9 ms·

Why Epik welcomed Gab.com

52 points by amaccuish 8y ago

onetimemanytime 8y ago
Can Epik be bullied from others above the stream?
trynewideas 8y ago
Don't have to click through to answer that: it got them on the front page of HN.
- db48x 8y ago
  It is sad how newsworthy doing the right thing is.
  - phoobahr 8y ago
    How is this the right thing? Or the wrong thing for that matter? There are no utilities, common carriers not governmental agencies in play. This is an entirely contractual matter amongst civil parties. Everyone here is free to say what they want (so long as it’s not otherwise illegal), pursue a contractual agreement and engage (or not) the meta conversation regarding the context of the transaction. Should this go terribly wrong for one party or another (such as, say, hosting speech that is libellous, threatening or otherwise contravened by law) they can engage in that public meta discourse as well. It will certainly be spoken about without or without them. This is hardly the right thing. It isn’t the wrong thing either. It’s just a thing that, like all decisions, carries risks and responsibilities.
    - threatofrain 8y ago
      Arguably big entities which outpace the law have a noblesse oblige to exercise a lightness of authority.
sagichmal 8y ago
Free speech absolutism misses the forest for the trees. Free speech isn't the Ur-state of a just society, it's a means to an end, and the end is the reduction of suffering. When free speech reduces suffering, it's a good tool and should be applied. When free speech increases suffering -- and there can be no doubt that G*b increases suffering -- then it's inappropriate. Consequently, this is a Bad Post, and a really Bad Look, from Epik.
- s9w 8y ago
  > and there can be no doubt that G*b increases suffering It's a free speech platform - nothing else. You could make similar and even more convincing arguments against facebook, twitter, bread, sugar, smoking, etc...
  - sagichmal 8y ago
    > It's a free speech platform - nothing else. First, it's not "nothing [more than] a free speech platform", the owner himself promotes on Twitter the anti-semitic and hate-driven propaganda that defines G-b's archetypal demographic. Second, in society, at the macro scale, we judge things by their consequence, not their intent. If G-b was a "free speech platform" that only made the news when it put on a three-day symposium for the re-assessment of building height regulations in eastern seaboard urban centers (i.e. actual political positions) then nobody would have any issue with hosting them. But that's not what they are, their effect on society is not benign, and society is correct and just to judge and react to their non-benign influence. Absolute tolerance isn't a moral precept, it's a peace treaty for a functioning society. Society has both stake and authority to sequester those who subvert it, or use it in bad faith. In the same way, free speech isn't a moral absolute, it's a means to an end, a tool, useful in some (many!) circumstances, and corruptible in the same way that tolerance can be. Society has both stake and authority to squelch those who abuse it, too.
    - s9w 8y ago
      The owners personal opinions have nothing to do with this. Gab contains things which people like you don't like. Every website contains contents that other people don't like. Gab is nothing special, besides allowing a bit more of the legal spectrum of ideas. Again: Gab a free speech platform - nothing else.
0x8BADF00D 8y ago
I vouched this thread. While I realize it may be upsetting to many, it is still an important discussion to have. Freedom of speech has always been controversial - the ACLU famously defended white supremacists in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977). When you restrict freedom of speech for a group you don’t agree with, it leads to a toxic society that only tolerates viewpoints on the whims of the majority of society. This is clearly not what the Founding Fathers intended.
- wild_preference 8y ago
  The treatment of Gab is terrifying. It became an easy crux for everyone to publicly hang their disapproval on for easy moral points, and created a chain-reaction where nobody wanted to be the one left holding the bag.
  - phoobahr 8y ago
    That’s the thing though - you can be restricted by the constraints due a common carrier or you can take your lumps when you offer a haven for speech that, while free, does not come at zero cost.
  - happytoexplain 8y ago
