6 ms·

Medium's actions seem particularly bizarre and insidious. I can understand why people might believe that Gab should be shut down, even though I disagree (not ve

Medium's actions seem particularly bizarre and insidious. I can understand why people might believe that Gab should be shut down, even though I disagree (not very strongly - Gab, like Voat with Reddit, was capable only of attracting the worst of Twitter). But Medium appears to believe that defending the existence of a free speech platform is so fundamentally indefensible that it should be impermissible! It also disturbs me how complete and total these lockouts tend to be - if you get put under the wrong spotlight, it's clear how completely and totally the corporate sphere will coordinate to shut you down. You won't even have a platform to defend yourself on, and the situation is getting worse, not better. Short of laying your own fiber cables and creating your own Internet, there's nothing you can do. This makes me very uneasy. I think the NPR interview with the founder of Gab is worth listening to. [1] It strikes me that just a few years ago, most people would have been in support of their position. The world has changed dramatically in just a few years. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/29/661676103/after-synagogue-attack-web-hosting-sites-suspend-gab https://www.npr.org/2018/10/29/661676103/after-synagogue-att...

dx87 8y ago
Look through this thread, people have already decided that "free speech" is a dog whistle meaning that you are anti-semetic and support murder. It's a shame that people are willing to throw away their personal freedoms in exchange for fake civility.
- anarazel 8y ago
  Meh. Look at the official PR of gab, and tell me again they're solely concerned with free speech: https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056266704148262912 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056266704148262912 https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384?s=20 https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384?... are a good start, but there's lots more (even though they're currently deleting some of it). They're trolling and not actually concerned with free speech. It's just a way to sow division for them.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    One of those tweets satirically calls for "open borders for Israel". What's wrong with pointing out that Israel is an ethnostate with tightly controlled immigration? It's a useful example for those advocating tighter immigration controls in the US. Satire isn't trolling. I don't know the context in which Gab made that tweet but I've seen "open borders for Israel" in other contexts, where it was used to advocate adopting policies more like Israel's, not merely to sow division.
    - anarazel 8y ago
      Comeon, you're cherry-picking. The comment about inferring a position on free-speech from Krassenstein's name clearly was a play on his name sounding Jewish. [EDIT: WRONG: And the retweet in the other link was just after the shooting (along with a lot of other trolling) - hardly the reaction of an organization horrified about what happened.] EDIT: The tweet referenced above actually significantly earlier. They deleted many tweets, so it's a bit hard to figure out when what exactly happened.
      - leereeves 8y ago
        The retweet by PopeHat was after the shooting, but the tweet from Gab was on August 9th. Taking that out of context now and claiming it was a response to the shooting is dishonest.
        anarazel 8y ago
        Oh, if that's true, I'm sorry. They did tweet a lot of stuff around that time, but so much of it is deleted, that it's hard to remember exactly what is what. Edited post to note uncertainty. Not that I think that makes the post any more acceptable. Edit: leereeves was/is right.
        leereeves 8y ago
        It's one of the tweets in the second link as well, where you can see the date.
- spiderfarmer 8y ago
  No. You're confused. There are anti-semetics hiding behind the 'free speech' banner, saying they have a right to try and convert more people to anti-semetism, and that nothing should stand in their way. It's not the other way around. The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR amends the "freedom of expression" by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals". https://web.archive.org/web/20080705115024/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20080705115024/http://www2.ohchr...
  - Amezarak 8y ago
    If the government can censor free speech for the "public order" or for "morals", it isn't free speech. Those are the exact justifications tyrants have used for thousands of years to justify repression. Often they were even true: expressing yourself against a repressive or discriminatory regime can certainly be disruptive to the public order. It sounds like the ICCPR is meaningless fluff.
    - spiderfarmer 8y ago
      Okay so if I start a Youtube channel with the specific intent of convincing people they should kill your wife, it's all good? Where do you draw the line?
      - Amezarak 8y ago
        I think the US's Brandenburg test is a good line. It is much narrower than some nebulous concept of the public order. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
      - Zuider 8y ago
        As an upper bound, I would certainly draw the line at shutting down all of Youtube on because of the presence of particular offensive videos.
SpecialistEMT 8y ago
How is this an issue of free speech? Im not aware medium said they will host anyone

dx87 8y ago

Look through this thread, people have already decided that "free speech" is a dog whistle meaning that you are anti-semetic and support murder. It's a shame that people are willing to throw away their personal freedoms in exchange for fake civility.

anarazel 8y ago
Meh. Look at the official PR of gab, and tell me again they're solely concerned with free speech: https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056266704148262912 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056266704148262912 https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384?s=20 https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384?... are a good start, but there's lots more (even though they're currently deleting some of it). They're trolling and not actually concerned with free speech. It's just a way to sow division for them.
- leereeves 8y ago
  One of those tweets satirically calls for "open borders for Israel". What's wrong with pointing out that Israel is an ethnostate with tightly controlled immigration? It's a useful example for those advocating tighter immigration controls in the US. Satire isn't trolling. I don't know the context in which Gab made that tweet but I've seen "open borders for Israel" in other contexts, where it was used to advocate adopting policies more like Israel's, not merely to sow division.
  - anarazel 8y ago
    Comeon, you're cherry-picking. The comment about inferring a position on free-speech from Krassenstein's name clearly was a play on his name sounding Jewish. [EDIT: WRONG: And the retweet in the other link was just after the shooting (along with a lot of other trolling) - hardly the reaction of an organization horrified about what happened.] EDIT: The tweet referenced above actually significantly earlier. They deleted many tweets, so it's a bit hard to figure out when what exactly happened.
    - leereeves 8y ago
      The retweet by PopeHat was after the shooting, but the tweet from Gab was on August 9th. Taking that out of context now and claiming it was a response to the shooting is dishonest.
      - anarazel 8y ago
        Oh, if that's true, I'm sorry. They did tweet a lot of stuff around that time, but so much of it is deleted, that it's hard to remember exactly what is what. Edited post to note uncertainty. Not that I think that makes the post any more acceptable. Edit: leereeves was/is right.
        leereeves 8y ago
        It's one of the tweets in the second link as well, where you can see the date.
spiderfarmer 8y ago
No. You're confused. There are anti-semetics hiding behind the 'free speech' banner, saying they have a right to try and convert more people to anti-semetism, and that nothing should stand in their way. It's not the other way around. The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR amends the "freedom of expression" by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals". https://web.archive.org/web/20080705115024/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20080705115024/http://www2.ohchr...
- Amezarak 8y ago
  If the government can censor free speech for the "public order" or for "morals", it isn't free speech. Those are the exact justifications tyrants have used for thousands of years to justify repression. Often they were even true: expressing yourself against a repressive or discriminatory regime can certainly be disruptive to the public order. It sounds like the ICCPR is meaningless fluff.
  - spiderfarmer 8y ago
    Okay so if I start a Youtube channel with the specific intent of convincing people they should kill your wife, it's all good? Where do you draw the line?
    - Amezarak 8y ago
      I think the US's Brandenburg test is a good line. It is much narrower than some nebulous concept of the public order. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
    - Zuider 8y ago
      As an upper bound, I would certainly draw the line at shutting down all of Youtube on because of the presence of particular offensive videos.

SpecialistEMT 8y ago

How is this an issue of free speech? Im not aware medium said they will host anyone