Gab.com 'no-platformed', thoughts?
-
In case you don't know, Gab.com had everything internet pulled out from under them for having the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter as one of their users. Article[^] Just wondering what the community here at CP thinks about this. Does Gab.com deserve this, do you think that they are the victim of circumstance, or is this this a coordinated attack against them**? What does this say about the freedom of the internet? Could any site or service be erased from the internet for providing alternative services? Discuss. ** Given the speed at which they disappeared from the web, I'm leaning toward attack.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
No long story. It's intensely difficult. The main part of free speech, by and large, is the right of someone to say what you don't want them to say. But how far can it go before the "free speech" escapes from being their right of expression to one of oppression. As soon as that starts, it is no longer free speech, but assault. But where is that line? If one encourages violence against another person/group/etc., that's got to be out of bounds. Free speech should not be a hiding place to send off others to do your dirty work. Gab.com is typical of far too many platforms in that they pretend that they're innocent and involved with preserving the public good and rights. One could see their point of view. But what did they do when the promotion of violence against others appeared on their site, and did so in a well organized manner. When they become a go-to place for it? Does that cross the line. Is their whining "we didn't do nuthin' " valid when they are the enablers? Then we go back to the earlier statement: free speech is the right of someone to say what you don't want to hear. You are, however, liable to the consequences your free speech causes as liberty is not bought so cheaply that you can hide behind it to excuse everything as your right
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Just a comment on the stores (cake makers). If they do business in public; with the public, and expect protection from public services (police, fire) and the use of public resources to support the operation of their business, then they have to accommodate all of those who contribute to making their public business possible. If they go private - well that's what privacy is all about. Advertise in churches and get all their business that way, for example. No store-front sales. No walk ins. We can't control how people feel about things; what's abhorrent and what is not. If, however, we let it invade the public domain, then we go down the crapper as a community pretty quickly. That's what I think.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Then by that token the Godaddy's, paypal's, etc of the world should also be required to take all comers.
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
-
Actually, when I lived in Chicago area for a while, there was a photo processing lab that would not print picture of what they felt were obscenities. This could be too skimpy a swim suit or a mother nursing her baby. I think they were called Skruklands, or something similar to that. The were "chrisitians" - who think G-d's blessing a woman with the ability to nurse her baby is obscene. What other dirty things did G-d do?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Services like GoDaddy and PayPal are under no obligation to provide service to anyone and Gab has no first amendment right to compel them to provide service.
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
Majerus wrote:
Services like GoDaddy and PayPal are under no obligation to provide service to anyone and Gab has no first amendment right to compel them to provide service.
Exactly. Let's say you post on twitter showing your support for the democrats, and all of the banks get together to simultaneously decide that they no longer want to provide you with a service because you don't share their political views, so your account is shut down. There's nothing wrong with that, they are under no obligation to provide you with a service, I mean you can just build your own bank. Let's say ISPs do the same and disconnect you from the internet. Nothing wrong with that, they're under no obligation to provide you with a service, you can always build your own international communications framework. These are perfectly reasonable opinions to hold...what could possibly go wrong?
-
In case you don't know, Gab.com had everything internet pulled out from under them for having the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter as one of their users. Article[^] Just wondering what the community here at CP thinks about this. Does Gab.com deserve this, do you think that they are the victim of circumstance, or is this this a coordinated attack against them**? What does this say about the freedom of the internet? Could any site or service be erased from the internet for providing alternative services? Discuss. ** Given the speed at which they disappeared from the web, I'm leaning toward attack.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
What I find funny is that people have been using the excuse that people can build their own platform as a reason to validate twitter's selective enforcing of their T&Cs. So gab did that very thing...and they're being shut down by the collusion of those same tech companies. It just proves it's not about one platform's right to operate how it wants, it's all about shutting down people who have views they disagree with. It's time to legislate and control these platforms, they are abusing their power.
-
Then by that token the Godaddy's, paypal's, etc of the world should also be required to take all comers.