    I find the popularity of the hatred and calls to violence based on which political party or religion you affiliate with hosted on Gab much more terrifying than the possibility that some people are falling on the "wrong" side of the question as to whether such content justifies removal from a platform that is privately managed but widely used in a public fashion. I think both problems are important and complex, but I also think the former overshadows the latter dramatically, and that informs my opinion when the two issues collide.
- automatica 8y ago
  Thanks, I noticed this post was briefly flagged and was disappointed. Why some people think we shouldn't even been discussing free speech on the Internet is baffling.
stillbourne 8y ago
You are free to say what you want. You are not free to the stage upon which you pronounce your bullshit from. If you walk into a Taco Bell and start screaming at the top of your lungs that liberals are hosting satanic child abuse rings in the basement, I fully expect the manager to kick you out and ban you. Now replace "Taco Bell" with Gab. How is that different?
- james_pm 8y ago
  Should the landlord be able to terminate the lease of the Taco Bell in the event that they don't kick people out efficiently and effectively enough? Should it be assumed that Taco Bell agrees with the statements of this person who came in screaming?
  - aptwebapps 8y ago
    Depending on the terms of the lease, yes. No, but if they say similar stuff on their own (i.e. Gab's official Twitter account, may tweets now deleted), you don't have to assume anything.
amaccuish 8y ago
Don't understand the whole "how awful it was for Godaddy to pull out". That's their choice, and Epik have decided to take Gab on, isn't that how the internet works. Freedom of association? I would however prefer that we live in a society where no one would "welcome" Gab, but we sadly we don't yet; something to work towards I guess.
sxp62000 8y ago
In real life, if somebody borrowed my megaphone and started shouting racist things, I'd have the right to snatch it away because it belongs to me. So the private companies that refused service to Gab were doing nothing wrong. Also, just noticed that Epik calls itself the "Swiss Bank of Domains", so they're staying true to their brand I guess.
- oceanplexian 8y ago
  A private website isn't a megaphone. No one is forcibly making people visit a URL and read their content (Beyond say...spam or clickbait, and in that case, sure, I can sympathize with you). But the internet is a lot more like a library than it is a crowded city street with a megaphone. You can go your entire life on the internet and not have to read an opposing political viewpoint. Especially if you read curated content from mainstream media outlets that don't allow commenting, voting, and social participation. Or simply skip the comments. It isn't that hard to avoid the "hateful" content.
  - sxp62000 8y ago
    The internet aspired to be a library, but even libraries are curated. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to say whatever they want to say, but a private company has the right to refuse service to customers who intentionally won't or are unable to meet their terms of service. This has applied to all sorts of things in the past and still does, e.g. filesharing, pornography and music streaming sites. Also, let's not kid ourselves that the stand that Epik has taken has anything to do with free speech. It's good for their business, just like it's good business for news agencies to have a view point and not remain neutral. People who run torrent and porn sites and companies who host them have used this argument for ages.
alphabettsy 8y ago
Interesting excerpt: “Although, I did not take the decision lightly to accept this domain registration, I look forward to partnering with a young, and once brash, CEO who is courageously doing something that looks useful. As I reflect on my own journey as a truth-seeking tech entrepreneur, I have no doubt that Andrew will continue to develop not only as tech entrepreneur but also as a responsible steward — one that can balance bravado with diplomacy and who tempers courage with humility.” I can understand wanting to uphold free-speech, but to pretend this CEO, Andrew, has some noble goal in mind and who’s company hasn’t been posting Anti-semetic tweets from their company account is sickening to me. It’s certainly about free-speech but let’s not pretend this guy isn’t a bigot.
sjacks 8y ago
Your comment suggests that the likes of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram be wiped off the net for their part in providing accounts to multiple rapists murderers and terrorists. Let's get rid of all social media, including this site, you know, just to be sure!

