11 ms·
Alt-social network Gab booted from Google Play Store for hate speech
- retox 9y agoWhy is this article flagged?
- cocktailpeanuts 9y agoWhat's amazing is the same people who blog or tweet saying that it is right that these companies ban these organizations based on content are the same people who seem to believe they believe in net neutrality. These people also spend tons of time online tweeting about how some group is acting to get rid of net neutrality. So are you for or against net neutrality? Make up your own mind if you're going to be criticizing others. It's such a hypocrisy but nobody can speak out about this hypocritical behavior because then automatically they will be branded a nazi. It's also stupid that every time I make comments like this that I have to clarify, double clarify, triple clarify that I am against these hate speech groups (which should be obvious), because if I don't include this line, I'm also suddenly a nazi. All I'm saying is it's a hypocrisy if you passionately advocate for things that are completely contradictory to each other.
- j2kun 9y agoHow are they contradictory? The goal of net neutrality is to have physical internet lines be regulated in the same way that phone lines are: as a part of the communication infrastructure of the country. Is Google Play a fundamental part of the infrastructure of the country? I wouldn't even call Google search fundamental (or infrastructure at all, for that matter)!
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago"Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet must treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality And yes, google play IS a fundamental part of the infrastructure of not just america but the entire world, most Android users (excluding those who use samsung modified os) download apps through google play store. Google.com is different because people have the freedom to choose another search engine. If you're an android user you don't have an alternative.
- j2kun 9y ago> Internet service providers and governments Which of these is Google? You seem to have reiterated my argument back to me. > If you're an android user you don't have an alternative. Cell phone operating systems are not a fundamental part of the communication infrastructure of the country. If you really did think that, you'd be asserting that people have a right to an Android phone, and that governments should compel Google to sell them to everyone at a fair price. According to you, the gov't doesn't get to do that for iPhones or Blackberries or whatever Amazon is doing in this space. I hope you see how ridiculous that idea is. If you replaced your smartphone with a dumb phone today you'd get along fine and barely notice. None of your rights would be infringed. There are reasonable alternatives to having an Android phone for anything you'd want to do on an Android phone. You can't say the same thing of access to the infrastructure of the internet. Nobody is saying Google doesn't have a lot of influence, and nobody's saying that isn't problematic. Nobody's calling you a Nazi for warning about censure that comes from centralization (the EFF is on your side). But you're spitting hypocrisy at other people and erecting straw men when you haven't thought your own ideas through. I get you're angry, but try to reflect more.
- acdha 9y agoThis seems backwards: network neutrality ensures that anyone is free to setup a host with whatever rules they want. If you treat the network as a neutral layer, there's less risk if a particular service chooses not to support something — whereas in a world of paid prioritization you'd have to worry about, say, paid prioritization or outright blocking as well as the other costs. (This is one of the reasons I'm not a fan of Facebook's subsidized internet — the intentions can be pure but it's still unsettling to see the barriers to entry for a competitor)
- cocktailpeanuts 9y agoMy point was not about whether net neutrality is right or wrong, but that the same person sometimes protests AGAINST net neutrality when it fits their agenda, and sometimes pretend as if they're the guardian of the justice who's supposed to guard net neutrality. That's hypocritical. People should instead have rational conversation about pros and cons and make an informed decision, but that's impossible nowadays because people can easily label one another nazi.
- acdha 9y agoYou seem to be conflating network neutrality with requiring companies to host content which violates their terms of service. I think it's reasonable to distinguish between those layers — someone who wants to find content Twitter won't host can easily go to gab or 4chan but it's much harder to switch ISPs.
- cocktailpeanuts 9y agoSomeone who wants to publish an app to Android cannot easily go somewhere else to publish their app. I do get your point and I understand what you're saying, but at the same time this is not the same as "if you don't like Twitter just go somewhere else to post your microblog", because Android users don't have any other alternative.
- acdha 9y ago
- gormo2 9y agoWrongthink is not allowed in our workplace, or our platform. ~ ~ ~ Don't be evil ~ ~ ~
- pottersbasilisk 9y agoHate speech? Isnt it just a twitter clone for american republicans? The article even mentions twitter and youtube have hate speech too.
- wavefunction 9y agoPresumably you can still side-load it so racists got nothing to complain about.
