15 ms·

Reading this article is like watching someone beat the ocean with a stick. What would it look like for an "anti-deplatforming" initiative to succeed? All idea

Reading this article is like watching someone beat the ocean with a stick. What would it look like for an "anti-deplatforming" initiative to succeed? All ideas have equal access to all platforms? Just the big ones? The objective is so poorly formed, it's not even wrong. A platform's identity and ability to attract an audience are determined by the activities they accept / cultivate, not vice versa. Infowars wanted to be on Facebook because it made it easier to sell your grandparents vitamin supplements, but Facebook felt that leaving them on make it a place families (and their grandparents) won't visit. Gab would like to use Stripe or Paypal because they are trusted payment providers, but those networks felt they'd stop being trusted payment providers if they let Gab stay on. And there's plenty of reason to think they're right: super-permissive platforms exist and work (4chan et al.), they just don't attract the same broad audience. When people complain about being deplatformed, they're just saying "the platforms that accept me aren't popular enough". I'm glad our internet is enough of a distributed commons that many platforms are broadly accessible -- but nobody owes you an audience at the most popular ones.

tptacek 8y ago
When people complain about being deplatformed, they're just saying "the platforms that accept me aren't popular enough". This is perfect.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  No, it's crazy. In that case, ideas aren't being judged as ideas. It's the same sort of "technically not" dishonesty that Noam Chomsky called out in Manufacturing Consent. Western media did indeed cover events not favorable to the US/Nato side. But it was covered in back pages, in the plainest language. Technically, it's not censorship in the same way as Pravda airbrushed people out of photos was censorship. However, it had pretty much the same effect. I thought the media distortion was bad in the 80's/90's. Now I realize I didn't realize how much worse it could get.
  - ngcazz 8y ago
    I’m sure Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines only wanted their ideas to be seen as ideas, just like all others!
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      We should let the crazies advertise themselves as crazies. Bad ideas should be exposed so they can be argued down. Suppressing ideas instead of arguing just creates a Streisand Effect entrenching them. There is another comment here, where someone analyzes the Weimar Republic's actions as doing just this. The Judiciary and Law enforcement seemed biased towards one side, which increased support for the other. The legislative government seemed to support the other side, which increased support for their opponents. The lesson of history is clear: You shouldn't let rule of law break down. Media and the judiciary should remain impartial and not push an agenda. Suppressing expression while letting the extremists commit violence in the streets just makes things far worse.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        I don't think you caught the reference. Maybe plug that name into Wikipedia and revisit your argument.
        tptacek 8y ago
        I'm seriously interested in what you thought of that argument after you looked up Radio Mille Collines.
        waterhouse 8y ago
        "It received support from the government-controlled Radio Rwanda, which initially allowed it to transmit using their equipment. ... Critics claim that the Rwandan government fostered the creation of RTLM as "Hate Radio", to circumvent the fact they had committed themselves to a ban against "harmful radio propaganda" in the UN's March 1993 joint communiqué in Dar es Salaam. ... During the Genocide, the RTLM acted as a source for propaganda by inciting hatred and violence against Tutsis, against Hutus who were for the peace accord, against Hutus who married Tutsis, and by advocating the annihilation of all Tutsis in Rwanda. ... An estimated 10% of all the violence within the Rwandan Genocide is resulted from the hateful radio transmissions sent out from RTLM." Interesting. Something I might say: given that the reigning government was supporting this stuff, as well as an animated and violent mob from the general population; and given that the "deplatforming" under discussion is done via social pressure, corporate action, and/or conceivably government intervention: how would any kind of mechanism for "deplatforming" have done anything to stifle this RTLM? If anything, such a mechanism would have been directed at dissenting voices. "One of the major reasons that RTLM was so successful in communication was because other forms of news sources such as televisions and newspapers were not able to be as popularized because of lack of resources." Apparently there was a dissenting radio station, but Wiki says "Radio Muhabura had a much smaller audience, probably because it broadcast in English instead of Kinyarwanda", which is unfortunate. So I guess there was no need for the government to deplatform any dissenting voices, because there weren't any significant ones. Therefore, one could argue that the Rwandan genocide is an illustration of what might happen if the ruling party+mob manage to deplatform everyone who disagrees with them. :-)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- someguydave 8y ago
  No, they are complaining about mistreatment on the basis of opinion. Minority rights are important.
rudolfwinestock 8y ago
When people complain about being deplatformed, they're just saying "the platforms that accept me aren't popular enough". What happens when you or those who share your opinions don't get accepted by the popular platforms?
- peterwwillis 8y ago
  Hopefully they'd find something more productive to do than complain on the internet.... ...Actually, that may mean they get more involved in politics, so that's kind of scary.
- pjc50 8y ago
  There are already a large number of fights over this. And the solution is the same: complain and hope for the court of public opinion to go your way. E.g. breastfeeding on Facebook, lgbt content generally, the drone strike reporting app on iOS, sex work adverts after FOSTA etc. Then there's the illegal stuff like fraud websites, ddos control domains, and anything to do with copyright infringement. It's noticeable which people only show up to defend far right speech on the internet.
  - Mirioron 8y ago
    But gab isn't far right. As I understood it, it's just a Twitter alternative. It doesn't make it inherently left or right. Many people pointed towards lgbt content being taken down and said: "Look, you guys brought this on yourselves." The implication being that some vocal lgbt people were pushing for censorship of other people, but it ended up being used against themselves. I think the solution is to require platforms over a certain size to allow all of these things. Platforms are not held responsible for many things due to being platforms. The government could amend those rules and say that if they want to be protected under those rules and they are larger than X then they should allow freedom of expression/speech. Platforms such as Twitter, reddit, and Facebook are already treated by many like public spaces. Perhaps this would fall in line with their.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