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
That's the conundrum. Interestingly in Marxist dialectics. The contradiction of using free speech to advocate for the banning of free speech. There's no way for "good" to win this condition. Now - as far as I know, no public funds are going to the big providers you mention. In that respect, they could fall under the (guise) of being private. They can set up a business with terms of service. OK, then, can a bakery? Can they use their religious/social beliefs to oppress another's religious/social beliefs? It goes round and round. Somehow, though, if one's use of a freedom endangers the freedom of another it needs to be brought into question. Then, everyone takes sides. The question is - is instigating hatred and violence against another protected speech? Definitely, at some level, it crosses into threatening the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" of another - and that is clearly past the line
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Fotomat used to do the same thing. No religious affiliation that I can discern.
We won't sit down. We won't shut up. We won't go quietly away. YouTube, VidMe and My Mu[sic], Films and Windows Programs, etc. and FB
That may have been regional. At least at the time (late 70's) as they printed everything in my area.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
No long story. It's intensely difficult. The main part of free speech, by and large, is the right of someone to say what you don't want them to say. But how far can it go before the "free speech" escapes from being their right of expression to one of oppression. As soon as that starts, it is no longer free speech, but assault. But where is that line? If one encourages violence against another person/group/etc., that's got to be out of bounds. Free speech should not be a hiding place to send off others to do your dirty work. Gab.com is typical of far too many platforms in that they pretend that they're innocent and involved with preserving the public good and rights. One could see their point of view. But what did they do when the promotion of violence against others appeared on their site, and did so in a well organized manner. When they become a go-to place for it? Does that cross the line. Is their whining "we didn't do nuthin' " valid when they are the enablers? Then we go back to the earlier statement: free speech is the right of someone to say what you don't want to hear. You are, however, liable to the consequences your free speech causes as liberty is not bought so cheaply that you can hide behind it to excuse everything as your right
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
W∴ Balboos wrote:
As soon as that starts, it is no longer free speech, but assault.
I think that this mindset is one of the crux of the problem. Speech is not assault: by definition it can never be assault. Calling it assault is a tactic to justify use of violence against people that have different ideas, and that's problematic. An assault is a violent act, therefore it's perfectly natural to respond in a violent manner. This is the basic mindset that underpins the actions of extremists of any stripe: for example the very shooter that caused this particular debate in the first place. Until people stop equating hurt feelings or perceived slights with a physical attack this garbage is going to get worse.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
But where is that line? If one encourages violence against another person/group/etc., that's got to be out of bounds. Free speech should not be a hiding place to send off others to do your dirty work.
Absolutely, this is exactly what we've seen as part of the "radicalization" tactics used by the like of ISIS. Adjusting to a world where this exists in other corners o the social space is something that we're going to have focus on sooner than later. But stifling the concept of free speech by labeling it as oppression doesn't seem like the answer that anyone should accept.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
-
W∴ Balboos wrote:
As soon as that starts, it is no longer free speech, but assault.
I think that this mindset is one of the crux of the problem. Speech is not assault: by definition it can never be assault. Calling it assault is a tactic to justify use of violence against people that have different ideas, and that's problematic. An assault is a violent act, therefore it's perfectly natural to respond in a violent manner. This is the basic mindset that underpins the actions of extremists of any stripe: for example the very shooter that caused this particular debate in the first place. Until people stop equating hurt feelings or perceived slights with a physical attack this garbage is going to get worse.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
But where is that line? If one encourages violence against another person/group/etc., that's got to be out of bounds. Free speech should not be a hiding place to send off others to do your dirty work.
Absolutely, this is exactly what we've seen as part of the "radicalization" tactics used by the like of ISIS. Adjusting to a world where this exists in other corners o the social space is something that we're going to have focus on sooner than later. But stifling the concept of free speech by labeling it as oppression doesn't seem like the answer that anyone should accept.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
Overall reply: Hence my "not long story" is not particularly short. It's really ends up a contradiction. But just a thought to give a parallel feed to how one thinks about this: If you hire someone to commit a murder, who's responsible? You didn't kill anyone! Most would agree that you would be guilty of murder. You did, in this case with cash, inspire it. Suppose, instead, you just talked them into it? Now what? Just because no money changed hands, are you not still the instigator of the crime? There's no simple answer because the answer we like will be exploited by the worst of our species. On the other hand, to suppress that minority is to give them victory in furthering oppression.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
What I find funny is that people have been using the excuse that people can build their own platform as a reason to validate twitter's selective enforcing of their T&Cs. So gab did that very thing...and they're being shut down by the collusion of those same tech companies. It just proves it's not about one platform's right to operate how it wants, it's all about shutting down people who have views they disagree with. It's time to legislate and control these platforms, they are abusing their power.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
It's time to legislate and control these platforms, they are abusing their power.
