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

Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 92 posts

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#81

Post by pen2l »

angersock wrote: post #34
kapitza wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually when people make this argument they're wrong, but not in this case. I'm disturbed by OP's low-quality trolling. When you're a dissident or ideological minority in any context, it's absolutely essential at all times to be the kindest, gentlest, sweetest person in the room. That way, when they ban you for "feeling unsafe," it's obvious to everyone what's going on. Obviously OP wasn't actually a danger to anyone…

> But there isn't any world where you can be a dissident and also be a dick, and get away with it. Unless you're Peter Thiel or rich or connected, right? :|

I am no fan of Peter Thiel, but Peter Thiel did not scoop to this level of low-quality trolling.

Going forward, we need to try to get along with Trump supporters -- the portion that isn't deplorable. Supporters like your general joe shmo whose main grievance is being left behind in the new economy, who is unable for whatever reason to catch up.

We do not need to make an effort to reconcile with the racists and /b/ crowd who constantly parrot misogynistic and racist things. I'm no fan of Thiel but it seems that he's aware what kind of platform he is standing on -- when he gave the big speech he said nothing offensive per se, he's not preaching hate like this guy is.

This Torbe guy is clearly needlessly inflammatory and confrontational, he is not the kind of guy that makes a community go forward and advance. YC is so much better off without him.

What's happened has happened, we really need to start thinking about the future. My big wish is that Thiel can do some good, like: bring nuance to the Trump crowd. He should condemn the hateful part of Trump supporters like this guy. sama or pg, if you're out there: can you please tell him to do this? Thiel will win me over if he clearly and openly condemns the racist and misogynistic part of his party.

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#82

Post by merb »

angersock wrote: post #41
sama wrote: post #36

We support free speech, obviously. And we're happy to fund people with all sorts of different political views. We do not allow harassment, for which Andrew unfortunately set a new bar in our community. You can look at his Twitter or Facebook for plenty of public examples, to say nothing of what he's said privately. As per our previous comments, when a founder violates our ethics statement, we remove them from the com…

While I'm generally rather suspect of you folks and your moral authority, this is an example of the behavior you're referring to: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxAg4AXXcAITru4.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxAbtwQUcAApPQa.jpg https://twitter.com/torbahax/status/797110760556167168 From a pure business standpoint, fuck that guy. He didn't really articulate his views in any way that could remotely be considered co…

What about that: https://twitter.com/torbahax/status/797203694160871425

I really can't understand such a attitude.

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#84

Post by zo1 »

seemingly wrote: post #78
mundo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"unsafe" has become a bit of a buzzword in the interminable red-vs-blue wars, but everything else about this would've played out the same way if she had said he was "inappropriate" or "unprofessional". Looks to me like free speech is still free and trolling at work still has consequences and there's not much to see here unless you're personally involved with one of the companies.

I both disagree and dislike both Trump and his supporters. Yet, I realize if you want to diversity of opinion like YC says it wants you can't throw people out when they annoy you. Diverse political discussion among laymen where no one gets annoyed essentially doesn't exist. Peoples opinions follow their perspective, what they understand and what they care about. Just as I take offense to what Trump says people who li…

People with opposing opinions to the current pervasive narrative are for the most part, part of a minority (yes). For most of us one miss-step or one bad outburst because we're frustrated, and then you're fired (or kicked out). Because you cross that "imaginary" line between dissenting but tolerable opinion and into the "we can now legally and without consequence say you're abusive and shut your opinion down by firing/excluding/arresting you". That's the problem with faux-free speech.

To be fair, I think companies and individuals should have a right to disassociate with anyone for any reason they choose (yes including the bad reasons). But they should at least be honest about it, rather than hiding behind some veil of "it's abusive behaviour". Just admit you don't like the opinion before it cross that line, and purge appropriately.

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#87

Post by rebootthesystem »

sabertoothed wrote: post #24
rebootthesystem wrote: post #17

Freedom of speech does not mean one is free from the consequences of speech. This is something a lot of young folks don't seem to understand. You can say anything you want. Go for it. And you will own the consequences of what you said, whatever they might be. I offer this as a general comment. Not taking sides on the issue highlighted by the post. I simply think it is important to point out this reality in case it is…

"Freedom of speech does not mean one is free from the consequences of speech." Not sure this makes sense. It's like saying you are free to murder someone. But then you have to live with the consequences. Which leads the concept of freedom ad absurdum. My point is that freedom of speech has never been unlimited. In my country it is slightly more restrictive than in the US but even the US does not have a 100% perfect f…

Let me take to an extreme:

You can say anything you want in public. And someone can still run you over with a truck if they don't like it. They would go to jail, of course.