- wavefunction 9y agolol
- sakabasataka 9y agoHate has no place on a modern tech platform. Good for Google. Your move App Store.
- axaxs 9y agoyikes... I'm conflicted. Not a huge fan of Torba, first of all. I checked out Gab a few times, and while I think intentions were good, there is a lot of hateful stuff there. That said, Gab as a platform and app doesn't itself promote hate, so I'm not sure I agree with removing it. That would be like removing Telegram because terrorists have been found to use it.
- faet 9y agoMuch of it depends how public it is. For instance something like whisper needs to remove nudity/hate speech else they'll be kicked off iOS/playstore. But, you can still send it directly without issue.
- axaxs 9y agoLet's take Torba out of the equation and just say innocent Dev A wants to create a truly free speech platform, where anything goes and only illegal things get removed. Like voat, per se. We all see how that turned out. I'm kind of curious why we can't have an uncensored platform that represents both sides. Is it because good people prefer censorship?
- taneq 9y agoGood analysis on SSC: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized-web/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centrali...
- Overtonwindow 9y agoIt's because when a mob is at your door, regardless of the issue, you have two choices: Stand and fight, or cave in to the mob. Silicon Valley is being bullied and forced into making a choice. They have chosen to preserve their business and promote PR, rather than fight.
- jszymborski 9y agoSorry, but while speech is protected, not all speech is protected. Hate speech and incitement of violence is a felony in most free democracies that protect speech.
- blfr 9y agoWhat does "alt-social" mean? Anyway, my guess is that this was caused by Andrew Anglin, editor in chief of the Daily Stormer, taking up residence at Gab.ai[1]. [1] https://gab.ai/andrewanglin https://gab.ai/andrewanglin
- joelrunyon 9y agoMeanwhile twitter is being used to threaten assassinations - https://twitter.com/search?q=assassinate%20trump&src=tyah https://twitter.com/search?q=assassinate%20trump&src=tyah I get there's ugly stuff on the internet, but when did all the platforms decide to start being the moral center of determining what's acceptable speech. Hate speech is still protected speech (in the US anyways)[1] no matter how horrible it is. > A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Hate_speech_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Hate_speech_laws
- rl3 9y agoLooks like a busy day for the Secret Service.
- Overtonwindow 9y ago"when did all the platforms decide to start being the moral center of determining what's acceptable speech" When it became more profitable to do so, or they saw a PR angle. IMO businesses will cater to death cults that murder kittens if it makes money, but only until it becomes a PR problem. Real or imagined.
- GuiA 9y agoOr maybe they are private businesses run by people like you and me who like to have a say in what is published on their platform? For a community that is very pro-company founders, I have a hard time getting a lot of the kneejerk reactions here. Should physical stores not have a right to decide what they want and don't want to sell? Why should it be any different for Google's digital store? Even if their reason is "the 3rd pixel on the 2nd row of their app icon is too red for our liking, we're taking it down", they're perfectly in their right. You, of course, are also perfectly in your right to not do business with them, or even launch your own competing business.
- cookiecaper 9y agoThis is the issue with any "unmoderated" or "anti-censorship" network/project. We see it over and over again. If this is your mantra, you're going to be used by unsavory characters, and that toxin will eclipse your entire brand/project. Tor is a good example of this, and to some extent, it has happened with Reddit. We need censorship-resistant networks, but they should not be advertised that way, because that will attract entirely the wrong type of early adopters. As if the chicken-and-egg problem needed additional complication.
- calimac 9y agoJust to make a respectful point of clarification; there is a difference between uncomfortable free speech and illegal content. Tor traffic is illegal. Hate speach or any speech the social signaling echo chamber of silicon valley that is coding our world is legal and protected under the first amendment.
- KekDemaga 9y agoLet's hope he doesn't sign up for hacker news.
- jacquesm 9y agoIf some of the comments in this thread are to be believed he'd fit right in.
- KekDemaga 9y agoCare to point one out in particular?
- jacquesm 9y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042346 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042346
- retox 9y agoInnocent until proven guilty.
- jacquesm 9y agoThis is not a court of law.
- EdSharkey 9y agoUntil all the facts come out and a person is proven to be guilty, we (Americans) assume they are innocent of any crimes. This is a protection for the individual against the tyranny of the mob. It's a culture thing as much as it is a legal thing, this assumption of innocence.
