6 ms·

Meanwhile twitter is being used to threaten assassinations - https://twitter.com/search?q=assassinate%20trump&src=tyah https://twitter.com/search?q=assassinate%

Meanwhile 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 ago
Looks 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 ago
  Or 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.
  - joelrunyon 9y ago
    I don't think that's the argument free speech advocates are making. The argument is that facebook/twitter as well as some of these other platforms cloudflare/app stores, etc are a form of speech & they have a somewhat debateable stronghold on facilitating speech. So, when they deny speech to a specific group of people, they're not just denying service, but denying speech. The argument is debateable, but that is why people are upset, not that they don't think companies can act however they like towards their customers.
    - Overtonwindow 9y ago
      To add to that argument, GAB, StormFront, and other websites and services like it have been around a LONG time. Since the internet began. Yet we are only now seeing a reaction from those platforms that host such content. Why? What made Gab and Stormfront ok two weeks ago, but not ok now? That's the hypocrisy that needs greater focus.
      - nl 9y ago
        With a name like "Overton Window" I suspect you are entirely aware why. To spell it out: the Overton window has moved to a point where people matching in the streets with Nazi flags yelling about killing Jews is not beyond the pale.
      - GuiA 9y ago
        Well, the national news wasn't filled with pictures of people marching in the open streets with nazi flags 10 years ago, for starters.
        flukus 9y ago
        It was though. The neo Nazi movement was a lot bigger in the 90s than it is now.
        nl 9y ago
        Not in the US it wasn't. But there’s one huge difference: These newer offshoots have been far more successful than we could ever have dreamed. When you see crowds of hundreds marching through the streets with their faces uncovered, when white supremacist leader Richard Spencer holds a press conference a few days after a woman was killed by one of his fellow travelers and hosts reporters in his home, it becomes clear just how much more terrifying this new generation of extremists is. They’re savvier than we were. Better connected. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/18/former-neo-nazi-charlottesville-terrifies-me-215502 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/18/former-neo...
GuiA 9y ago
The platforms are not deciding to be the arbiter of morality, that's just a straw man. They are, however, deciding what they want to see and not want to see on their own platform, which bandwidth/maintenance/etc costs they are footing the bill for, which is perfectly acceptable. They are private businesses, they are not discriminating against a protected class (to cut short any "but what about refusing to sell cakes to gay people" argument), so they are free to ban whatever users/apps/etc they want off of their platform. Hey, maybe if Twitter had banned Trump for some of the crap he said, we wouldn't be in this mess. This is no different from a book publisher refusing to publish your book. Free speech considerations do not apply.
leereeves 9y ago
They aren't the moral center. They're firmly on the left and banning their political opponents. Hate speech exists on all platforms and comes from both sides; it's only an excuse here.
- jackmott 9y ago
  the left is mote moral right now. the right has gone off the rails.
- nl 9y ago
  This isn't really left vs right. There's plenty on the right who are more than happy to condemn Nazis.
  - leereeves 9y ago
    Gab aren't Nazis.
    - nl 9y ago
      And Twitter don't favor the left. If they favored the left then they would have implemented much stronger anti-harassment policies a long time ago. Instead the greatest sin you can do is dox someone, which will get you banned forever. To make it clear: On Twitter, you can have a Swastika for an avatar, and post oven memes while tagging Jewish members and you won't get banned. OTOH, if you unmask one of the people posting those memes you will get banned. I'm not sure what political stand that is, but it doesn't seem particularly left (or right!) wing to me.
      - leereeves 9y ago
        > Twitter don't favor the left. Of course they favor the left. The founder even said he was sorry about Twitter helping elect Trump.
        nl 9y ago
hashmal 9y ago
> when did all the platforms decide to start being the moral center of determining what's acceptable speech they always have, they all have content policies. for example, very few of them allow porn.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
- ibn_ibid 9y ago
  "Stop picking sides" as opposed to picking the side that aren't Nazis?
will_brown 9y ago
Protected speech has nothing to do with private entities allowing you to use their platform to promote your message, it only curbs the government from prohibiting/punishing your speech. So for example you have every right to wear a jean jacket in court that says "fuck the draft" and the government can't prohibit or punish you for it (famous 1st amendment case) but a church can have you removed for wearing an article of clothing that says "fuck the church". See public vs private. Alternatively the government can prohibit and punish (I.e. Criminalize) burning of draft cards, because such speech interferes with the public function; therefore, is not protected (another famous 1st amendment court case). And high schools can prohibit students from wearing armbands as a silent protest (I.e. Not protected speech), because the government has more powers than normal when they are the wards of minors (again another famous 1st amendment case). And while hate speech may be protected, it can also be criminalized when used in conjunction with the commission of a crime and enhance the penalties of said crime. Still none of this is applicable to private business, and you would probably be glad to know if you are a business owner you Wouldn't have to permit hate speech in your establishment.
- joelrunyon 9y ago
  Here's where I addressed those concerns > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042314
  - aoeusnth1 9y ago
    These snotty replies are so insufferable. No, you did not address his reply in your original comment.
    - joelrunyon 9y ago
      Hey man, I'm not trying to be snotty. I'm trying to explain what the "free speech" side of the argument is. I'm not saying his is invalid, or that he didn't bring up point, but I'm stating why there is concern from those concerned with free speech and "de-platforming." I don't think asking for a debate is "snotty" or "insufferable", but if I am, please let me know where I'm wrong :)
calimac 9y ago
Absolutely! We are all on the plantation. It's like i woke up one day and realized that free speech is gone. I despize the crap going on in the south. what scares me more is how our masters, fb, twtr, ggle, et,al., rationalize Orwellian tyranny. Did anyone else see the "schizophrenic" letter written by the cloudflare CEO this morning? I dare a psychologist to read that wacko-mole CEO's letter and sign-off on a clean bill of health. We are like fish in the sea who abruptly realize we're trapped in a fisherman's net. The free platforms that run our social infrastructure around are not free. Gab, one of the more librertarian network/apps, was shot in the gut today by google. The first thing Gab sould do is hire a fire breathing trial attorney to file a lawsuite and go after google for antitrust offensives. This is opportunistic and preditory shrouded in SJW moral arrogance. Never let a good crisis go to waste, crush a competitor instead.

