5 ms·

Serious question: If people want to post hateful content, what is preventing them from doing so on either their own website, or to one of the many existing webs

Serious question: If people want to post hateful content, what is preventing them from doing so on either their own website, or to one of the many existing websites which are friendly to that sort of content? I honesrly don’t understand why mainstream social media websites should be allowing that sort of thing. There are plenty of other places they can freely post, so they really are not being censored.

commandlinefan 9y ago
> what is preventing them from doing so on either their own website Hosting companies that decide what is and isn't acceptable speech just like Twitter and Google are doing right now.
geoffpado 9y ago
It's very hard, if not impossible, for someone to have a "their own website" that doesn't have someone in the loop that can kick them off: hosting company, domain registrar, ISP, etc. See what happens regularly with piracy sites, for example.
- willstrafach 9y ago
  If there were any examples besides Stormfront, that would make more sense. But it seems like if that were to actually happen, it would make more sense for pushback to be aimed at those providers, rather than it currently being aimed at private social media companies out of a fear of what providers “may” do if people were to set up their own websites (or use one of the many existing ones).
  - geoffpado 9y ago
    You want an example besides Stormfront, and I did so in my original post: piracy sites. If you want something a little more morally clear, take a look at what happens with Sci-Hub. They finally actually lost a court order (which led to the suspending of their hosting), but it doesn't always take that. They've been playing "domain whack-a-mole" for a very long time now: https://torrentfreak.com/sci-hub-battles-pirate-bay-esque-domain-name-whack-a-mole-171216 https://torrentfreak.com/sci-hub-battles-pirate-bay-esque-do.... And as that article mentions, less-savory sites such as The Pirate Bay get taken down without court orders all the time.
    - willstrafach 9y ago
      To be clear, my confusion is due to the fact that sites like Gab and certain Chan boards host this type of content, yet they do not have issues. And again, I am not understanding why social media websites are to blame for what may happen as a result of them creating their own websites or joining hate-friendly ones, versus what seems more sensible: Blaming infrastructure providers when they actually do take actions against clients due to speech, which appears to be your actual concern, right?
      - geoffpado 9y ago
        No, that argument makes total sense to me as well. You're right that there are plenty of hate sites like the two you mentioned that don't have issues. I also wasn't trying to attack the existing social media sites, either. I think it makes absolute sense for them to kick the trolls and hate crowds off their platform; strong moderation makes for strong communities (HN being one good example). Mostly, I think I was trying to point out that "go somewhere else" is a solution that only works to a certain extent. Against a relentless enough opposition, there isn't really a true "public square" you can absolutely fall back to on the modern internet. I don't know what the actual argument behind my pointing that out is, just… contributing a fact, I guess.
      - peoplewindow 9y ago
        Don't have issues? Gab was banned from the Play Store. If you want to use their mobile app you have to flip extra switches and download it yourself. Voat was the target of massive DDoS attacks. Also, apparently, people posting child porn there then immediately reporting it to their ISPs to try and get rid of them. Quillette posted the views of 4 scientists on James Damore's memo and was DDoSd off the net for days. You have to understand that this isn't a simple case of go get your own infrastructure. The sort of people who want to eliminate "unhealthy speech" on Twitter want to eliminate it everywhere, and will use whatever tools they can get their hands on to do so. Including attacking whatever is set up to support those who are getting booted off other platforms.
dilap 9y ago
Nothing is; that's great. (Let's see how long it lasts!) But we've seen a huge embrace of censorship on our dominant communication platforms (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube). There was a time when Twitter prided itself on its commitment to free speech. They patted themselves on the back and chuckled as Twitter helped foment revolutions in other countries. Now its caused a fair bit of political upheaval back in the good ol' USA, and the official line has become "we didn’t fully predict or understand the real-world negative consequences" of "public conversation." Censorship culture.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  This is simplistic to the point of mischaracterization.
  - bsummer4 9y ago
    I think it isn't. I think it's dead on. I think it's just conflicting with your religious beliefs, so you automatically interpret it as "simplistic" and "mischaracterizing" to avoid seriously engaging with legitimate ideas that question your tribal beliefs.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
bsummer4 9y ago
People need to stop using the word "hate" and start calling people out whenever they use it. "Hate" just means "blasphemy". Once you make this substitution, discussions like this start to make a lot more sense. Serious question: If people want to post blasphemy, what's preventing them from doing so? [...] I honestly don’t understand why mainstream social media websites should be allowing that sort of thing.
- Viliam1234 9y ago
  All that is necessary for this analogy to become literal truth is to classify blasphemy (perhaps only against selected religions) as hate speech.

