6 ms·

> Most successful deplatformings are Pyrrhic victories Big fat citation needed on this. You speculate as to how they may become pyrrhic victories, but it's far

> Most successful deplatformings are Pyrrhic victories Big fat citation needed on this. You speculate as to how they may become pyrrhic victories, but it's far from concluded that this will be the case. Previous deplatformings (Milo, Alex Jones) haven't produced any visible negative consequences for the platforms. There's little reason to think this will either. Surprisingly few people care if a den of hate speech has trouble finding a DNS registrar. Especially, surprisingly few important DNS registrar customers care.

stcredzero 8y ago
Likewise, almost no one cares what a Jehovah's witness has to say. The US government coming in and telling a private entity, no you must tolerate free speech on your property is historical fact and precedent. There is a lawsuit where a company owned this mining company town, including all of its roads and sidewalks. A Jehovah's witness won a lawsuit on the basis of the First Amendment, enabling her to walk about that town and distribute her pamphlets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc Originally, it was once widely recognized by US jurisprudence, though property rights and freedom of association are important, the First Amendment was even more important and trumps property rights. Surprisingly few people care if a den of hate speech has trouble finding a DNS registrar. Surprisingly few people cared when the US government carted off my bandmate's parents to concentration camps. That's a very poor metric to apply to a principle of rights and justice.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
  Ain't gonna happen in this case, for two reasons: 1. Jehovah's witnesses tend not to shoot up synagogues, whereas an otherwise typical member of Gab did. 2. Antisemitism isn't a protected class. I can see from your comments that you are one of those, "I'd defend to the death your right to say it," people. I must admit, I would not defend to the death someone's right to spew hate toward Jews. That's not my hill to die on. I rather feel . . . the opposite. I'm glad that Gab got kicked off GoDaddy, and if I had my way, they'd be relegated to the dark corners of Tor.
  - spaginal 8y ago
    A muslim shot up a gay night club, we don’t ban Islam or mosques or deplatform Muslims from the internet for holding similarly antisemitic views. To suggest such an action would be roundly decried and the person drummed out. Similarly, as much as anyone hates antisemitic speech, it IS protected speech because it’s free speech. At some point we are going to have to decide in this country if we wish to continue forward with the enlightenment and grow up as a society where we actually talk to eachother again, or are we going to descend back into declaring someone a heretic and burning them, or in modern parlance, deplatforming and doxing. You don’t stop ignorance by banning it or doing virtual book burnings, you stop it by educating people with the ignorant viewpoint. Banning speech and ideas simply grows it underground, where you never get to witness it through glad handing, but you will experience it at the worst possible outcome instead.
    - expathacker 8y ago
      > A muslim shot up a gay night club, we don’t ban Islam or mosques or deplatform Muslims from the internet for holding similarly antisemitic views. To suggest such an action would be roundly decried and the person drummed out. This is a false equivalency and a weak argument, where you are suggesting that all muslims are both terrorists and anti-semites. A "terrorist" shot up a gay night club, and yes, we do ban terrorist propaganda from the public square, or are you advocating for allowing ISIS/Taliban/Al Qaeda, etc, to be allowed to preach their hatred and drum-up support?
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    If that guy was an "otherwise typical" user of gab, and gab has ~500,000 active users(per wikipedia), why hasn't there been more than one story about gab-user-gone-wild in the media?
    - nl 8y ago
      Isn't that (the fact this guy shot 11 Jews dead and the other users haven't) exactly what "otherwise typical" refers to? The way he talked on Gab seems pretty typical of users there, so going and shooting people seems like the only thing that wasn't typical. Or are you arguing something else?
- tptacek 8y ago
  It sounds suspiciously as if you're drawing a direct comparison between the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War 2 and Gab getting kicked off GoDaddy. That can't possibly be an argument you really want to make.
  - badatshipping 8y ago
    His argument is that few people caring about something doesn’t mean that thing doesn’t matter.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      Isn't that, like, an extremely banal observation? It doesn't mean it does matter either. Meanwhile: what was the point of comparing this situation to internment camps?
      - PavlovsCat 8y ago
        Banally true, yes. > It doesn't mean it does matter either. Someone said something doesn't matter because "few people care", just one example of something that mattered and about which also "few people cared" refutes that reasoning. They're not making an argument, they're refuting one. edit: Another example would be Linus' announcement of Linux at the time. Few people cared, in contrast to the people who today find Linux extremely important, or depend on it without knowing. And there you go, I now made a "direct" (whatever that means) comparison between Linux and Japanese being put into concentration camps in the US, as well as a "direct" comparison between Linux and neo-nazis being deplatformed. The point matters more than the comparison used to make it.
        TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
