5 ms·

Again, details.. What if every single domain company decides to blackball them? What do they do then? Nothing, they are off the internet.

wpietri 8y ago
I guess they'll have to return to sharing their desire to kill black people the old fashioned way, in person. Something you aren't grappling with here is the way the Internet has enabled previously-scattered terrible people to connect and self-radicalize. David Neiwart, who tracked various "patriot", white supremacist, and other fringe groups since the 90s, wrote a very readable book about how things have changed since then: https://www.amazon.com/Alt-America-Rise-Radical-Right-Trump/dp/1786634236 https://www.amazon.com/Alt-America-Rise-Radical-Right-Trump/... I definitely appreciate the early ethos of the Internet. It's a good founding myth, and I would like to work to keep things open by default. But if the worse 0.1% of humankind ends up not being able to host anything because otherwise they will work together to murder people, I am 100% ok with bending my "anything goes" bias a bit.
- mattsfrey 8y ago
  Actually inciting violence or conspiring to do so is covered under common law statutes and can be easily prosecuted. This is far different, it is companies deciding on their own volition to unilaterally ban entities from accessing the very "pipes". Today it's at the domain level, so the convenience of being able to type in a name versus an IP is what's at stake. What next, ISP's blocking traffic?.. Like I've said it's the principle. I believe in free speech and a free and open internet, if there is criminal activity the FBI, et al. can easily get involved. This is about the fact that the very infrastructure of the internet is largely dictated by private entities who are now imposing their own discretion based on content they object to, odious as it may be. I for one am not keen on allowing the sociopolitical whims of the time to dictate who is allowed on this great thing called the internet. I see something once pure, beautiful, and glorious entering its first stages of death.
  - b1daly 8y ago
    I’m responding to your comment more as a representative of a general sentiment. The implicit psychological construct behind this little “mini-panic” around fringe groups be “de-platformed” is a common one: something bad is happening, and we are losing freedoms/rights/capabilities we (society) has in the past. It’s a variation on the notion that “the world is going to hell a hand basket.” The rhetorical fallacy is called “false idealization of the past.” In fact, the access of everyday people to a variety of mediated forms of communication is at historically unprecedented levels. In virtually the entire history of human society, access to powerful methods of communication was completely under the control of the elite power structures of the society. The problem that these new communication platforms are trying to deal with is unprecedented. It turns out there are unexpected consequences of allowing access to mass communication, and means of spreading propaganda, to “fringe” groups like “white supremecists” The problem is unique in a couple of ways. One is that it is only very recently, very recently, in our society (the US in this case) that the precepts of white supremacy have been “fringe!” In fact these are the hateful ideologies that built much of our modern world, on the backs of those unfortunate to have not been born “white.” This has been hard fought-for progress, and banishment to the “fringe” of these ideas is a major success. The attempts to drive these ideas even further to the fringe represents a triumph of humanistic values. Especially as reactionary groups inevitably fight back with whatever means they have at hand. It just happens to have happened right around the time that technology put methods of mass media into the hands of more and more everyday people. Using “De-Platforming” as a method of social control is entirely civilized, and justified. We have bedrock principles of free speech in the US, but those are almost entirely based around the idea of preventing the government from jailing speakers it diagrees with. To raise an alarm about, “well, what if your currently considered ‘progressive’ movement is deemed deserving of De-Platforming in the future” is a false alarm, because there simply are no historical examples to draw from. These technologies are too new. (Not just the technology, also the increasing ubiquitousness of networked communication.) It also pretends that in some philosophical sense, all ideas are equally valid, and is divorcing the content of ideas from the form. I don’t agree that all points of view are equally valid, and viewing ideas through the lens of “form” over “content” is antithetical to the very core concept of ideas and thought itself. IMO, people are too quick to trot out “slippery slope” fears about difficult problems. However, we can’t get “off of the slope” in a metaphysical sense. We are alive, until we aren’t,and must navigate the treacherous slopes of reality to the best of our capabilities. As both individuals and as members of society.
- pppaul 8y ago
  are you OK with most Muslims not using the internet, because their values are radically different from non-muslims (treatment of women, gays, atheists) and they have a fairly high rate of terrorism compared to other ideologies? It's likely that the internet and places like GAB or whatever site you don't like, is a good place to de-radicalize people as well. and you can't even have a place to de-radicalize when the people you care about that happening for have had their thoughts banned from the internet.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    Muslims are not a coherent whole like your opening statement might make out.
    - oh_sigh 8y ago
      Neither are gab users though. It's not like there is a "hates jews" requirement in the TOS to sign up.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - 8note 8y ago
    > [Muslims] have a fairly high rate of terrorism compared to other ideologies that seems like a big assumption.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    > they have a fairly high rate of terrorism compared to other ideologies? This is untrue.
nradov 8y ago
Domain names aren't mandatory. IP addresses still work.
- emiliobumachar 8y ago
  For now. The question of "where does it stop" is still on the table.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    ARP. To Ethernet address resolution, and no further.
michaelmrose 8y ago
If enough people are actually impacted perhaps they can start their own name registration system or adopt one of several upstarts that have come into being over the years. Here are 8 such https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root

