7 ms·

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

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.
- _iiu1 8y ago
  Why should "platform platforms" establish a norm attempting to actively appear "viewpoint neutral"? "come a little closer mouse so that I may better catch you and eat you..." Why on earth should society bend over backwards to aid spoiled deliberate attention-seekers when there are 7 billion other people who are actually trying to resolve problems that need our actual attention. These "malingerers" are using up valuable medical staff's time they could be spending upon actually ill patients!
  - comex 8y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean about medical staff. I'm not suggesting that anyone bend over backwards to aid organizations like Gab, merely that they don't go out of their way to ban them merely because they don't like them. For example, in the case of Stripe and PayPal, there doesn't seem to be any suggestion that Gab falls under any of the normal categories that would cause a financial services platform to ban a merchant – e.g. suspicion of fraud or money laundering, high chargeback rates, high rates of fraud among people giving money, anything like that.
alexanderwept 8y ago
In America, we accepted that when we decided 'disparate impact' was sufficient basis for establishing civil rights violations. If employers can't use IQ tests because some racial minorities 'underperform' then why not force those same employers to tolerate every view that's legal to own.
hakfoo 8y ago
What makes the 'deplatforming' threat viable is that so many critical aspects of an online business are a choice between private-enterprise players. Stripe or Authorize.net. AWS or DigitalOcean. GoDaddy or Namecheap. As you suggest, they have no individual legal obligation to serve a business that may cause bad press/high risk/whatever. But when you can enough of them pointing in the same direction, it creates the chilling effect-- a business that's technically legal but can't get the services they need. It basically creates am unspoken private regulation well beyond the actual law of the state. I tend to think the answer might be non-profit or state-run "service providers of last resort" -- charter-bound to provide service for any legal purpose, no matter how distasteful. Not necessarily cheap or slick, but they won't pull your plug because people complain about your content. Such a provider would defang the deplatforming strategy pretty fast.
- nradov 8y ago
  I don't want my tax money used for that. Not because I object to the content, but because it's a waste of money and government officials have more important things to focus on.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Ah, state-hosted platforms calling for the extermination of Jews. It's not exactly Radio Free Europe, is it?
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  > But when you can enough of them pointing in the same direction, it creates the chilling effect-- a business that's technically legal but can't get the services they need. It basically creates am unspoken private regulation well beyond the actual law of the state. Yes, but this is how the free market works. That my $.25 artisanal dog cupcake business can't get the services it needs at the price I can afford doesn't raise complaints. But when we replace dog cupcakes with Nazi chat rooms, suddenly we need the government to step in and subsidize a business which the market has shown is not worth it. In economic terms, the "distaste" of a client is an externality, and there is an increase in price associated with that externality. If the company can't afford it that's just the market at work. So the government providing a platform like this is just the government subsidizing business with negative externalities that the free market was correct tly pricing. It's like subsidies for strip mining or fracking or rhino poaching. But this is something you support in this case. It's odd to me. > I tend to think the answer might be non-profit or state-run "service providers of last resort" -- charter-bound to provide service for any legal purpose, no matter how distasteful. And what if my distateful venture needs redis or windows 10 or a spanner like distributed database, or whatever other service your unflashy system doesn't provide? Then either I can't get off the ground anyway, or you require that the government service maintain feature parity with all the others, neither of which seems viable.
zimablue 8y ago
This is such a common thing that you're doing. There are four levels of power (kind of) => government, employer, social, individual. Whenever you're in an argument, assume that the other side is advocating for the top level to enforce something so you can call them oppresive, and claim that you're advocating for the bottom level (and that that level should be free to do as it likes). Nothing in this article mentions passing a law and he even mentions several times that it's within their rights. It's therefore clearly discussing level 3 and 4 (trying to effect cultural change at the level of the individual. For you to weigh in as if he's arguing for passing an insane freedom of speech is disingenuous.
- jasode 8y ago
  >Nothing in this article mentions passing a law [...] For you to weigh in as if he's arguing for passing an insane freedom of speech is disingenuous. I think you've inadvertently overlooked how the 3 parent replies above you were discussing hypotheticals. In other words, each reply tried to elaborate what the alternate universes of free/censored speech might look like: - evrydayhustling's hypothetical: "What would it look like for an "anti-deplatforming" initiative to succeed? [...]" - im3w1l's hypothetical: "What reason is there to assume those platform platforms will not get kicked off the platform [...]" - amputect's hypothetical: "What's the alternative to "build your own platforms" though. Are you willing to compel Stripe by threat of force [...]" Commenters can bring up hypothetical laws or attempt to predict hypothetical outcomes even though the article itself doesn't mention creating a new law. (It's also possible that the middle reply in the chain of hypotheticals by im3w1l was misinterpreted as a call for a government law even though he doesn't explicitly state it. Sometimes people read between the lines and misconstrue the commenter's intent. It does seem like im3w1l's statement of "These people are not arguing in good faith" is implying that the mechanisms of the free market and free association wouldn't work for marginalized ideas. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to assume that the alternate universe he's thinking of that would work would be a government law that prevents de-platforming.)
- atq2119 8y ago
  I agree with you, but your four levels really need to be refined by a fifth level, corporate power. That is, power that is wielded over you by corporations even though they're not your employer because you essentially have to do business with them (Visa and MasterCard come to mind - they're essential infrastructure to the point where it really should just be a function of government, but isn't for historical reasons)
OpenBSD-reich 8y ago
Freedom of [dis]association has already been torpedoed. If political leanings were protected tomorrow like sexuality and sexual orientation are protected today, it'd significantly reduce the deplatforming. Joyent couldn't deplatform for politics anymore than christian* bakers couldn't refuse gays their cake! Interestingly, political opinion is not something protected in progressive-pushed instruments (take the Creative Covenant's CoC for example). If the right got smart, it'd modify the legal devices of civil and sexual rights to include political rights, or at least strip legal liability protection from political deplatformers (moderate a little -> then moderate in totality). *I'm a fedora tipping Atheist.
- drewbuschhorn 8y ago
  Makes you wonder why they haven't, despite controlling all three branches of government.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  But they don't want that. They want to silence opposing viewpoints, not protect them.