jlizzle30 8y ago
Interesting comment. I think you are right but what OP is predicting is the inevitably of the overton window being narrowed on these services via the mechanisms described. This narrowing will lead to more and more services being preformed outside the mainstream over time.
im3w1l 8y ago
First people get kicked off their platforms "build your own platforms" Then platforms got kicked off the platform platforms "build your own platform platforms" What reason is there to assume those platform platforms will not get kicked off the platform platform platforms? These people are not arguing in good faith.
- amputect 8y ago
  What's the alternative to "build your own platforms" though. Are you willing to compel Stripe by threat of force to keep processing credit cards for nazis? Are you willing to completely torpedo freedom of association, as long as the people demanding your company continue associating with them are sufficiently monstrous?
  - comex 8y ago
    No need to jump to the idea of compulsion. If there were an established social norm that "platform platforms" should make an active attempt to be viewpoint-neutral, chances are that enough of them would voluntarily follow that norm to allow platforms like Gab to continue operating. If the norm isn't established, well, good luck passing a law to force anyone to follow it. Right now, the trend seems to be against such a norm.
    - oh_sigh 8y ago
      And - how or why would I care that stripe processed infowars transactions, unless I was actually in the process of buying something from infowars?
      - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
        The issue isn't whether you in particular care or not. The issue, as I'm reading the parent comment, is that it's beginning to appear that no one is willing to stand up and say "look, it's not that I support this or that view, it's just that, well, if people are going to spout nonsense it might as well be here where can all observe them", because doing so would be so against current social normal it would be irresponsible.
prepend 8y ago
“A platform's identity and ability to attract an audience are determined by the activities they accept / cultivate, not vice versa.” I think this is a really good point, but it’s precisely why platforms that are content neutral are optimal for creative and productive exchange of ideas. Reality is a platform. The universe allows all us atoms to zip around. If it consciously tried to optimize based on shifting morals then it would not work well. In a little while, we’ll be digital and “deplatforming” will be a form of death sentence. So, I’d like to get used to letting fringe people be fringe and having the authorities get involved when laws are broken. It’s not about “owing you an audience” it’s about equal access to basic infrastructure needed for a free society to interact. This is sort of net neutrality related as our comms need to function like title I carriers in the US where they just provide dumb infrastructure. The last thing I want is to have to pick my DNS server based on political ideology. Does the future get to the point where there’s a “No Nazi GPL?” The way to fix people to stop being nazis/isis is not to make their blog stop working, but to engage and surround them with empathy. And then maybe their kids will be ok. There’s a lot of 100 year old wars out there where people escalate without resolution.
- 8note 8y ago
  The basic infrastructure is there regardless.of whether you can access the internet. People will still have eyes and ears and can walk to each other, just like they always do.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- johnny22 8y ago
  please show me the content neutral platforms on the internet that are optimal for creative and productive exchanges of ideas. 4chan is good for the memes, but i'm not sure what else. It mostly sounds like a truism to me, but I'd like to be proved wrong.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  Making the Nazis blog stop working CAN help us contain their crap. Propaganda works full stop. People perceive what is normal and correct based on repetition and social proof. If you want to sell your brand of hammer you spend millions putting it in front of everyone's faces in ads on tv, in magazines, if you can organically by getting people to talk about it among themselves. This last is better because it seems more authentic. You do this because the biggest barrier is not getting someone to pick between foo and bar brand hammers its to consider foo a legitimate choice when they need a hammer so that they will spend their finite time learning about foo or their finite money on it. People spend billions on this industry because it works whether you're selling hammers or hate. Imagining what works to sell hammers doesn't work to sell hate is a lack of imagination. Incidentally the basic infrastructure to facilitate communication is dns and http not facebook pages. The sooner people learn that the better.
colordrops 8y ago
> Gab would like to use Stripe or Paypal because they are trusted payment providers, but those networks felt they'd stop being trusted payment providers if they let Gab stay on. What does that even mean "stop being trusted payment providers"? If their API works and payments go through, that seems trustworthy to me.
- Latteland 8y ago
  I assume it means the mass of people might stop using those services (like paypal) because they don't want to support sites that talk about racist things like happens with gab. gab is different than say reddit to me because while reddit might have some people posting racist things or threatning to kill someone or rape them, but reddit will ban them or the group - but allowing for that kind of speech ends up appearing to be the main reason for a site like gab to exist.
  - mycelium 8y ago
    Wells Fargo has laundered billions of dollars for drug cartels, yet people have not stopped using them: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/al-capone-meet-wells-farg_b_11992610.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/al-capone-meet-wells... If people can't get off their asses to stop working with a company that has worked with organizations responsible for thousands of deaths, I don't think support of Gab is going to drive anyone's payment platform decisions.
    - geeostation 8y ago
      but why would any corporation would want virtue signallng opportunity ? Nike has shows that its great for PR
    - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
      So you think somebody else should make that business decision, rather than the actual company involved? Who would that be?
  - paganel 8y ago
colllectorof 8y ago