And thus hand of the keys to a different set of "abusers" ?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
It's time to legislate and control these platforms, they are abusing their power.
And thus hand of the keys to a different set of "abusers" ?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
W∴ Balboos wrote:
And thus hand of the keys to a different set of "abusers" ?
No. Lots of things are legislated without abuse. If I kill someone I am investigated for murder and if found guilty I am jailed. It doesn't really matter who I am and who I kill, the law generally does not take that into account (with sensible exceptions, obviously). In the land of twitter if I align with their political views and I murder someone I disagree with then nothing is done. If I don't align with their views and murder someone who does then the full weight of their process is brought against me. That has to change.
-
Overall reply: Hence my "not long story" is not particularly short. It's really ends up a contradiction. But just a thought to give a parallel feed to how one thinks about this: If you hire someone to commit a murder, who's responsible? You didn't kill anyone! Most would agree that you would be guilty of murder. You did, in this case with cash, inspire it. Suppose, instead, you just talked them into it? Now what? Just because no money changed hands, are you not still the instigator of the crime? There's no simple answer because the answer we like will be exploited by the worst of our species. On the other hand, to suppress that minority is to give them victory in furthering oppression.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
W∴ Balboos wrote:
If you hire someone to commit a murder, who's responsible? You didn't kill anyone! Most would agree that you would be guilty of murder. You did, in this case with cash, inspire it. Suppose, instead, you just talked them into it? Now what? Just because no money changed hands, are you not still the instigator of the crime?
There is precedent for both, and they are generally equal from a criminal standpoint. The old row of the housewife getting her lover to murder her husband for the insurance money; all very Lifetime movie but not without some kernel of reality. It seems like there is a push to redefine "incitement", though, to include some very basic ideas or, more worryingly, basic political disagreement.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
-
No long story. It's intensely difficult. The main part of free speech, by and large, is the right of someone to say what you don't want them to say. But how far can it go before the "free speech" escapes from being their right of expression to one of oppression. As soon as that starts, it is no longer free speech, but assault. But where is that line? If one encourages violence against another person/group/etc., that's got to be out of bounds. Free speech should not be a hiding place to send off others to do your dirty work. Gab.com is typical of far too many platforms in that they pretend that they're innocent and involved with preserving the public good and rights. One could see their point of view. But what did they do when the promotion of violence against others appeared on their site, and did so in a well organized manner. When they become a go-to place for it? Does that cross the line. Is their whining "we didn't do nuthin' " valid when they are the enablers? Then we go back to the earlier statement: free speech is the right of someone to say what you don't want to hear. You are, however, liable to the consequences your free speech causes as liberty is not bought so cheaply that you can hide behind it to excuse everything as your right
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
I agree with most of your points. I do believe that if you are going to exercise your freedom it is your duty to take responsibility for it. However, when it comes to speech that is, well impolite and distasteful to put it lightly, I would think that it is better for that speech to take place in the light instead of in the dark. Forcing these kind of thoughts into the shadows does not afford society the opportunity to counter them or, at least, keep tabs on them.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
-
What I find funny is that people have been using the excuse that people can build their own platform as a reason to validate twitter's selective enforcing of their T&Cs. So gab did that very thing...and they're being shut down by the collusion of those same tech companies. It just proves it's not about one platform's right to operate how it wants, it's all about shutting down people who have views they disagree with. It's time to legislate and control these platforms, they are abusing their power.