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.
_iiu1 8y ago
Why should "platform platforms" establish a norm attempting to actively appear "viewpoint neutral"? "come a little closer mouse so that I may better catch you and eat you..." Why on earth should society bend over backwards to aid spoiled deliberate attention-seekers when there are 7 billion other people who are actually trying to resolve problems that need our actual attention. These "malingerers" are using up valuable medical staff's time they could be spending upon actually ill patients!
- comex 8y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean about medical staff. I'm not suggesting that anyone bend over backwards to aid organizations like Gab, merely that they don't go out of their way to ban them merely because they don't like them. For example, in the case of Stripe and PayPal, there doesn't seem to be any suggestion that Gab falls under any of the normal categories that would cause a financial services platform to ban a merchant – e.g. suspicion of fraud or money laundering, high chargeback rates, high rates of fraud among people giving money, anything like that.

alexanderwept 8y ago

In America, we accepted that when we decided 'disparate impact' was sufficient basis for establishing civil rights violations. If employers can't use IQ tests because some racial minorities 'underperform' then why not force those same employers to tolerate every view that's legal to own.

hakfoo 8y ago

What makes the 'deplatforming' threat viable is that so many critical aspects of an online business are a choice between private-enterprise players. Stripe or Authorize.net. AWS or DigitalOcean. GoDaddy or Namecheap. As you suggest, they have no individual legal obligation to serve a business that may cause bad press/high risk/whatever. But when you can enough of them pointing in the same direction, it creates the chilling effect-- a business that's technically legal but can't get the services they need. It basically creates am unspoken private regulation well beyond the actual law of the state. I tend to think the answer might be non-profit or state-run "service providers of last resort" -- charter-bound to provide service for any legal purpose, no matter how distasteful. Not necessarily cheap or slick, but they won't pull your plug because people complain about your content. Such a provider would defang the deplatforming strategy pretty fast.