> What would it look like for an "anti-deplatforming" initiative to succeed? Casting mere absence of de-platforming efforts as an initiative definitely gets the golden medal for mental gymnastics in this entire discussion. >A platform's identity and ability to attract an audience are determined by the activities they accept / cultivate, not vice versa. It's interesting how you don't factor in the actual value being provided. As if the only thing that can drive people to use a service is whether the company bans the "right" people. Also, since when does a DNS provider or credit card processor suddenly need an "identity"? >Gab would like to use Stripe or Paypal because they are trusted payment providers, but those networks felt they'd stop being trusted payment providers if they let Gab stay on. Users trust PayPal because it moves money in a predictable way without leaking credit card info. This has nothing to do with some unrelated vendor using the system, as long as that vendor isn't scamming people. Are you seriously advocating baking activism? Do you understand how unstable the entire society will become if more organizations follow this suit in more cases? >And there's plenty of reason to think they're right: super-permissive platforms exist and work (4chan et al.), they just don't attract the same broad audience. 4chan as opposed to what? Most platforms that are currently at the top of that food chain rose there by being permissive and they're changing their mottos only now, when they feel they can get away with it. Reddit and Twitter used to be staunch advocates of free speech when they actually needed to attract users, instead of relying on the network effect. But that's not even particularly relevant to this discussion. >When people complain about being deplatformed, they're just saying "the platforms that accept me aren't popular enough". I'm glad our internet is enough of a distributed commons that many platforms are broadly accessible -- but nobody owes you an audience at the most popular ones. Gab was a social media platform. Their audience wasn't provided to them by PayPal, GoDaddy or Azure. Your argument makes no sense in this context.
qbaqbaqba 8y ago
Consumer rights protection/anti-monopoly law.
golemiprague 8y ago
The question is if there is alternative and if this thing applies consistently. If I want to create a club which only accept men or whites it will not be allowed and there was the famous case with the bakery that refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. The supreme court in the US actually sided with the bakery but then there is the question of alternative and whether it is a monopoly. The bakery was certainly not a monopoly but access to a payment system could be completely blocked for people with certain view and that's a bit worrying. We don't allow it with certain other critical utilities and we should ask ourself if some of those services are not critical utilities. I feel also very worried that when it comes to people views the people who decide which voice will be heard and which not is some tech company manager. The idea of the first amendment was that the government will not suppress speech because the government was the one with the power to suppress it but these days it is few unelected people in power position in a very specific industry and location of the US with a very obvious point of view and set of believes. So although I don't like certain opinions I like less the precedence we have here and the power given to very few people that I can't even influence by voting. It is like the city square fell under the control of some private company, companies like facebook and twitter are the modern city square and the first amendment should apply to it the same way it applies to any other public place.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  This is very very difficult to read. Instead of writing extemporaneously as one thinks it would profit you to break your thoughts into paragraphs. A few minutes spent editing the end result, trimming the fat, and organizing what remains could profit innumerable readers. I believe that the public interest is that the broader web be accessible to all comers. That means that it ought to it ought to be possible for information and money to pass between interested parties. This however does not mean that individual players like facebook have to help nazis spread hate. Facebook isn't the public street but you too can play there with your own server. If this becomes challenging because registrars, hosts, colocation providers don't want your money or your hate the logical solution is decentralization not forcing facebook to give nazis a place to congregate. Bitcoin is an unmediated exchange of money, stuff like tor hidden services are an unmediated exchange of ideas. This idea could certainly be expanded and made more user friendly if a substantial group of people felt like their ideas weren't welcome on the broader net. If this isn't possible because the only people who can't play are a tiny minority of hateful idiots then it seems like the system is working.
liftbigweights 8y ago
> A platform's identity and ability to attract an audience are determined by the activities they accept / cultivate, not vice versa. No it's not. Stop it. Nobody goes on or off facebook because of the activities they accept. If that was the case, nobody would use facebook because everyone is offended by everything. > Infowars wanted to be on Facebook because it made it easier to sell your grandparents vitamin supplements, but Facebook felt that leaving them on make it a place families (and their grandparents) won't visit. But that's empirically not true. Facebook grew by 2 billion people while infowars was platformed there. > Gab would like to use Stripe or Paypal because they are trusted payment providers, but those networks felt they'd stop being trusted payment providers if they let Gab stay on. Oh give me a break. This is simply not true. Why did they service Gab in the first place then? > And there's plenty of reason to think they're right: super-permissive platforms exist and work (4chan et al.), they just don't attract the same broad audience. Facebook was "superpermissive" when they grew to 2 billion users. Actually, that's why they grew so much. > but nobody owes you an audience at the most popular ones. That true unless you have a monopolistic position. Using your logic, facebook should be banning lgbt content. They should be banning atheist content. But I doubt you'd be supporting that. It amazes me that someone can be so misguided that they'd support deplatforming and censorship on hacker news. Everything you wrote is empirically provable to be false.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  You appear to think that you know what would be better for Facebook's business than Facebook itself does. Perhaps you should take your business acumen and start a Facebook competitor.
- dang 8y ago
  If you continue to post uncivilly to HN we are going to have to ban you again. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
kakarot 8y ago