I see a lot of young people out there saying and doing really dumb things. Yes, you do have freedom of speech, but it isn't a Captain America shield that will protect you from the consequences of what you say, where you say it and to whom you said it.

Like the guy who brought out a "Never Trump" sign in the middle of a Trump rally. He got roughed-up good. And, of course, this wasn't right. The people who attacked him need to be charged with assault. And he needs to truly reflect on the idea that if you do something like that you could very well end-up in the hospital or worst.

In other words: Freedom of speech doesn't mean someone can behave like a class-A moron. Well, actually, no, they can, but they better be ready to face whatever the consequences might be.

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#88

Post by nathanasmith »

merb wrote: post #76
maverick_iceman wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, then your country doesn't have free speech.

it probably has, it probably has more free speech than america. we just differ, between harm to people and free speech, we don't defend ourself that free speech needs insults to be successfull, (it doesn't). Actually there was even a law case against 'Böhmermann' wo made a satire for Erdogan, actually it was pretty harmful but the law said it was a satire so he was protected. There is a small line between free speech…

> it probably has more free speech than america

I am genuinely curious about this statement. Can you name something that you can say in Germany that I cannot say in the United States? I'm pretty sure I can come up with some examples going the other way.

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#89

Post by anon_adderlan »

rebootthesystem wrote: post #17

Freedom of speech does not mean one is free from the consequences of speech. This is something a lot of young folks don't seem to understand. You can say anything you want. Go for it. And you will own the consequences of what you said, whatever they might be. I offer this as a general comment. Not taking sides on the issue highlighted by the post. I simply think it is important to point out this reality in case it is…

> Freedom of speech does not mean one is free from the consequences of speech.

But who should be held accountable for those consequences?

For example, what about a woman who's struck by a visibly drunk man after telling him to "fuck off"? Should she be held accountable because she should have known better? Should the man be held accountable for his actions regardless of what she said? What about when the consequences of a statement are entirely unintended and unpredictable, which is happening more and more often these days? What about when a joke between friends becomes a public relations nightmare when overheard outside the necessary context?

This is such a meaningless slogan I don't know where to begin. Nobody expects their speech to be free of consequence, otherwise they'd never say anything in the first place. What they want is speech which achieves their intent, which is rapidly becoming all but impossible. It's like coding, only without the pair programming, test driven development, and strong typing.

Re: Y Combinator blacklists founder of Gab.ai

#90

Post by anon_adderlan »

merb wrote: post #75
maverick_iceman wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's insulting and objectionable speech that is in the highest need of protection. Freedom of speech is not really an issue for bland pronouncements like "I love my mother" or "I stand for peace."

if I say "fuck you" it's not really freedom of speech. I directly insulted you, I didn't even want a conversation, I directly harmed you. People who think they can the "free speech" excuse for insults are just horrible, they don't understand that free speech is to actually say something in a nice manner which needs to be addressed not just to hammer on some people who do it wrong, that's a different thing and people…

> if I say "fuck you" it's not really freedom of speech. I directly insulted you, I didn't even want a conversation, I directly harmed you.

But you didn't insult me because that wasn't a statement regarding my character, you clearly established you don't want a conversation, and you caused me no harm whatsoever, direct or otherwise.

#SticksAndStones

That's the problem with restrictions on 'insulting and objectionable' speech. Beyond the fact you just demonstrated how easy it is to get wrong by misapplying the very rules you brought up in this discussion, it also opens the door to claiming any statement regarding someone's character (such as 'incompetent', 'unemployed', 'hypocrite', 'terrorist', etc) is an insult, regardless of how true it is.

Speech becomes harmful when it isolates and marginalizes. It does not become harmful just because it's offensive or enraging. So in the context of this story calling everyone a 'cuck' wasn't harmful, but the otherwise innocuous phrase 'build the wall' was, and coming up with a set of rules which fairly and consistently cover cases like that is likely impossible.

Post reply on HN