- jacquesm 9y ago> Until all the facts come out and a person is proven to be guilty, > we (Americans) assume they are innocent of any crimes. > This is a protection for the individual against the > tyranny of the mob. It's a culture thing as much as > it is a legal thing, this assumption of innocence. Bollocks. This is the case in quite a few countries but America is an exception to this rule. Let me explain why: In America, contrary to many other countries the accused has his mug shot, full name, house address and plenty of other details including conversation with his neighbors and his grade school teacher paraded in the media some times even before they've been properly charged. When Hans Reiser was accused of the murder of his wife I was one of very few people on HN asking for people to hold back their judgment until the facts were in and until he was declared guilty (which eventually happened). One reason for this is that there was at that point in time no evidence at all that he had actually committed that crime, all there was was a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence. Now, if there had been a home video of Reiser killing his wife on youtube then that would have held me back from making that comment, even if for legal purposes the judge would still have had to go through the whole 'presumed innocent' routine the facts would have proven to me that he would be found guilty with a likelihood close enough to certainty that advocating his innocence until proven guilty would border on the grotesque. So, if you want to take a stand here and advocate that this person, who used his car to attempt to murder dozens and who successfully murdered at least one person and who is on the record as being a supporter of a group of people which has made no bones about their willingness to do violence and of who we have some pretty good video of him doing that particular deed of which he stands accused them I'm fine wit h that, that's your right. In the meantime the accused has his name plastered all over the media and he's going to have a hard time even finding a jury that is not already roughly where I am: that if he's going to plead 'not guilty' he's going to have to pull an outside size rabbit out of his hat. FWIW and if you haven't seen it yet, go watch the video footage (which to me is some pretty strong proof) of this persons actions and then come back here and argue their innocence. And if you are really so concerned about the rights of the accused put in a cent or two towards protecting their privacy in the media until they've been found guilty, you know, like countries do that really care about protection of the individual against the tyranny of the mob.
- MichaelBurge 9y agoMaybe it's because the "first impression" of Gab when the reviewer uses it is that it's a bunch of trolls; while for e.g. Tor you have to dig a bit to find the drugs that everyone is using it to buy.
- joelrunyon 9y agoMaybe a better angle would be having a place / tab / section where it's contained or marked as such? Marking vile content is one thing - wholesale censorship is another.
- zcombo432 9y agoDoes Google still stand for "free and open Internet"? "Our values remain the same: The Internet should be competitive and open. That’s how it works today and how it has always worked. It’s a level playing field, where new entrants and established players can reach users on an equal footing. If Internet access providers can block some services and cut special deals that prioritize some companies’ content over others, that would threaten the innovation that makes the Internet awesome." https://www.google.com/takeaction/action/freeandopen/index.html https://www.google.com/takeaction/action/freeandopen/index.h...
- rdtsc 9y agoPretty sure some equal footing is more equal than other. I have no doubt even Stalinist Russia had something in its constitution about being a workers paradise where everyone's needs were equally met etc etc" That's basically how propaganda works by changing and redefining words and concepts.
- bloobloobloo 9y ago> Is it because good people prefer censorship? No, it's because the dominant ideology cannot survive debate. There's a reason why ethnic nationalism and race realism have exploded in popularity in the past five years, and it's not because the ringleaders are a bunch of trained hypnotists.
- jackmott 9y agorace realism? is that new word you made up for nazis?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- bloobloobloo 9y ago> hurrr nazis ps my worldview requires me to remain this uninformed Hey did you hear that 13 people died to a jihadi truck in Barcelona today? How many Muslim websites did Google knock offline in response? Or Cloudflare? How many Muslim accounts did Facebook and Twitter shut down? I'm sure they're all scurrying to do just that, now that The Gloves Are Off in The War on Hate. Let's just wait and see.
- fra 9y agoIslamic terrorists (e.g. ISIS), like white supremacist terrorists, have a hard time finding web hosting for the same reasons. Nobody is being denied from the play store because they are white, nor because they are muslims. That would be illegal.
- nl 9y agoISIS accounts and webpages are aggressively shutdown by Google, Facebook and Twitter. Why would they shutdown Muslim websites and accounts though? Perhaps you are implying they are all terrorists or something?