        > The point matters more than the comparison used to make it. Only if we assume the soundbite it's just like when Japanese Americans were put in concentration camps didn't happen. The point could have been made without the comparison, by writing something like this: "Surprisingly few people cared" is a very poor metric to apply to a principle of rights and justice. And then we can discuss how social norms and the legal system interact, rather than have this conversation.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  "The US government coming in and telling a private entity, no you must tolerate free speech on your property is historical fact and precedent." The first amendment says that the government cannot restrict free speech it has nothing whatsoever to do with a private entity tolerating "free speech" on their property. The totality of the public space being private property in the aforementioned scenario sounds like a unique situation and a poor position to reason from. In general not only do you not have a free speech interest in communicating on someone else's property the government forcing facebook to carry your message would actually be compelling them to communicate their approval of your message. You would be protecting a wholly imaginary free speech interest while trespassing on a real one.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    The totality of the public space being private property in the aforementioned scenario sounds like a unique situation and a poor position to reason from. Really? Because most of YouTube and Facebook very much strikes me as public space. That's how the population thinks of it. That's how society uses it. You would be protecting a wholly imaginary free speech interest while trespassing on a real one. Does anyone really think that YouTube not getting to censor people is hampering YouTube's ability to express their political expression? No one in 2018 mistakes a random YouTuber's opinion for YouTube's. Only people interested in silencing others hold to such an opinion. Such an opinion only makes sense, if you directly equate censorship to "expression." YouTube does have an editorial stake to the product that they can present to their advertiser customers. However, YouTube has stepped way beyond that line! The same goes for Facebook.
    - michaelmrose 8y ago
      In other news if you start holding an open air forum on your political issue of choice inside your nearest walmart you will probably be asked to go do this outside on the public sidewalk. Nobodies rights will be violated by this.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
freedomben 8y ago
I agree it probably won't matter. I wish it would, but it won't. However, I will be moving a handful of domains to Easy DNS because I appreciate them taking this position. I looked at Gab once a while back and was mostly disgusted, and never looked back, but I don't like this trend toward censoring and deplatforming. I don't worry about my speech being censored because (at least for now) it's relatively popular. But popular speech isn't the speech that needs protecting, the unpopular speech does.
- tptacek 8y ago
  You can say that! But: if, rather than just writing a chin-stroking blog post, Easydns had actually hosted Gab's zones, I think they'd find the impact on their customer base would not be net positive.
  - Canada 8y ago
    Would it be negative? Why do I care whose DNS records are also hosted there?
    - johnny22 8y ago
      how much of this has to do with whether you personally care? It's about whether their customer base cares.
daenz 8y ago
>Previous deplatformings (Milo, Alex Jones) haven't produced any visible negative consequences for the platforms. Anecdotally, these deplaformings are shifting my worldview further right. And I know for a fact that it is having the same affect on many of my peers. Some might call that a negative consequence.
- objectivetruth 8y ago
  Can you elaborate on what you mean by "shifting [your] worldview further right"? When white supremacists are deplatformed, what specific conservative views are you consequently adopting or strengthening? Low taxes? Favoring corporations over labor unions? Strengthening criminal penalties for drug users? Favoring the role of organized religion playing a greater role in society and institutions?
StuntPope 8y ago
Deplatforming fuels polarization, so one thing I would look at the PEW research study that shows how the center has collapsed, making it impossible for moderates to win elections: http://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart-pt-1/ http://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart-pt-1/
- api 8y ago
  The center collapsed before deplatforming was a big thing. I think you have the arrow of causation backward. Deplatforming is driven by increasing polarization. The center collapsed because the establishment discredited itself in the 2000s: Iraq, the housing bubble, banks-before-people bailouts, etc. Now everyone is flailing around looking for alternatives. The hard right was first to the dance, but I see a lot of signs of growth on the hard left too. I wonder if the hard left will get deplatformed too if the rhetoric starts sounding really extreme? They might, especially if there is a loud call for wealth redistribution.
  - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
    Interesting thought. Given that the majority in all western countries already seem pretty OK with wealth redistribution in the form of their current welfare systems, calling for more of it doesn't seem that extreme. But I could turn out to be wrong about that. We certainly live in interesting times.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
  > Deplatforming fuels polarization More citations needed! This is a bare assertion that is not widely agreed upon. The polarization was getting worse long before the deplatforming trend started. Since you started out the game, I'll add a bare assertion of my own. Constantly being bombarded with extremist views fuels polarization! Under that thesis, deplatforming actively works against polarization. The moral of the story is that you can make almost any argument as long as you are allowed to rely on unproved premises.