> Gab would like to use Stripe or Paypal because they are trusted payment providers, but those networks felt they'd stop being trusted payment providers if they let Gab stay on. That's an extreme simplification that borders on deceptive. No one is going to stop using Paypal and Stripe because they support a platform. Maybe if they were processing payments for ISIS, but Alex Jones isn't ISIS. No, Paypal and Stripe were given orders from above and this is them carrying out those orders. > I'm glad our internet is enough of a distributed commons that many platforms are broadly accessible -- but nobody owes you an audience at the most popular ones. This would only make sense if there wasn't an active campaign to shut out smaller platforms in order to control the ecosystem. What is the point of making a sound if no one is around to hear it? Saying people should just change platforms is like saying people should just change internet companies. Sure, HughesNet might be an alternative to the only worthwhile provider in my area, but you can't say with a straight face that the experience is comparable. You're dismissing the problems other people face in getting their voices heard because it doesn't directly affect you. It's easy to take the high road with the deplatforming debate but only if you ignore the bigger picture.
- Pfhreak 8y ago
  > No one is going to stop using Paypal and Stripe because they support a platform. This is objectively false. I would stop supporting a business based on who they support. I have done so many times. From web services to food services, and everything in between.
  - kakarot 8y ago
    They're a payment processor. If you believe in a non-discriminatory economy, where anyone with a legal, useful service or skill should be able to collect payment for it, then you simply can't have this position. Payment processors must follow the law like anyone else and have no obligation to process payments for illegal services, but we can't start mass boycotting them based on the clients they legally do business with. That's a huge incentive for discriminatory practices which are at the behest of the mob.
    - 8y ago
jtbayly 8y ago
“Gab would like to use Stripe or Paypal because they are trusted payment providers, but those networks felt they'd stop being trusted payment providers if they let Gab stay on.” No. Surely not. Those networks felt they’d stop being cool or PC or untargetted by hordes of angry people, or something. But being seen as a trusted payment provider? That’s not threatened in the least, except by kicking people off. So he’s right. They did the one thing that hurt their image in the one place that matters for them. That’s not to say that businesses should only care about the bottom line, but you’ve definitely got this backward.
- evrydayhustling 8y ago
  So, you think these businesses took an existential risk with their reputation for the ephemeral benefit of looking cool? You are seriously underestimating the acumen of the folks who each went from zero to critically central providers in a cutthroat industry in less than 10 years. Stripe/Paypal's constituents include their employees, businesses, and end users, all of whom have lots of choices about which network to align with. Their job is to project both a service and identity that align those folks to maximize the value of their network effects. They decided that the wedge of people who are worried about deplatforming (either Gab specifically or in some holistic way) is smaller than the wedge of people who would rather not be in the same ecosystem as Gab. I seriously doubt you know those audiences better than them, but if you're right then you have a great idea for your own fast-growing business. BTW, the above doesn't have to be interpreted some cynical, 5-dimensional chess game analyzing user segments. Individual and brand identities and ethics are part of how people make purchasing/participation decisions, whether they are calculated or sincere. Sometimes a part of what makes people and their companies succeed really includes values they articulate that don't seem like part of the core product. You may dismiss those ethics as chasing some sort of trivial coolness-or-PC-ness, but enough other people take them seriously to move a lot of the world's money and time around. If it's tempting to dismiss that chunk of peoples' motivation as some sort of NPC ignorance (edit: apologies for putting words in your mouth if not), you might actually be defending your lack of effort to understand and adapt.
  - jtbayly 8y ago
froasty 8y ago
I'd love to see your equivalent ancestor in the 1640s when Milton published the Areopagitica.^1 > Reading this polemic is liketh watching someone did beat the ocean with a stick. What wouldst behold liketh for an initiative contra-contra-press-freedom to succeedeth? All ideas havest equal access to all presses? Just the large enou ones? The objective is so po'rly formed, t's not coequal wrong. > A Land's identity and ability to attracteth God's Grace art determin'd by the activities those gents accepteth & cultivateth, not vice versa. The Papists did want to print on Protestant English Presses because it madeth it easier to selleth thy grandparents heresies & indulgences, but Protestant English Presses hath felt leaving those folk on maketh it a lodging families (and yon grandparents) willst not visiteth. The abbots of Shrewsbury wouldst liketh to useth the Bank of England because those gents art trust'd payment provid'rs, but those bankers hath felt those servicing said monastery would halt their intellection of being said trust payment provid'rs if it be true that those gents allow'd Papists to stayeth on. > And there be plenty of reasoneth to bethink those gents're right: permissive Lands existeth and work (the Savages in the colonies et. al), those gents just attracteth not the same Salvation as Proper English Lands. At which hour people complaineth about being censored, those gents're just declaring "the Lands that accepteth me aren't popular enow". I'm fain our World is enow of a Terra Incognita that many Lands art broadly accessible -- but nobody owes thee an audience on English soils. --- 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areopagitica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areopagitica
- evrydayhustling 8y ago
  Wow, that is an edudite reference and a flatteringly thorough translation. But, taken seriously, the comparison of anti-deplatformers (can y'all make up a catchy name?) to Milton is facile. Milton was fighting for the right to distribute his work, you're fighting for the right to be distributed by others. I'm fully against forceably preventing folks from speaking, and support of investing in protocols so that others can voluntarily associate with them. But they can get their own damn printing press.
  - froasty 8y ago
    How are those not synonymous in this day and age? The point of freedom of expression is not inhibiting the right to an audience or explicitly interferring in the marketplace of ideas in civil society. Saying that Facebook, Twitter, Paypal, et. al face any actual injury or diminution in service as a result of hosting pernicious speech is absurd, especially in light of the role of Chapter 47 in the history of the freedom of the Internet.^1 And let's be clear, this isn't a case of the use of a service depriving other more worthy parties of using said service. It is Shaw's comparison between apples and ideas.^2 And it is attempting to tear down a universal principle to make it accountable to shifting tastes and moral fads which makes everyone guilty eventually. --- 1 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 2 - “If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.”

