectedly enormous number of people out there with zero ability to critically evaluate information, and it seems as if all a terrible idea needs in order to gain critical mass is that it be emotionally satisfying and generally known.

Aristotle observed this in the 4th century BC. He wrote about it in his book Rhetoric. This is by no means a new development.

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

#64

Post by ddingus »

mrguyorama wrote: post #46
BryantD wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That common argument rests on norms established by millennia of relatively difficult communication. Best not to assume that the same people would come to the same conclusions today. For example, QAnon believers have not had their speech restricted. That conspiracy theory is as open as anything you could name. People have challenged it. It's still going. If you believe that challenging terrible ideas makes those who h…

A number of other silly ideas that still hold traction and do actual damage despite being out in the open and actively refuted: Moon landing conspiracy Anti-vaccers/Vaccines cause autism Fad diets and "detox"s Anti-intellectualism Alex Jones (to the tune of millions of subscribers on his recently killed youtube) Global Warming etc

So?

Laugh at them, and then contribute facts.

Next.

At any given time, these things are all part of the conversation. Suppressing them only adds to the allure.

Attempting to manage it, "for their own good" will not end well, and it won't end well because way too many people will fail to trust, share that and undermine it all.

As they should. That problem is why there is a First Amendment in the first place. I know that does not apply here, and I know why too.

Not my intent.

The dynamics that lead to having a First Amendment are my point.

The moment people begin to mistrust, and that catches fire and spreads is the moment the dialog gets toxic and hostile.

See my comment up thread.

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

#65

Post by mrguyorama »

lylecubed wrote: post #60
mrguyorama wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all fine and dandy, but is there actual factual standing behind the positions I listed?

You posted them as examples of "bad ideas." Shouldn't you be able to tell me the factual standing behind the positions you hold?

Are you asking me to go through each of them and give a thorough post about the background of the issue, the facts as they lay, the most reasonable conclusions, the possible influences/biases from each side and their possible agendas etc etc etc?

And you're saying that I should do this each and every single time someone wants to discuss a (IMO) discredited study or blog post or something?

Do you not see how easy that is to abuse by people acting in bad faith? It's a pretty classic DDOS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

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

#66

Post by mcguire »

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…

On the other hand, there's no principle that requires an entity like Microsoft to support services it or its customers find repugnant.

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

#67

Post by mrguyorama »

ddingus wrote: post #64
mrguyorama wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A number of other silly ideas that still hold traction and do actual damage despite being out in the open and actively refuted: Moon landing conspiracy Anti-vaccers/Vaccines cause autism Fad diets and "detox"s Anti-intellectualism Alex Jones (to the tune of millions of subscribers on his recently killed youtube) Global Warming etc

So? Laugh at them, and then contribute facts. Next. At any given time, these things are all part of the conversation. Suppressing them only adds to the allure. Attempting to manage it, "for their own good" will not end well, and it won't end well because way too many people will fail to trust, share that and undermine it all. As they should. That problem is why there is a First Amendment in the first place. I know th…

And people like my mother? Who didn't do so well in statistics and science and math and therefore do not have the tools to rationally judge one claim versus another?

How do we help them not get pulled into, often alluring and attractive, circles of hate?

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

#68

Post by mrguyorama »

polanon wrote: post #61
mrguyorama wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A number of other silly ideas that still hold traction and do actual damage despite being out in the open and actively refuted: Moon landing conspiracy Anti-vaccers/Vaccines cause autism Fad diets and "detox"s Anti-intellectualism Alex Jones (to the tune of millions of subscribers on his recently killed youtube) Global Warming etc

[flagged]

In your understanding, did millions of jews die in the holocaust as part of a German plan to eradicate a race?

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

#69

Post by ddingus »

mrguyorama wrote: post #67
ddingus wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? Laugh at them, and then contribute facts. Next. At any given time, these things are all part of the conversation. Suppressing them only adds to the allure. Attempting to manage it, "for their own good" will not end well, and it won't end well because way too many people will fail to trust, share that and undermine it all. As they should. That problem is why there is a First Amendment in the first place. I know th…

And people like my mother? Who didn't do so well in statistics and science and math and therefore do not have the tools to rationally judge one claim versus another? How do we help them not get pulled into, often alluring and attractive, circles of hate?

I love you mom, but those people are fucking clowns.

How can I help?

(Have had this exact exchange. Took a while, but did resolve. Human problems take human work.)

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

#70

Post by lylecubed »

mrguyorama wrote: post #65
lylecubed wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You posted them as examples of "bad ideas." Shouldn't you be able to tell me the factual standing behind the positions you hold?

Are you asking me to go through each of them and give a thorough post about the background of the issue, the facts as they lay, the most reasonable conclusions, the possible influences/biases from each side and their possible agendas etc etc etc? And you're saying that I should do this each and every single time someone wants to discuss a (IMO) discredited study or blog post or something? Do you not see how easy that…

Isn't that what you tried to do to me? You asked me this: "is there actual factual standing behind the positions I listed?" First of all, why are you asking me about the factual standings of your examples? And second, you didn't just allege that the ideas you listed were 'silly'. You said they do "actual damage" despite being out in the open and actively refuted. Is it so much to ask that you provide proof? Had you just said "I think these are silly ideas" we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Post reply on HN