rl3 9y ago

Looks 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 ago
Or 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.
- joelrunyon 9y ago
  I don't think that's the argument free speech advocates are making. The argument is that facebook/twitter as well as some of these other platforms cloudflare/app stores, etc are a form of speech & they have a somewhat debateable stronghold on facilitating speech. So, when they deny speech to a specific group of people, they're not just denying service, but denying speech. The argument is debateable, but that is why people are upset, not that they don't think companies can act however they like towards their customers.
  - Overtonwindow 9y ago
    To add to that argument, GAB, StormFront, and other websites and services like it have been around a LONG time. Since the internet began. Yet we are only now seeing a reaction from those platforms that host such content. Why? What made Gab and Stormfront ok two weeks ago, but not ok now? That's the hypocrisy that needs greater focus.
    - nl 9y ago
      With a name like "Overton Window" I suspect you are entirely aware why. To spell it out: the Overton window has moved to a point where people matching in the streets with Nazi flags yelling about killing Jews is not beyond the pale.
    - GuiA 9y ago
      Well, the national news wasn't filled with pictures of people marching in the open streets with nazi flags 10 years ago, for starters.
      - flukus 9y ago
        It was though. The neo Nazi movement was a lot bigger in the 90s than it is now.
        nl 9y ago
        Not in the US it wasn't. But there’s one huge difference: These newer offshoots have been far more successful than we could ever have dreamed. When you see crowds of hundreds marching through the streets with their faces uncovered, when white supremacist leader Richard Spencer holds a press conference a few days after a woman was killed by one of his fellow travelers and hosts reporters in his home, it becomes clear just how much more terrifying this new generation of extremists is. They’re savvier than we were. Better connected. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/18/former-neo-nazi-charlottesville-terrifies-me-215502 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/18/former-neo...