tptacek 8y ago

When people complain about being deplatformed, they're just saying "the platforms that accept me aren't popular enough". This is perfect.

stcredzero 8y ago
No, it's crazy. In that case, ideas aren't being judged as ideas. It's the same sort of "technically not" dishonesty that Noam Chomsky called out in Manufacturing Consent. Western media did indeed cover events not favorable to the US/Nato side. But it was covered in back pages, in the plainest language. Technically, it's not censorship in the same way as Pravda airbrushed people out of photos was censorship. However, it had pretty much the same effect. I thought the media distortion was bad in the 80's/90's. Now I realize I didn't realize how much worse it could get.
- ngcazz 8y ago
  I’m sure Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines only wanted their ideas to be seen as ideas, just like all others!
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    We should let the crazies advertise themselves as crazies. Bad ideas should be exposed so they can be argued down. Suppressing ideas instead of arguing just creates a Streisand Effect entrenching them. There is another comment here, where someone analyzes the Weimar Republic's actions as doing just this. The Judiciary and Law enforcement seemed biased towards one side, which increased support for the other. The legislative government seemed to support the other side, which increased support for their opponents. The lesson of history is clear: You shouldn't let rule of law break down. Media and the judiciary should remain impartial and not push an agenda. Suppressing expression while letting the extremists commit violence in the streets just makes things far worse.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      I don't think you caught the reference. Maybe plug that name into Wikipedia and revisit your argument.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        I'm seriously interested in what you thought of that argument after you looked up Radio Mille Collines.
        waterhouse 8y ago
        "It received support from the government-controlled Radio Rwanda, which initially allowed it to transmit using their equipment. ... Critics claim that the Rwandan government fostered the creation of RTLM as "Hate Radio", to circumvent the fact they had committed themselves to a ban against "harmful radio propaganda" in the UN's March 1993 joint communiqué in Dar es Salaam. ... During the Genocide, the RTLM acted as a source for propaganda by inciting hatred and violence against Tutsis, against Hutus who were for the peace accord, against Hutus who married Tutsis, and by advocating the annihilation of all Tutsis in Rwanda. ... An estimated 10% of all the violence within the Rwandan Genocide is resulted from the hateful radio transmissions sent out from RTLM." Interesting. Something I might say: given that the reigning government was supporting this stuff, as well as an animated and violent mob from the general population; and given that the "deplatforming" under discussion is done via social pressure, corporate action, and/or conceivably government intervention: how would any kind of mechanism for "deplatforming" have done anything to stifle this RTLM? If anything, such a mechanism would have been directed at dissenting voices. "One of the major reasons that RTLM was so successful in communication was because other forms of news sources such as televisions and newspapers were not able to be as popularized because of lack of resources." Apparently there was a dissenting radio station, but Wiki says "Radio Muhabura had a much smaller audience, probably because it broadcast in English instead of Kinyarwanda", which is unfortunate. So I guess there was no need for the government to deplatform any dissenting voices, because there weren't any significant ones. Therefore, one could argue that the Rwandan genocide is an illustration of what might happen if the ruling party+mob manage to deplatform everyone who disagrees with them. :-)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
someguydave 8y ago
No, they are complaining about mistreatment on the basis of opinion. Minority rights are important.

rudolfwinestock 8y ago

When people complain about being deplatformed, they're just saying "the platforms that accept me aren't popular enough". What happens when you or those who share your opinions don't get accepted by the popular platforms?

peterwwillis 8y ago
Hopefully they'd find something more productive to do than complain on the internet.... ...Actually, that may mean they get more involved in politics, so that's kind of scary.
pjc50 8y ago
There are already a large number of fights over this. And the solution is the same: complain and hope for the court of public opinion to go your way. E.g. breastfeeding on Facebook, lgbt content generally, the drone strike reporting app on iOS, sex work adverts after FOSTA etc. Then there's the illegal stuff like fraud websites, ddos control domains, and anything to do with copyright infringement. It's noticeable which people only show up to defend far right speech on the internet.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  But gab isn't far right. As I understood it, it's just a Twitter alternative. It doesn't make it inherently left or right. Many people pointed towards lgbt content being taken down and said: "Look, you guys brought this on yourselves." The implication being that some vocal lgbt people were pushing for censorship of other people, but it ended up being used against themselves. I think the solution is to require platforms over a certain size to allow all of these things. Platforms are not held responsible for many things due to being platforms. The government could amend those rules and say that if they want to be protected under those rules and they are larger than X then they should allow freedom of expression/speech. Platforms such as Twitter, reddit, and Facebook are already treated by many like public spaces. Perhaps this would fall in line with their.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

jlizzle30 8y ago

Interesting comment. I think you are right but what OP is predicting is the inevitably of the overton window being narrowed on these services via the mechanisms described. This narrowing will lead to more and more services being preformed outside the mainstream over time.