nradov 8y ago
I don't want my tax money used for that. Not because I object to the content, but because it's a waste of money and government officials have more important things to focus on.
pjc50 8y ago
Ah, state-hosted platforms calling for the extermination of Jews. It's not exactly Radio Free Europe, is it?
joshuamorton 8y ago
> But when you can enough of them pointing in the same direction, it creates the chilling effect-- a business that's technically legal but can't get the services they need. It basically creates am unspoken private regulation well beyond the actual law of the state. Yes, but this is how the free market works. That my $.25 artisanal dog cupcake business can't get the services it needs at the price I can afford doesn't raise complaints. But when we replace dog cupcakes with Nazi chat rooms, suddenly we need the government to step in and subsidize a business which the market has shown is not worth it. In economic terms, the "distaste" of a client is an externality, and there is an increase in price associated with that externality. If the company can't afford it that's just the market at work. So the government providing a platform like this is just the government subsidizing business with negative externalities that the free market was correct tly pricing. It's like subsidies for strip mining or fracking or rhino poaching. But this is something you support in this case. It's odd to me. > I tend to think the answer might be non-profit or state-run "service providers of last resort" -- charter-bound to provide service for any legal purpose, no matter how distasteful. And what if my distateful venture needs redis or windows 10 or a spanner like distributed database, or whatever other service your unflashy system doesn't provide? Then either I can't get off the ground anyway, or you require that the government service maintain feature parity with all the others, neither of which seems viable.

zimablue 8y ago

This is such a common thing that you're doing. There are four levels of power (kind of) => government, employer, social, individual. Whenever you're in an argument, assume that the other side is advocating for the top level to enforce something so you can call them oppresive, and claim that you're advocating for the bottom level (and that that level should be free to do as it likes). Nothing in this article mentions passing a law and he even mentions several times that it's within their rights. It's therefore clearly discussing level 3 and 4 (trying to effect cultural change at the level of the individual. For you to weigh in as if he's arguing for passing an insane freedom of speech is disingenuous.

jasode 8y ago
>Nothing in this article mentions passing a law [...] For you to weigh in as if he's arguing for passing an insane freedom of speech is disingenuous. I think you've inadvertently overlooked how the 3 parent replies above you were discussing hypotheticals. In other words, each reply tried to elaborate what the alternate universes of free/censored speech might look like: - evrydayhustling's hypothetical: "What would it look like for an "anti-deplatforming" initiative to succeed? [...]" - im3w1l's hypothetical: "What reason is there to assume those platform platforms will not get kicked off the platform [...]" - amputect's hypothetical: "What's the alternative to "build your own platforms" though. Are you willing to compel Stripe by threat of force [...]" Commenters can bring up hypothetical laws or attempt to predict hypothetical outcomes even though the article itself doesn't mention creating a new law. (It's also possible that the middle reply in the chain of hypotheticals by im3w1l was misinterpreted as a call for a government law even though he doesn't explicitly state it. Sometimes people read between the lines and misconstrue the commenter's intent. It does seem like im3w1l's statement of "These people are not arguing in good faith" is implying that the mechanisms of the free market and free association wouldn't work for marginalized ideas. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to assume that the alternate universe he's thinking of that would work would be a government law that prevents de-platforming.)
atq2119 8y ago
I agree with you, but your four levels really need to be refined by a fifth level, corporate power. That is, power that is wielded over you by corporations even though they're not your employer because you essentially have to do business with them (Visa and MasterCard come to mind - they're essential infrastructure to the point where it really should just be a function of government, but isn't for historical reasons)

OpenBSD-reich 8y ago

Freedom of [dis]association has already been torpedoed. If political leanings were protected tomorrow like sexuality and sexual orientation are protected today, it'd significantly reduce the deplatforming. Joyent couldn't deplatform for politics anymore than christian* bakers couldn't refuse gays their cake! Interestingly, political opinion is not something protected in progressive-pushed instruments (take the Creative Covenant's CoC for example). If the right got smart, it'd modify the legal devices of civil and sexual rights to include political rights, or at least strip legal liability protection from political deplatformers (moderate a little -> then moderate in totality). *I'm a fedora tipping Atheist.

drewbuschhorn 8y ago
Makes you wonder why they haven't, despite controlling all three branches of government.
KozmoNau7 8y ago
But they don't want that. They want to silence opposing viewpoints, not protect them.