- bloobloobloo 9y ago
- MichaelGG 9y agoI find this odd. One person died at Charlottesville, potentially from an accident. Meanwhile there's been at least one intentional shooting with a higher death toll related to BLM, but there was no widespread "we need to shut this down" backlash there. But all of a sudden some random site writing mostly nonsense is some huge threat that we're gonna put aside neutrality and free speech for?
- artursapek 9y agoThey got their momentum and they're running with it.
- jtrevner 9y ago"potentially from an accident" We clearly didn't watch the same video.
- sakabasataka 9y agoRegardless of your personal thoughts on BLM, the violence you're referring to is incidental; people involved in the violence may have ties to BLM but the did not commit the violence on behalf of BLM (indeed, BLM denounces all violence). On the other hand, the neo-nazi terrorists in this country are killing people explicitly to serve their ideology. Hate leads to action, and the last time we let these guys preach hate unchecked it led to a world war and millions of innocent people murdered. We will not let them do this again.
- moduspol 9y agoNobody wants to defend neo-nazis, but it's unfair to give BLM a pass simply because they're a loosely defined group that doesn't explicitly call for violence. They organize events knowing people supporting their cause will become violent, and it has happened many times. They don't skirt all responsibility simply because they don't issue official membership cards.
- jacquesm 9y ago> potentially from an accident I'm not sure you are serious, but do you genuinely believe that this was potentially from an accident? The kind of accident where you get into your car, aim at a crowd and boot the accelerator?
- jdoliner 9y agoLittle by little, Silicon Valley is supplanting the government. At this point it should be obvious that Silicon Valley companies feel no need to follow regulations imposed on them by the government. Some do, but those that don't aren't punished and generally wind up with faster growing businesses because of it. The government makes a symbolic effort to prevent hate speech, but where their efforts end Silicon Valley's begin. SVs efforts are much farther reaching and much more swiftly applied. And, of course, there is no oversight, no law or set of guidelines that Google must follow to decide what is and isn't "hate speech." Google gets to decide, they have the power. Do you think you have a right to privacy in this country? You might have that right, as long as the SV companies decide to stick up for it. But it should be obvious at this point that, that right won't eve be enforced by the nominal "government."
- cookiecaper 9y agoYes, conditions for the web as an open publication platform are rapidly deteriorating. This has major implications for everything that's changed during the PC revolution, not just political speech. EDIT: Welp, this is the last comment from me for a while. HN's anti-thoughtcrime metering, which was activated on my account when I shared the illegal opinion that Kubernetes is not always a good thing to use for your production server infrastructure (n.b., HN is invested in Docker, and closely associated with Google), has kicked in to prevent me from sharing any more dangerous sentiments like "If you make a censorship-resistant network, don't let the people who have recently been censored know about it." I look forward to the next five hours of watching every comment that isn't "Great! Delete everything I hate!" drop into the grey, and watching replies to my comments without being able to engage in the conversation. Very fishy stuff going on at HN recently. Source: user for 3315 days.
- j2kun 9y agoYou act as if Google didn't just pay a multibillion dollar fine for violating a law based on censorship of certain shopping comparison websites. SV is not beyond the power of governments, governments are just slow to catch up. For good reason.
- 9y ago
- ericfrederich 9y agoWonder if the already-installed app is still usable or if it relied on some Google services. If it was still usable I hope Google did a remote removal of it.
- wisdomdata 9y agonext dilemma for a startup - figuring out which bit of the splinternet you are going to target - the chinese, the confederate, the islamic or the general part.
- MartinCron 9y agoDoesn't seem like a very difficult choice to me.
- aaron695 9y agoI really like this comment. It's almost a mini sci-fi novel. Plus it has insights. Although the splinternet is huge. You have the Koreans and Japanese who have (had?) huge mega networks outside of "the general part" kept at bay by language and cultural reasons. But these walls wills fall and the one who does it will make a mint.
- cyanexttuesday 9y agoI don't think there will be a general part once it gets splintered. It will probably be like China except every nation state will have their own version with their own censorship. The open web started dying with the great firewall.
- Overtonwindow 9y agoSplinternet. Wow, that is a very good point. The real scary part is when it gets super, super easy to get on the Darknet. When everything is highly encrypted, and those who want to wallow in hate can do so, to their hearts content, because they will be off into the ether on their own, without supervision, without oversight. Then the only recourse will be full and total government control over the internet. Outlandish as it may seem, it's possible.