im3w1l 8y ago

First people get kicked off their platforms "build your own platforms" Then platforms got kicked off the platform platforms "build your own platform platforms" What reason is there to assume those platform platforms will not get kicked off the platform platform platforms? These people are not arguing in good faith.

amputect 8y ago
What's the alternative to "build your own platforms" though. Are you willing to compel Stripe by threat of force to keep processing credit cards for nazis? Are you willing to completely torpedo freedom of association, as long as the people demanding your company continue associating with them are sufficiently monstrous?
- comex 8y ago
  No need to jump to the idea of compulsion. If there were an established social norm that "platform platforms" should make an active attempt to be viewpoint-neutral, chances are that enough of them would voluntarily follow that norm to allow platforms like Gab to continue operating. If the norm isn't established, well, good luck passing a law to force anyone to follow it. Right now, the trend seems to be against such a norm.
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    And - how or why would I care that stripe processed infowars transactions, unless I was actually in the process of buying something from infowars?
    - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
      The issue isn't whether you in particular care or not. The issue, as I'm reading the parent comment, is that it's beginning to appear that no one is willing to stand up and say "look, it's not that I support this or that view, it's just that, well, if people are going to spout nonsense it might as well be here where can all observe them", because doing so would be so against current social normal it would be irresponsible.

prepend 8y ago

“A platform's identity and ability to attract an audience are determined by the activities they accept / cultivate, not vice versa.” I think this is a really good point, but it’s precisely why platforms that are content neutral are optimal for creative and productive exchange of ideas. Reality is a platform. The universe allows all us atoms to zip around. If it consciously tried to optimize based on shifting morals then it would not work well. In a little while, we’ll be digital and “deplatforming” will be a form of death sentence. So, I’d like to get used to letting fringe people be fringe and having the authorities get involved when laws are broken. It’s not about “owing you an audience” it’s about equal access to basic infrastructure needed for a free society to interact. This is sort of net neutrality related as our comms need to function like title I carriers in the US where they just provide dumb infrastructure. The last thing I want is to have to pick my DNS server based on political ideology. Does the future get to the point where there’s a “No Nazi GPL?” The way to fix people to stop being nazis/isis is not to make their blog stop working, but to engage and surround them with empathy. And then maybe their kids will be ok. There’s a lot of 100 year old wars out there where people escalate without resolution.

8note 8y ago
The basic infrastructure is there regardless.of whether you can access the internet. People will still have eyes and ears and can walk to each other, just like they always do.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
johnny22 8y ago
please show me the content neutral platforms on the internet that are optimal for creative and productive exchanges of ideas. 4chan is good for the memes, but i'm not sure what else. It mostly sounds like a truism to me, but I'd like to be proved wrong.
michaelmrose 8y ago
Making the Nazis blog stop working CAN help us contain their crap. Propaganda works full stop. People perceive what is normal and correct based on repetition and social proof. If you want to sell your brand of hammer you spend millions putting it in front of everyone's faces in ads on tv, in magazines, if you can organically by getting people to talk about it among themselves. This last is better because it seems more authentic. You do this because the biggest barrier is not getting someone to pick between foo and bar brand hammers its to consider foo a legitimate choice when they need a hammer so that they will spend their finite time learning about foo or their finite money on it. People spend billions on this industry because it works whether you're selling hammers or hate. Imagining what works to sell hammers doesn't work to sell hate is a lack of imagination. Incidentally the basic infrastructure to facilitate communication is dns and http not facebook pages. The sooner people learn that the better.

colordrops 8y ago

> Gab would like to use Stripe or Paypal because they are trusted payment providers, but those networks felt they'd stop being trusted payment providers if they let Gab stay on. What does that even mean "stop being trusted payment providers"? If their API works and payments go through, that seems trustworthy to me.

Latteland 8y ago
I assume it means the mass of people might stop using those services (like paypal) because they don't want to support sites that talk about racist things like happens with gab. gab is different than say reddit to me because while reddit might have some people posting racist things or threatning to kill someone or rape them, but reddit will ban them or the group - but allowing for that kind of speech ends up appearing to be the main reason for a site like gab to exist.
- mycelium 8y ago
  Wells Fargo has laundered billions of dollars for drug cartels, yet people have not stopped using them: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/al-capone-meet-wells-farg_b_11992610.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/al-capone-meet-wells... If people can't get off their asses to stop working with a company that has worked with organizations responsible for thousands of deaths, I don't think support of Gab is going to drive anyone's payment platform decisions.
  - geeostation 8y ago
    but why would any corporation would want virtue signallng opportunity ? Nike has shows that its great for PR
  - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
    So you think somebody else should make that business decision, rather than the actual company involved? Who would that be?
- paganel 8y ago