GuiA 9y ago

The platforms are not deciding to be the arbiter of morality, that's just a straw man. They are, however, deciding what they want to see and not want to see on their own platform, which bandwidth/maintenance/etc costs they are footing the bill for, which is perfectly acceptable. They are private businesses, they are not discriminating against a protected class (to cut short any "but what about refusing to sell cakes to gay people" argument), so they are free to ban whatever users/apps/etc they want off of their platform. Hey, maybe if Twitter had banned Trump for some of the crap he said, we wouldn't be in this mess. This is no different from a book publisher refusing to publish your book. Free speech considerations do not apply.

leereeves 9y ago

They aren't the moral center. They're firmly on the left and banning their political opponents. Hate speech exists on all platforms and comes from both sides; it's only an excuse here.

jackmott 9y ago
the left is mote moral right now. the right has gone off the rails.
nl 9y ago
This isn't really left vs right. There's plenty on the right who are more than happy to condemn Nazis.
- leereeves 9y ago
  Gab aren't Nazis.
  - nl 9y ago
    And Twitter don't favor the left. If they favored the left then they would have implemented much stronger anti-harassment policies a long time ago. Instead the greatest sin you can do is dox someone, which will get you banned forever. To make it clear: On Twitter, you can have a Swastika for an avatar, and post oven memes while tagging Jewish members and you won't get banned. OTOH, if you unmask one of the people posting those memes you will get banned. I'm not sure what political stand that is, but it doesn't seem particularly left (or right!) wing to me.
    - leereeves 9y ago
      > Twitter don't favor the left. Of course they favor the left. The founder even said he was sorry about Twitter helping elect Trump.
      - nl 9y ago

hashmal 9y ago

> when did all the platforms decide to start being the moral center of determining what's acceptable speech they always have, they all have content policies. for example, very few of them allow porn.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ibn_ibid 9y ago
"Stop picking sides" as opposed to picking the side that aren't Nazis?

will_brown 9y ago

Protected speech has nothing to do with private entities allowing you to use their platform to promote your message, it only curbs the government from prohibiting/punishing your speech. So for example you have every right to wear a jean jacket in court that says "fuck the draft" and the government can't prohibit or punish you for it (famous 1st amendment case) but a church can have you removed for wearing an article of clothing that says "fuck the church". See public vs private. Alternatively the government can prohibit and punish (I.e. Criminalize) burning of draft cards, because such speech interferes with the public function; therefore, is not protected (another famous 1st amendment court case). And high schools can prohibit students from wearing armbands as a silent protest (I.e. Not protected speech), because the government has more powers than normal when they are the wards of minors (again another famous 1st amendment case). And while hate speech may be protected, it can also be criminalized when used in conjunction with the commission of a crime and enhance the penalties of said crime. Still none of this is applicable to private business, and you would probably be glad to know if you are a business owner you Wouldn't have to permit hate speech in your establishment.

joelrunyon 9y ago
Here's where I addressed those concerns > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042314
- aoeusnth1 9y ago
  These snotty replies are so insufferable. No, you did not address his reply in your original comment.
  - joelrunyon 9y ago
    Hey man, I'm not trying to be snotty. I'm trying to explain what the "free speech" side of the argument is. I'm not saying his is invalid, or that he didn't bring up point, but I'm stating why there is concern from those concerned with free speech and "de-platforming." I don't think asking for a debate is "snotty" or "insufferable", but if I am, please let me know where I'm wrong :)

calimac 9y ago

Absolutely! We are all on the plantation. It's like i woke up one day and realized that free speech is gone. I despize the crap going on in the south. what scares me more is how our masters, fb, twtr, ggle, et,al., rationalize Orwellian tyranny. Did anyone else see the "schizophrenic" letter written by the cloudflare CEO this morning? I dare a psychologist to read that wacko-mole CEO's letter and sign-off on a clean bill of health. We are like fish in the sea who abruptly realize we're trapped in a fisherman's net. The free platforms that run our social infrastructure around are not free. Gab, one of the more librertarian network/apps, was shot in the gut today by google. The first thing Gab sould do is hire a fire breathing trial attorney to file a lawsuite and go after google for antitrust offensives. This is opportunistic and preditory shrouded in SJW moral arrogance. Never let a good crisis go to waste, crush a competitor instead.