stcredzero 8y ago

Likewise, almost no one cares what a Jehovah's witness has to say. The US government coming in and telling a private entity, no you must tolerate free speech on your property is historical fact and precedent. There is a lawsuit where a company owned this mining company town, including all of its roads and sidewalks. A Jehovah's witness won a lawsuit on the basis of the First Amendment, enabling her to walk about that town and distribute her pamphlets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc Originally, it was once widely recognized by US jurisprudence, though property rights and freedom of association are important, the First Amendment was even more important and trumps property rights. Surprisingly few people care if a den of hate speech has trouble finding a DNS registrar. Surprisingly few people cared when the US government carted off my bandmate's parents to concentration camps. That's a very poor metric to apply to a principle of rights and justice.

asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
Ain't gonna happen in this case, for two reasons: 1. Jehovah's witnesses tend not to shoot up synagogues, whereas an otherwise typical member of Gab did. 2. Antisemitism isn't a protected class. I can see from your comments that you are one of those, "I'd defend to the death your right to say it," people. I must admit, I would not defend to the death someone's right to spew hate toward Jews. That's not my hill to die on. I rather feel . . . the opposite. I'm glad that Gab got kicked off GoDaddy, and if I had my way, they'd be relegated to the dark corners of Tor.
- spaginal 8y ago
  A muslim shot up a gay night club, we don’t ban Islam or mosques or deplatform Muslims from the internet for holding similarly antisemitic views. To suggest such an action would be roundly decried and the person drummed out. Similarly, as much as anyone hates antisemitic speech, it IS protected speech because it’s free speech. At some point we are going to have to decide in this country if we wish to continue forward with the enlightenment and grow up as a society where we actually talk to eachother again, or are we going to descend back into declaring someone a heretic and burning them, or in modern parlance, deplatforming and doxing. You don’t stop ignorance by banning it or doing virtual book burnings, you stop it by educating people with the ignorant viewpoint. Banning speech and ideas simply grows it underground, where you never get to witness it through glad handing, but you will experience it at the worst possible outcome instead.
  - expathacker 8y ago
    > A muslim shot up a gay night club, we don’t ban Islam or mosques or deplatform Muslims from the internet for holding similarly antisemitic views. To suggest such an action would be roundly decried and the person drummed out. This is a false equivalency and a weak argument, where you are suggesting that all muslims are both terrorists and anti-semites. A "terrorist" shot up a gay night club, and yes, we do ban terrorist propaganda from the public square, or are you advocating for allowing ISIS/Taliban/Al Qaeda, etc, to be allowed to preach their hatred and drum-up support?
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  If that guy was an "otherwise typical" user of gab, and gab has ~500,000 active users(per wikipedia), why hasn't there been more than one story about gab-user-gone-wild in the media?
  - nl 8y ago
    Isn't that (the fact this guy shot 11 Jews dead and the other users haven't) exactly what "otherwise typical" refers to? The way he talked on Gab seems pretty typical of users there, so going and shooting people seems like the only thing that wasn't typical. Or are you arguing something else?
tptacek 8y ago
It sounds suspiciously as if you're drawing a direct comparison between the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War 2 and Gab getting kicked off GoDaddy. That can't possibly be an argument you really want to make.
- badatshipping 8y ago
  His argument is that few people caring about something doesn’t mean that thing doesn’t matter.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Isn't that, like, an extremely banal observation? It doesn't mean it does matter either. Meanwhile: what was the point of comparing this situation to internment camps?
    - PavlovsCat 8y ago
      Banally true, yes. > It doesn't mean it does matter either. Someone said something doesn't matter because "few people care", just one example of something that mattered and about which also "few people cared" refutes that reasoning. They're not making an argument, they're refuting one. edit: Another example would be Linus' announcement of Linux at the time. Few people cared, in contrast to the people who today find Linux extremely important, or depend on it without knowing. And there you go, I now made a "direct" (whatever that means) comparison between Linux and Japanese being put into concentration camps in the US, as well as a "direct" comparison between Linux and neo-nazis being deplatformed. The point matters more than the comparison used to make it.
      - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
        > The point matters more than the comparison used to make it. Only if we assume the soundbite it's just like when Japanese Americans were put in concentration camps didn't happen. The point could have been made without the comparison, by writing something like this: "Surprisingly few people cared" is a very poor metric to apply to a principle of rights and justice. And then we can discuss how social norms and the legal system interact, rather than have this conversation.
michaelmrose 8y ago
"The US government coming in and telling a private entity, no you must tolerate free speech on your property is historical fact and precedent." The first amendment says that the government cannot restrict free speech it has nothing whatsoever to do with a private entity tolerating "free speech" on their property. The totality of the public space being private property in the aforementioned scenario sounds like a unique situation and a poor position to reason from. In general not only do you not have a free speech interest in communicating on someone else's property the government forcing facebook to carry your message would actually be compelling them to communicate their approval of your message. You would be protecting a wholly imaginary free speech interest while trespassing on a real one.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  The totality of the public space being private property in the aforementioned scenario sounds like a unique situation and a poor position to reason from. Really? Because most of YouTube and Facebook very much strikes me as public space. That's how the population thinks of it. That's how society uses it. You would be protecting a wholly imaginary free speech interest while trespassing on a real one. Does anyone really think that YouTube not getting to censor people is hampering YouTube's ability to express their political expression? No one in 2018 mistakes a random YouTuber's opinion for YouTube's. Only people interested in silencing others hold to such an opinion. Such an opinion only makes sense, if you directly equate censorship to "expression." YouTube does have an editorial stake to the product that they can present to their advertiser customers. However, YouTube has stepped way beyond that line! The same goes for Facebook.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    In other news if you start holding an open air forum on your political issue of choice inside your nearest walmart you will probably be asked to go do this outside on the public sidewalk. Nobodies rights will be violated by this.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