commandlinefan 9y ago

> what is preventing them from doing so on either their own website Hosting companies that decide what is and isn't acceptable speech just like Twitter and Google are doing right now.

geoffpado 9y ago

It's very hard, if not impossible, for someone to have a "their own website" that doesn't have someone in the loop that can kick them off: hosting company, domain registrar, ISP, etc. See what happens regularly with piracy sites, for example.

willstrafach 9y ago
If there were any examples besides Stormfront, that would make more sense. But it seems like if that were to actually happen, it would make more sense for pushback to be aimed at those providers, rather than it currently being aimed at private social media companies out of a fear of what providers “may” do if people were to set up their own websites (or use one of the many existing ones).
- geoffpado 9y ago
  You want an example besides Stormfront, and I did so in my original post: piracy sites. If you want something a little more morally clear, take a look at what happens with Sci-Hub. They finally actually lost a court order (which led to the suspending of their hosting), but it doesn't always take that. They've been playing "domain whack-a-mole" for a very long time now: https://torrentfreak.com/sci-hub-battles-pirate-bay-esque-domain-name-whack-a-mole-171216 https://torrentfreak.com/sci-hub-battles-pirate-bay-esque-do.... And as that article mentions, less-savory sites such as The Pirate Bay get taken down without court orders all the time.
  - willstrafach 9y ago
    To be clear, my confusion is due to the fact that sites like Gab and certain Chan boards host this type of content, yet they do not have issues. And again, I am not understanding why social media websites are to blame for what may happen as a result of them creating their own websites or joining hate-friendly ones, versus what seems more sensible: Blaming infrastructure providers when they actually do take actions against clients due to speech, which appears to be your actual concern, right?
    - geoffpado 9y ago
      No, that argument makes total sense to me as well. You're right that there are plenty of hate sites like the two you mentioned that don't have issues. I also wasn't trying to attack the existing social media sites, either. I think it makes absolute sense for them to kick the trolls and hate crowds off their platform; strong moderation makes for strong communities (HN being one good example). Mostly, I think I was trying to point out that "go somewhere else" is a solution that only works to a certain extent. Against a relentless enough opposition, there isn't really a true "public square" you can absolutely fall back to on the modern internet. I don't know what the actual argument behind my pointing that out is, just… contributing a fact, I guess.
    - peoplewindow 9y ago
      Don't have issues? Gab was banned from the Play Store. If you want to use their mobile app you have to flip extra switches and download it yourself. Voat was the target of massive DDoS attacks. Also, apparently, people posting child porn there then immediately reporting it to their ISPs to try and get rid of them. Quillette posted the views of 4 scientists on James Damore's memo and was DDoSd off the net for days. You have to understand that this isn't a simple case of go get your own infrastructure. The sort of people who want to eliminate "unhealthy speech" on Twitter want to eliminate it everywhere, and will use whatever tools they can get their hands on to do so. Including attacking whatever is set up to support those who are getting booted off other platforms.

dilap 9y ago

Nothing is; that's great. (Let's see how long it lasts!) But we've seen a huge embrace of censorship on our dominant communication platforms (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube). There was a time when Twitter prided itself on its commitment to free speech. They patted themselves on the back and chuckled as Twitter helped foment revolutions in other countries. Now its caused a fair bit of political upheaval back in the good ol' USA, and the official line has become "we didn’t fully predict or understand the real-world negative consequences" of "public conversation." Censorship culture.

anigbrowl 9y ago
This is simplistic to the point of mischaracterization.
- bsummer4 9y ago
  I think it isn't. I think it's dead on. I think it's just conflicting with your religious beliefs, so you automatically interpret it as "simplistic" and "mischaracterizing" to avoid seriously engaging with legitimate ideas that question your tribal beliefs.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

bsummer4 9y ago

People need to stop using the word "hate" and start calling people out whenever they use it. "Hate" just means "blasphemy". Once you make this substitution, discussions like this start to make a lot more sense. Serious question: If people want to post blasphemy, what's preventing them from doing so? [...] I honestly don’t understand why mainstream social media websites should be allowing that sort of thing.

Viliam1234 9y ago
All that is necessary for this analogy to become literal truth is to classify blasphemy (perhaps only against selected religions) as hate speech.