colllectorof 8y ago

> What would it look like for an "anti-deplatforming" initiative to succeed? Casting mere absence of de-platforming efforts as an initiative definitely gets the golden medal for mental gymnastics in this entire discussion. >A platform's identity and ability to attract an audience are determined by the activities they accept / cultivate, not vice versa. It's interesting how you don't factor in the actual value being provided. As if the only thing that can drive people to use a service is whether the company bans the "right" people. Also, since when does a DNS provider or credit card processor suddenly need an "identity"? >Gab would like to use Stripe or Paypal because they are trusted payment providers, but those networks felt they'd stop being trusted payment providers if they let Gab stay on. Users trust PayPal because it moves money in a predictable way without leaking credit card info. This has nothing to do with some unrelated vendor using the system, as long as that vendor isn't scamming people. Are you seriously advocating baking activism? Do you understand how unstable the entire society will become if more organizations follow this suit in more cases? >And there's plenty of reason to think they're right: super-permissive platforms exist and work (4chan et al.), they just don't attract the same broad audience. 4chan as opposed to what? Most platforms that are currently at the top of that food chain rose there by being permissive and they're changing their mottos only now, when they feel they can get away with it. Reddit and Twitter used to be staunch advocates of free speech when they actually needed to attract users, instead of relying on the network effect. But that's not even particularly relevant to this discussion. >When people complain about being deplatformed, they're just saying "the platforms that accept me aren't popular enough". I'm glad our internet is enough of a distributed commons that many platforms are broadly accessible -- but nobody owes you an audience at the most popular ones. Gab was a social media platform. Their audience wasn't provided to them by PayPal, GoDaddy or Azure. Your argument makes no sense in this context.

qbaqbaqba 8y ago

Consumer rights protection/anti-monopoly law.

golemiprague 8y ago

The question is if there is alternative and if this thing applies consistently. If I want to create a club which only accept men or whites it will not be allowed and there was the famous case with the bakery that refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. The supreme court in the US actually sided with the bakery but then there is the question of alternative and whether it is a monopoly. The bakery was certainly not a monopoly but access to a payment system could be completely blocked for people with certain view and that's a bit worrying. We don't allow it with certain other critical utilities and we should ask ourself if some of those services are not critical utilities. I feel also very worried that when it comes to people views the people who decide which voice will be heard and which not is some tech company manager. The idea of the first amendment was that the government will not suppress speech because the government was the one with the power to suppress it but these days it is few unelected people in power position in a very specific industry and location of the US with a very obvious point of view and set of believes. So although I don't like certain opinions I like less the precedence we have here and the power given to very few people that I can't even influence by voting. It is like the city square fell under the control of some private company, companies like facebook and twitter are the modern city square and the first amendment should apply to it the same way it applies to any other public place.

michaelmrose 8y ago
This is very very difficult to read. Instead of writing extemporaneously as one thinks it would profit you to break your thoughts into paragraphs. A few minutes spent editing the end result, trimming the fat, and organizing what remains could profit innumerable readers. I believe that the public interest is that the broader web be accessible to all comers. That means that it ought to it ought to be possible for information and money to pass between interested parties. This however does not mean that individual players like facebook have to help nazis spread hate. Facebook isn't the public street but you too can play there with your own server. If this becomes challenging because registrars, hosts, colocation providers don't want your money or your hate the logical solution is decentralization not forcing facebook to give nazis a place to congregate. Bitcoin is an unmediated exchange of money, stuff like tor hidden services are an unmediated exchange of ideas. This idea could certainly be expanded and made more user friendly if a substantial group of people felt like their ideas weren't welcome on the broader net. If this isn't possible because the only people who can't play are a tiny minority of hateful idiots then it seems like the system is working.

liftbigweights 8y ago

> A platform's identity and ability to attract an audience are determined by the activities they accept / cultivate, not vice versa. No it's not. Stop it. Nobody goes on or off facebook because of the activities they accept. If that was the case, nobody would use facebook because everyone is offended by everything. > Infowars wanted to be on Facebook because it made it easier to sell your grandparents vitamin supplements, but Facebook felt that leaving them on make it a place families (and their grandparents) won't visit. But that's empirically not true. Facebook grew by 2 billion people while infowars was platformed there. > Gab would like to use Stripe or Paypal because they are trusted payment providers, but those networks felt they'd stop being trusted payment providers if they let Gab stay on. Oh give me a break. This is simply not true. Why did they service Gab in the first place then? > And there's plenty of reason to think they're right: super-permissive platforms exist and work (4chan et al.), they just don't attract the same broad audience. Facebook was "superpermissive" when they grew to 2 billion users. Actually, that's why they grew so much. > but nobody owes you an audience at the most popular ones. That true unless you have a monopolistic position. Using your logic, facebook should be banning lgbt content. They should be banning atheist content. But I doubt you'd be supporting that. It amazes me that someone can be so misguided that they'd support deplatforming and censorship on hacker news. Everything you wrote is empirically provable to be false.

amanaplanacanal 8y ago
You appear to think that you know what would be better for Facebook's business than Facebook itself does. Perhaps you should take your business acumen and start a Facebook competitor.
dang 8y ago
If you continue to post uncivilly to HN we are going to have to ban you again. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post civilly and substantively, or not at all.

kakarot 8y ago

> Gab would like to use Stripe or Paypal because they are trusted payment providers, but those networks felt they'd stop being trusted payment providers if they let Gab stay on. That's an extreme simplification that borders on deceptive. No one is going to stop using Paypal and Stripe because they support a platform. Maybe if they were processing payments for ISIS, but Alex Jones isn't ISIS. No, Paypal and Stripe were given orders from above and this is them carrying out those orders. > I'm glad our internet is enough of a distributed commons that many platforms are broadly accessible -- but nobody owes you an audience at the most popular ones. This would only make sense if there wasn't an active campaign to shut out smaller platforms in order to control the ecosystem. What is the point of making a sound if no one is around to hear it? Saying people should just change platforms is like saying people should just change internet companies. Sure, HughesNet might be an alternative to the only worthwhile provider in my area, but you can't say with a straight face that the experience is comparable. You're dismissing the problems other people face in getting their voices heard because it doesn't directly affect you. It's easy to take the high road with the deplatforming debate but only if you ignore the bigger picture.

