4 ms·

Also potentially relevant to the tech community here and anyone who works on currently-non-dominant social media platforms: politicians are already demanding th

Also potentially relevant to the tech community here and anyone who works on currently-non-dominant social media platforms: politicians are already demanding that Gab be held criminally liable for the speech and actions of their users. From Howard Dean [0]: >You are a facilitator of neo nazis and other haters. You should be tried for being an accomplice to murder. You’re lucky shutting you down is all you get. [0] https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/1056710782342311938 https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/1056710782342311938

someone454 8y ago
Gab can reasonably claim safe-harbor over this. If they are not censoring user’s posts, then they shouldn’t be held liable. Go-Daddy is 100% within their rights to kick Gab off of their service. But silencing certain speech is not, in my opinion, a smart way to prevent atrocities like this in the future.
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  Safe harbor only goes so far; free speech is a thing, yes, but inciting hate and violence is iirc still illegal (IANAL), and if they had gotten reports from it or they could reasonably know about that behaviour on their platform, they can be held liable.
- candu 8y ago
  As summarized in [1], whether or not they should be held liable is still up for discussion. How the law works and how it should work are two different things, the latter being subject to continuous debate. IMHO, we can at the same time hold that Gab should not be liable for the actions (arguably) resulting from these posts, but that they have a legal responsibility to identify, report, and remove imminent incitements to violence. For instance: one could argue that profiting from such incitements constitutes support / endorsement of said incitements. This is similar in spirit to the "business activity" approach mentioned in the above Wired article. One could also argue that failing to identify and report such incitements is negligence. Are these commonplace interpretations of these legal terms? Perhaps not, but there are some signs of a general recognition that perhaps this should change. "Disruption" and "technology" are not valid reasons to shirk civic responsibility; if you cannot provide your service responsibly, perhaps you shouldn't provide it. After all, we demand the same of engineers who build bridges and contractors who repair houses - because there is demonstrable harm to be done by failing to exercise responsibility. What we're rapidly discovering is that demonstrable harm is equally possible in a digital realm; it makes perfect sense for our understanding of legal responsibility to be updated accordingly. Also IMHO, while it is impossible to "silence" extreme hate speech like this, we should certainly try. The harder it is for neo-Nazis and other militant racists to self-organize, the better. By giving their ilk any kind of easily-accessible platform, we make it that much easier for atrocities like this to be supported, normalized, organized, etc. Sure, we should be very careful as to what we tar with the "militant racist" brush - but there are some very, very, very clearcut examples. [1] https://www.wired.com/2017/01/the-most-important-law-in-tech-has-a-problem/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/the-most-important-law-in-tech...
  - someone454 8y ago
    Conflating bridge building with public speech is not a good analogy: one is physics, the other chaos. I do not like to see distasteful ideas put forth where i can see them, but what happens when our opinions on what is distasteful are in opposition? It is Gabs right to, but not a responsibility to block content they find objectionable on their platform. And the first amendment clearly defines our RIGHT (note:defines, not gives) to say whatever we want, no matter how distasteful some may think it. Edit for fumble fingers
liftbigweights 8y ago
> politicians are already demanding that Gab be held criminally liable for the speech and actions of their users. Then Howard Dean should be prosecuted for his extreme comments. Howard Dean supported the Iraq war. He's lucky that this country and the international community isn't holding him criminally liable. Howard Dean is so extreme and uneducated that even the WashingtonPost questioned his sanity. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/21/whats-the-deal-with-howard-dean https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/21/wh... > You are a facilitator of neo nazis and other haters. You should be tried for being an accomplice to murder. You’re lucky shutting you down is all you get. Are libraries liable for having mein kampf? The guy represents everything wrong with politics. The great thing about twitter and social media is that it exposes everyone for who they truly are. No wonder he wants everything controlled. He is a fascistic authoritarian.
woodruffw 8y ago
As I interpreted it, that tweet only mentions actions, not speech. For consideration: Stormfront exists solely to incite neo-Nazis to violence, and its members have murdered almost 100 people (pre-2014, that number is likely higher now)[1]. I wouldn't be shocked or constitutionally worried by a criminal case against them. When you consider that Gab is really just Web 2.0 Stormfront with extra dogwhistles ("free speech" instead of "murder the Jews/Muslims"), it's not all that surprising that criminal charges are floated. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)
- patrickg_zill 8y ago
  You know that site founder Don Black is an FBI informant, right? Sounds like the FBI needs to be investigated...
AlexandrB 8y ago
> anyone who works on currently-non-dominant social media platforms This is whitewashing what Gab is. Before they purged their twitter history in response to this crisis, Gab's Twitter account was more than happy to tweet and retweet anti-semitic vitriol and conspiracies themselves[1]. While Gab likes to claim they're an impartial social network and defenders of free speech, they are actively courting a specific, often anti-semitic audience on Twitter. [1] https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1027671587825172480 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1027671587825172480
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
bradleyjg 8y ago
Congress could repeal section 230, bring back the republication doctrine, and hold online platforms civilly liable when the underlying content it itself civilly actionable. But even as far as civil law goes, the posters themselves probably don't have any obvious liability, and under criminal law it's hard to see how they'd fall under either of the relevant extremely narrow exceptions to the First Amendment (incitement or true threat). Unless the (former) politicians saying these things can plausibly garner the support of 2/3rds of both houses of congress and 3/4 of the states I don't see why we should pay much attention to their "demands".