wpietri 8y ago

I guess they'll have to return to sharing their desire to kill black people the old fashioned way, in person. Something you aren't grappling with here is the way the Internet has enabled previously-scattered terrible people to connect and self-radicalize. David Neiwart, who tracked various "patriot", white supremacist, and other fringe groups since the 90s, wrote a very readable book about how things have changed since then: https://www.amazon.com/Alt-America-Rise-Radical-Right-Trump/dp/1786634236 https://www.amazon.com/Alt-America-Rise-Radical-Right-Trump/... I definitely appreciate the early ethos of the Internet. It's a good founding myth, and I would like to work to keep things open by default. But if the worse 0.1% of humankind ends up not being able to host anything because otherwise they will work together to murder people, I am 100% ok with bending my "anything goes" bias a bit.

mattsfrey 8y ago
Actually inciting violence or conspiring to do so is covered under common law statutes and can be easily prosecuted. This is far different, it is companies deciding on their own volition to unilaterally ban entities from accessing the very "pipes". Today it's at the domain level, so the convenience of being able to type in a name versus an IP is what's at stake. What next, ISP's blocking traffic?.. Like I've said it's the principle. I believe in free speech and a free and open internet, if there is criminal activity the FBI, et al. can easily get involved. This is about the fact that the very infrastructure of the internet is largely dictated by private entities who are now imposing their own discretion based on content they object to, odious as it may be. I for one am not keen on allowing the sociopolitical whims of the time to dictate who is allowed on this great thing called the internet. I see something once pure, beautiful, and glorious entering its first stages of death.
- b1daly 8y ago
  I’m responding to your comment more as a representative of a general sentiment. The implicit psychological construct behind this little “mini-panic” around fringe groups be “de-platformed” is a common one: something bad is happening, and we are losing freedoms/rights/capabilities we (society) has in the past. It’s a variation on the notion that “the world is going to hell a hand basket.” The rhetorical fallacy is called “false idealization of the past.” In fact, the access of everyday people to a variety of mediated forms of communication is at historically unprecedented levels. In virtually the entire history of human society, access to powerful methods of communication was completely under the control of the elite power structures of the society. The problem that these new communication platforms are trying to deal with is unprecedented. It turns out there are unexpected consequences of allowing access to mass communication, and means of spreading propaganda, to “fringe” groups like “white supremecists” The problem is unique in a couple of ways. One is that it is only very recently, very recently, in our society (the US in this case) that the precepts of white supremacy have been “fringe!” In fact these are the hateful ideologies that built much of our modern world, on the backs of those unfortunate to have not been born “white.” This has been hard fought-for progress, and banishment to the “fringe” of these ideas is a major success. The attempts to drive these ideas even further to the fringe represents a triumph of humanistic values. Especially as reactionary groups inevitably fight back with whatever means they have at hand. It just happens to have happened right around the time that technology put methods of mass media into the hands of more and more everyday people. Using “De-Platforming” as a method of social control is entirely civilized, and justified. We have bedrock principles of free speech in the US, but those are almost entirely based around the idea of preventing the government from jailing speakers it diagrees with. To raise an alarm about, “well, what if your currently considered ‘progressive’ movement is deemed deserving of De-Platforming in the future” is a false alarm, because there simply are no historical examples to draw from. These technologies are too new. (Not just the technology, also the increasing ubiquitousness of networked communication.) It also pretends that in some philosophical sense, all ideas are equally valid, and is divorcing the content of ideas from the form. I don’t agree that all points of view are equally valid, and viewing ideas through the lens of “form” over “content” is antithetical to the very core concept of ideas and thought itself. IMO, people are too quick to trot out “slippery slope” fears about difficult problems. However, we can’t get “off of the slope” in a metaphysical sense. We are alive, until we aren’t,and must navigate the treacherous slopes of reality to the best of our capabilities. As both individuals and as members of society.
pppaul 8y ago
are you OK with most Muslims not using the internet, because their values are radically different from non-muslims (treatment of women, gays, atheists) and they have a fairly high rate of terrorism compared to other ideologies? It's likely that the internet and places like GAB or whatever site you don't like, is a good place to de-radicalize people as well. and you can't even have a place to de-radicalize when the people you care about that happening for have had their thoughts banned from the internet.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  Muslims are not a coherent whole like your opening statement might make out.
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    Neither are gab users though. It's not like there is a "hates jews" requirement in the TOS to sign up.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- 8note 8y ago
  > [Muslims] have a fairly high rate of terrorism compared to other ideologies that seems like a big assumption.
- DanBC 8y ago
  > they have a fairly high rate of terrorism compared to other ideologies? This is untrue.

nradov 8y ago

Domain names aren't mandatory. IP addresses still work.

emiliobumachar 8y ago
For now. The question of "where does it stop" is still on the table.
- tptacek 8y ago
  ARP. To Ethernet address resolution, and no further.

michaelmrose 8y ago

If enough people are actually impacted perhaps they can start their own name registration system or adopt one of several upstarts that have come into being over the years. Here are 8 such https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root