- aaron695 9y ago> Gab is aimed at people interested in “Western values, individual liberty, and the free exchange of ideas” looking to avoid the “special interests pushing a very specific agenda” in tech. If that dog whistle isn’t loud enough... Not sure that's a dog whistle. With even the article admiting they can't find a valid reason for it to have been kicked from the Play Store, it's almost a self fulfilling prophecy.
- cookiecaper 9y agoOnce you start believing that all your political enemies are utilizing "dog whistles" and "code language", it's basically a lost cause. There's no arguing with someone who will literally assign a negative meaning to otherwise innocuous words and statements if they can't find anything real to nitpick.
- rdtsc 9y ago> Once you start believing that all your political enemies are utilizing "dog whistles" and "code language" Heh, just a month ago someone told me that Trump was using secret hand gestures towards Putin during dinner at some summit there were at. I thought ok sure, how do you disprove that. "He scratched his nose, it seems". "Nah, that's code for body was buried in concrete successfully". "Alrighty then..."
- Animats 9y agoFirst they came for the Nazis, and I said nothing because I was not a Nazi. Then they came for the far-right, and I said nothing because I was not a far-righter...
- drngdds 9y ago...then they came for you, and you decided to sideload the app and go about your day?
- fra 9y agoFirst they came for the murderers, and I said nothing because I was not a murderer. Then they came for the rapists, and I said nothing because I was not a rapist. ... what "they" come for is just as relevant.
- mcphage 9y agoThen everyone stood around saying "Good job, everyone!" and giving people high fives?
- axaxs 9y agoSorry to comment twice on a thread...but after thinking more, I really feel this is a dangerous precedent. The internet has been largely dominated by a few companies. I'd go as far as to call them nearly ubiquitous. When these companies start pushing political views, and start banning or otherwise blocking dissent, it becomes dangerous. What if, in retaliation, farmers of the Midwest banned shipments to California? Sure they'd survive, but not as conveniently. This is how civil wars start, and I think the two sides should start recognizing this and not pandering to the loudest voice.
- chrisstanchak 9y agoThis is terrifying.
- jacquesm 9y ago> This is how civil wars start, and I think the two sides should start recognizing this and not pandering to the loudest voice. You're roughly 9 months late with that comment.
- axaxs 9y agoThe best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.
- j2kun 9y agoThe "second" best time would be the instant following the first best time! :) That leaves a continuum of "next best times" in between the first best time and now that one could have planted a tree.
- axaxs 9y agoHaha...the first time I read that proverb I thought the same thing, but I still like the message. I've thought about rewording it a bit like "The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The best time to plant a tree is now.". What do you think, too confusing?
- chrisstanchak 9y agoI'm glad to see this at the top of HN. If you aren't personally outraged by this, you should take a step back..try to be as objective as you possibly can...and consider what it really means. We are watching the collapse of the First Amendment. No matter how much we may hate what someone has to say, we should DEFEND the right for them to say it. That's a principle that makes this country what it is. Somehow this power must be reigned in.
- fra 9y agoWhat you are suggesting does not fall under the First Amendment, and indeed would be hugely freedom-denying. Private individuals and businesses have always had the right to (non-violently) restrict speech in their private spaces. As long as they do not victimize a protected class, private businesses may reserve the right not to serve anyone. Now, I am a statist so I am all for designating businesses as "essential infrastructure" and tightly regulating them. That being said, I'm not sure all the libertarian-types on HN would like it all that much.
- EdSharkey 9y agototalitarian toh-tal-i-tair-ee-uh n adjective 1. of or relating to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life. 2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic. noun 1. an adherent of totalitarianism.
- sergiotapia 9y agoMods, why is this flagged off the front page? It's definitely news worthy that the day Gab raised $1 million dollars, they get booted off the Play store.
- 75dvtwin 9y agocannot wait till this Google gets broken up as monopolies should be. Social networks should be in federated out in separate companies (may be even more than one). Search engine ... same thing. ".. Woodrow Wilson was right when he said in 1913, “If monopoly persists, monopoly will always sit at the helm of the government.” We ignore his words at our peril. ..." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/opinion/sunday/is-it-time-to-break-up-google.html?mcubz=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/opinion/sunday/is-it-time...