someone454 8y ago

Gab can reasonably claim safe-harbor over this. If they are not censoring user’s posts, then they shouldn’t be held liable. Go-Daddy is 100% within their rights to kick Gab off of their service. But silencing certain speech is not, in my opinion, a smart way to prevent atrocities like this in the future.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago
Safe harbor only goes so far; free speech is a thing, yes, but inciting hate and violence is iirc still illegal (IANAL), and if they had gotten reports from it or they could reasonably know about that behaviour on their platform, they can be held liable.
candu 8y ago
As summarized in [1], whether or not they should be held liable is still up for discussion. How the law works and how it should work are two different things, the latter being subject to continuous debate. IMHO, we can at the same time hold that Gab should not be liable for the actions (arguably) resulting from these posts, but that they have a legal responsibility to identify, report, and remove imminent incitements to violence. For instance: one could argue that profiting from such incitements constitutes support / endorsement of said incitements. This is similar in spirit to the "business activity" approach mentioned in the above Wired article. One could also argue that failing to identify and report such incitements is negligence. Are these commonplace interpretations of these legal terms? Perhaps not, but there are some signs of a general recognition that perhaps this should change. "Disruption" and "technology" are not valid reasons to shirk civic responsibility; if you cannot provide your service responsibly, perhaps you shouldn't provide it. After all, we demand the same of engineers who build bridges and contractors who repair houses - because there is demonstrable harm to be done by failing to exercise responsibility. What we're rapidly discovering is that demonstrable harm is equally possible in a digital realm; it makes perfect sense for our understanding of legal responsibility to be updated accordingly. Also IMHO, while it is impossible to "silence" extreme hate speech like this, we should certainly try. The harder it is for neo-Nazis and other militant racists to self-organize, the better. By giving their ilk any kind of easily-accessible platform, we make it that much easier for atrocities like this to be supported, normalized, organized, etc. Sure, we should be very careful as to what we tar with the "militant racist" brush - but there are some very, very, very clearcut examples. [1] https://www.wired.com/2017/01/the-most-important-law-in-tech-has-a-problem/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/the-most-important-law-in-tech...
- someone454 8y ago
  Conflating bridge building with public speech is not a good analogy: one is physics, the other chaos. I do not like to see distasteful ideas put forth where i can see them, but what happens when our opinions on what is distasteful are in opposition? It is Gabs right to, but not a responsibility to block content they find objectionable on their platform. And the first amendment clearly defines our RIGHT (note:defines, not gives) to say whatever we want, no matter how distasteful some may think it. Edit for fumble fingers

liftbigweights 8y ago

> politicians are already demanding that Gab be held criminally liable for the speech and actions of their users. Then Howard Dean should be prosecuted for his extreme comments. Howard Dean supported the Iraq war. He's lucky that this country and the international community isn't holding him criminally liable. Howard Dean is so extreme and uneducated that even the WashingtonPost questioned his sanity. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/21/whats-the-deal-with-howard-dean https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/21/wh... > You are a facilitator of neo nazis and other haters. You should be tried for being an accomplice to murder. You’re lucky shutting you down is all you get. Are libraries liable for having mein kampf? The guy represents everything wrong with politics. The great thing about twitter and social media is that it exposes everyone for who they truly are. No wonder he wants everything controlled. He is a fascistic authoritarian.

woodruffw 8y ago

As I interpreted it, that tweet only mentions actions, not speech. For consideration: Stormfront exists solely to incite neo-Nazis to violence, and its members have murdered almost 100 people (pre-2014, that number is likely higher now)[1]. I wouldn't be shocked or constitutionally worried by a criminal case against them. When you consider that Gab is really just Web 2.0 Stormfront with extra dogwhistles ("free speech" instead of "murder the Jews/Muslims"), it's not all that surprising that criminal charges are floated. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)

patrickg_zill 8y ago
You know that site founder Don Black is an FBI informant, right? Sounds like the FBI needs to be investigated...

AlexandrB 8y ago

> anyone who works on currently-non-dominant social media platforms This is whitewashing what Gab is. Before they purged their twitter history in response to this crisis, Gab's Twitter account was more than happy to tweet and retweet anti-semitic vitriol and conspiracies themselves[1]. While Gab likes to claim they're an impartial social network and defenders of free speech, they are actively courting a specific, often anti-semitic audience on Twitter. [1] https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1027671587825172480 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1027671587825172480

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

bradleyjg 8y ago

Congress could repeal section 230, bring back the republication doctrine, and hold online platforms civilly liable when the underlying content it itself civilly actionable. But even as far as civil law goes, the posters themselves probably don't have any obvious liability, and under criminal law it's hard to see how they'd fall under either of the relevant extremely narrow exceptions to the First Amendment (incitement or true threat). Unless the (former) politicians saying these things can plausibly garner the support of 2/3rds of both houses of congress and 3/4 of the states I don't see why we should pay much attention to their "demands".