freedomben 8y ago

I agree it probably won't matter. I wish it would, but it won't. However, I will be moving a handful of domains to Easy DNS because I appreciate them taking this position. I looked at Gab once a while back and was mostly disgusted, and never looked back, but I don't like this trend toward censoring and deplatforming. I don't worry about my speech being censored because (at least for now) it's relatively popular. But popular speech isn't the speech that needs protecting, the unpopular speech does.

tptacek 8y ago
You can say that! But: if, rather than just writing a chin-stroking blog post, Easydns had actually hosted Gab's zones, I think they'd find the impact on their customer base would not be net positive.
- Canada 8y ago
  Would it be negative? Why do I care whose DNS records are also hosted there?
  - johnny22 8y ago
    how much of this has to do with whether you personally care? It's about whether their customer base cares.

daenz 8y ago

>Previous deplatformings (Milo, Alex Jones) haven't produced any visible negative consequences for the platforms. Anecdotally, these deplaformings are shifting my worldview further right. And I know for a fact that it is having the same affect on many of my peers. Some might call that a negative consequence.

objectivetruth 8y ago
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "shifting [your] worldview further right"? When white supremacists are deplatformed, what specific conservative views are you consequently adopting or strengthening? Low taxes? Favoring corporations over labor unions? Strengthening criminal penalties for drug users? Favoring the role of organized religion playing a greater role in society and institutions?

StuntPope 8y ago

Deplatforming fuels polarization, so one thing I would look at the PEW research study that shows how the center has collapsed, making it impossible for moderates to win elections: http://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart-pt-1/ http://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart-pt-1/

api 8y ago
The center collapsed before deplatforming was a big thing. I think you have the arrow of causation backward. Deplatforming is driven by increasing polarization. The center collapsed because the establishment discredited itself in the 2000s: Iraq, the housing bubble, banks-before-people bailouts, etc. Now everyone is flailing around looking for alternatives. The hard right was first to the dance, but I see a lot of signs of growth on the hard left too. I wonder if the hard left will get deplatformed too if the rhetoric starts sounding really extreme? They might, especially if there is a loud call for wealth redistribution.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  Interesting thought. Given that the majority in all western countries already seem pretty OK with wealth redistribution in the form of their current welfare systems, calling for more of it doesn't seem that extreme. But I could turn out to be wrong about that. We certainly live in interesting times.
asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
> Deplatforming fuels polarization More citations needed! This is a bare assertion that is not widely agreed upon. The polarization was getting worse long before the deplatforming trend started. Since you started out the game, I'll add a bare assertion of my own. Constantly being bombarded with extremist views fuels polarization! Under that thesis, deplatforming actively works against polarization. The moral of the story is that you can make almost any argument as long as you are allowed to rely on unproved premises.