Not to mention that the barriers to entry to that level of the internet are monumental and expensive. Not everyone can build a server let alone understand how to build a data center. There are only a few dozen companies in the world that go to the trouble of getting the ICANN certification to provide DNS services. Lastly, the PCI compliance standards put for by VISA and Mastercard are ridiculous to obtain and costly to maintain. Can all of it be done? Yes, but not with the resources that we could muster.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
-
In case you don't know, Gab.com had everything internet pulled out from under them for having the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter as one of their users. Article[^] Just wondering what the community here at CP thinks about this. Does Gab.com deserve this, do you think that they are the victim of circumstance, or is this this a coordinated attack against them**? What does this say about the freedom of the internet? Could any site or service be erased from the internet for providing alternative services? Discuss. ** Given the speed at which they disappeared from the web, I'm leaning toward attack.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
It looks like there's a replacement already underway Kim Dotcom on Twitter: "The new social media site I’m working on will run completely independent of hosting companies, ad networks and payment providers. It’s decentralized, by the people for the people. Volunteer moderators will work together to kee[^]
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
-
That's the conundrum. Interestingly in Marxist dialectics. The contradiction of using free speech to advocate for the banning of free speech. There's no way for "good" to win this condition. Now - as far as I know, no public funds are going to the big providers you mention. In that respect, they could fall under the (guise) of being private. They can set up a business with terms of service. OK, then, can a bakery? Can they use their religious/social beliefs to oppress another's religious/social beliefs? It goes round and round. Somehow, though, if one's use of a freedom endangers the freedom of another it needs to be brought into question. Then, everyone takes sides. The question is - is instigating hatred and violence against another protected speech? Definitely, at some level, it crosses into threatening the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" of another - and that is clearly past the line
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Instigating hatred would protected speech but inciting violence is illegal under U.S. Code 18 §2101[^] if they use the internet to do it as the internet falls under interstate commerce.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
-
It looks like there's a replacement already underway Kim Dotcom on Twitter: "The new social media site I’m working on will run completely independent of hosting companies, ad networks and payment providers. It’s decentralized, by the people for the people. Volunteer moderators will work together to kee[^]
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
Kim Dotcom: Volunteer moderators will work together to keep it free of scams and crimes. Kim Dotcom: *replies to own tweet with a crypto currency scam*
-
Instigating hatred would protected speech but inciting violence is illegal under U.S. Code 18 §2101[^] if they use the internet to do it as the internet falls under interstate commerce.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
We're sort of in a discussion of 'what is freedom of speech' - as it's known (at least to some of us) that there are limitation on what you can say. However - in a sense, you are giving (justifiable) weight to the decisions of the large carriers and other business that could otherwise be implicated in aiding and abetting. There's the Law. There's Reality. In the 'best of all worlds' it would be a proper balance, but then, too, in the best of all world's we'd not even need the law.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
W∴ Balboos wrote:
And thus hand of the keys to a different set of "abusers" ?
No. Lots of things are legislated without abuse. If I kill someone I am investigated for murder and if found guilty I am jailed. It doesn't really matter who I am and who I kill, the law generally does not take that into account (with sensible exceptions, obviously). In the land of twitter if I align with their political views and I murder someone I disagree with then nothing is done. If I don't align with their views and murder someone who does then the full weight of their process is brought against me. That has to change.
From what I have observed of the law, the "rich and famous" don't fall under the same rules as the rest of us. Furthermore, when a husband/wife team that commits a crime, the sentence for the husband is almost invariably far harsher.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
W∴ Balboos wrote:
If you hire someone to commit a murder, who's responsible? You didn't kill anyone! Most would agree that you would be guilty of murder. You did, in this case with cash, inspire it. Suppose, instead, you just talked them into it? Now what? Just because no money changed hands, are you not still the instigator of the crime?
There is precedent for both, and they are generally equal from a criminal standpoint. The old row of the housewife getting her lover to murder her husband for the insurance money; all very Lifetime movie but not without some kernel of reality. It seems like there is a push to redefine "incitement", though, to include some very basic ideas or, more worryingly, basic political disagreement.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
Redefine . . . or just start calling it what it is? When you post about committing genocide - encouraging others to begin the process - is that protected? Yes? Do you allow recruitment for the task? Just find yourself as the target and then distinctions become all too clear!
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010