Pfhreak 8y ago
> No one is going to stop using Paypal and Stripe because they support a platform. This is objectively false. I would stop supporting a business based on who they support. I have done so many times. From web services to food services, and everything in between.
- kakarot 8y ago
  They're a payment processor. If you believe in a non-discriminatory economy, where anyone with a legal, useful service or skill should be able to collect payment for it, then you simply can't have this position. Payment processors must follow the law like anyone else and have no obligation to process payments for illegal services, but we can't start mass boycotting them based on the clients they legally do business with. That's a huge incentive for discriminatory practices which are at the behest of the mob.
  - 8y ago

jtbayly 8y ago

“Gab would like to use Stripe or Paypal because they are trusted payment providers, but those networks felt they'd stop being trusted payment providers if they let Gab stay on.” No. Surely not. Those networks felt they’d stop being cool or PC or untargetted by hordes of angry people, or something. But being seen as a trusted payment provider? That’s not threatened in the least, except by kicking people off. So he’s right. They did the one thing that hurt their image in the one place that matters for them. That’s not to say that businesses should only care about the bottom line, but you’ve definitely got this backward.

evrydayhustling 8y ago
So, you think these businesses took an existential risk with their reputation for the ephemeral benefit of looking cool? You are seriously underestimating the acumen of the folks who each went from zero to critically central providers in a cutthroat industry in less than 10 years. Stripe/Paypal's constituents include their employees, businesses, and end users, all of whom have lots of choices about which network to align with. Their job is to project both a service and identity that align those folks to maximize the value of their network effects. They decided that the wedge of people who are worried about deplatforming (either Gab specifically or in some holistic way) is smaller than the wedge of people who would rather not be in the same ecosystem as Gab. I seriously doubt you know those audiences better than them, but if you're right then you have a great idea for your own fast-growing business. BTW, the above doesn't have to be interpreted some cynical, 5-dimensional chess game analyzing user segments. Individual and brand identities and ethics are part of how people make purchasing/participation decisions, whether they are calculated or sincere. Sometimes a part of what makes people and their companies succeed really includes values they articulate that don't seem like part of the core product. You may dismiss those ethics as chasing some sort of trivial coolness-or-PC-ness, but enough other people take them seriously to move a lot of the world's money and time around. If it's tempting to dismiss that chunk of peoples' motivation as some sort of NPC ignorance (edit: apologies for putting words in your mouth if not), you might actually be defending your lack of effort to understand and adapt.
- jtbayly 8y ago

froasty 8y ago

I'd love to see your equivalent ancestor in the 1640s when Milton published the Areopagitica.^1 > Reading this polemic is liketh watching someone did beat the ocean with a stick. What wouldst behold liketh for an initiative contra-contra-press-freedom to succeedeth? All ideas havest equal access to all presses? Just the large enou ones? The objective is so po'rly formed, t's not coequal wrong. > A Land's identity and ability to attracteth God's Grace art determin'd by the activities those gents accepteth & cultivateth, not vice versa. The Papists did want to print on Protestant English Presses because it madeth it easier to selleth thy grandparents heresies & indulgences, but Protestant English Presses hath felt leaving those folk on maketh it a lodging families (and yon grandparents) willst not visiteth. The abbots of Shrewsbury wouldst liketh to useth the Bank of England because those gents art trust'd payment provid'rs, but those bankers hath felt those servicing said monastery would halt their intellection of being said trust payment provid'rs if it be true that those gents allow'd Papists to stayeth on. > And there be plenty of reasoneth to bethink those gents're right: permissive Lands existeth and work (the Savages in the colonies et. al), those gents just attracteth not the same Salvation as Proper English Lands. At which hour people complaineth about being censored, those gents're just declaring "the Lands that accepteth me aren't popular enow". I'm fain our World is enow of a Terra Incognita that many Lands art broadly accessible -- but nobody owes thee an audience on English soils. --- 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areopagitica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areopagitica

evrydayhustling 8y ago
Wow, that is an edudite reference and a flatteringly thorough translation. But, taken seriously, the comparison of anti-deplatformers (can y'all make up a catchy name?) to Milton is facile. Milton was fighting for the right to distribute his work, you're fighting for the right to be distributed by others. I'm fully against forceably preventing folks from speaking, and support of investing in protocols so that others can voluntarily associate with them. But they can get their own damn printing press.
- froasty 8y ago
  How are those not synonymous in this day and age? The point of freedom of expression is not inhibiting the right to an audience or explicitly interferring in the marketplace of ideas in civil society. Saying that Facebook, Twitter, Paypal, et. al face any actual injury or diminution in service as a result of hosting pernicious speech is absurd, especially in light of the role of Chapter 47 in the history of the freedom of the Internet.^1 And let's be clear, this isn't a case of the use of a service depriving other more worthy parties of using said service. It is Shaw's comparison between apples and ideas.^2 And it is attempting to tear down a universal principle to make it accountable to shifting tastes and moral fads which makes everyone guilty eventually. --- 1 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 2 - “If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.”