52 points by amaccuish 8y ago

onetimemanytime 8y ago

Can Epik be bullied from others above the stream?

trynewideas 8y ago

Don't have to click through to answer that: it got them on the front page of HN.

db48x 8y ago
It is sad how newsworthy doing the right thing is.
- phoobahr 8y ago
  How is this the right thing? Or the wrong thing for that matter? There are no utilities, common carriers not governmental agencies in play. This is an entirely contractual matter amongst civil parties. Everyone here is free to say what they want (so long as it’s not otherwise illegal), pursue a contractual agreement and engage (or not) the meta conversation regarding the context of the transaction. Should this go terribly wrong for one party or another (such as, say, hosting speech that is libellous, threatening or otherwise contravened by law) they can engage in that public meta discourse as well. It will certainly be spoken about without or without them. This is hardly the right thing. It isn’t the wrong thing either. It’s just a thing that, like all decisions, carries risks and responsibilities.
  - threatofrain 8y ago
    Arguably big entities which outpace the law have a noblesse oblige to exercise a lightness of authority.

sagichmal 8y ago

Free speech absolutism misses the forest for the trees. Free speech isn't the Ur-state of a just society, it's a means to an end, and the end is the reduction of suffering. When free speech reduces suffering, it's a good tool and should be applied. When free speech increases suffering -- and there can be no doubt that G*b increases suffering -- then it's inappropriate. Consequently, this is a Bad Post, and a really Bad Look, from Epik.

s9w 8y ago
> and there can be no doubt that G*b increases suffering It's a free speech platform - nothing else. You could make similar and even more convincing arguments against facebook, twitter, bread, sugar, smoking, etc...
- sagichmal 8y ago
  > It's a free speech platform - nothing else. First, it's not "nothing [more than] a free speech platform", the owner himself promotes on Twitter the anti-semitic and hate-driven propaganda that defines G-b's archetypal demographic. Second, in society, at the macro scale, we judge things by their consequence, not their intent. If G-b was a "free speech platform" that only made the news when it put on a three-day symposium for the re-assessment of building height regulations in eastern seaboard urban centers (i.e. actual political positions) then nobody would have any issue with hosting them. But that's not what they are, their effect on society is not benign, and society is correct and just to judge and react to their non-benign influence. Absolute tolerance isn't a moral precept, it's a peace treaty for a functioning society. Society has both stake and authority to sequester those who subvert it, or use it in bad faith. In the same way, free speech isn't a moral absolute, it's a means to an end, a tool, useful in some (many!) circumstances, and corruptible in the same way that tolerance can be. Society has both stake and authority to squelch those who abuse it, too.
  - s9w 8y ago
    The owners personal opinions have nothing to do with this. Gab contains things which people like you don't like. Every website contains contents that other people don't like. Gab is nothing special, besides allowing a bit more of the legal spectrum of ideas. Again: Gab a free speech platform - nothing else.

0x8BADF00D 8y ago

I vouched this thread. While I realize it may be upsetting to many, it is still an important discussion to have. Freedom of speech has always been controversial - the ACLU famously defended white supremacists in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977). When you restrict freedom of speech for a group you don’t agree with, it leads to a toxic society that only tolerates viewpoints on the whims of the majority of society. This is clearly not what the Founding Fathers intended.

wild_preference 8y ago
The treatment of Gab is terrifying. It became an easy crux for everyone to publicly hang their disapproval on for easy moral points, and created a chain-reaction where nobody wanted to be the one left holding the bag.
- phoobahr 8y ago
  That’s the thing though - you can be restricted by the constraints due a common carrier or you can take your lumps when you offer a haven for speech that, while free, does not come at zero cost.
- happytoexplain 8y ago
  I find the popularity of the hatred and calls to violence based on which political party or religion you affiliate with hosted on Gab much more terrifying than the possibility that some people are falling on the "wrong" side of the question as to whether such content justifies removal from a platform that is privately managed but widely used in a public fashion. I think both problems are important and complex, but I also think the former overshadows the latter dramatically, and that informs my opinion when the two issues collide.
automatica 8y ago
Thanks, I noticed this post was briefly flagged and was disappointed. Why some people think we shouldn't even been discussing free speech on the Internet is baffling.

stillbourne 8y ago

You are free to say what you want. You are not free to the stage upon which you pronounce your bullshit from. If you walk into a Taco Bell and start screaming at the top of your lungs that liberals are hosting satanic child abuse rings in the basement, I fully expect the manager to kick you out and ban you. Now replace "Taco Bell" with Gab. How is that different?

james_pm 8y ago
Should the landlord be able to terminate the lease of the Taco Bell in the event that they don't kick people out efficiently and effectively enough? Should it be assumed that Taco Bell agrees with the statements of this person who came in screaming?
- aptwebapps 8y ago
  Depending on the terms of the lease, yes. No, but if they say similar stuff on their own (i.e. Gab's official Twitter account, may tweets now deleted), you don't have to assume anything.

amaccuish 8y ago

Don't understand the whole "how awful it was for Godaddy to pull out". That's their choice, and Epik have decided to take Gab on, isn't that how the internet works. Freedom of association? I would however prefer that we live in a society where no one would "welcome" Gab, but we sadly we don't yet; something to work towards I guess.

sxp62000 8y ago

In real life, if somebody borrowed my megaphone and started shouting racist things, I'd have the right to snatch it away because it belongs to me. So the private companies that refused service to Gab were doing nothing wrong. Also, just noticed that Epik calls itself the "Swiss Bank of Domains", so they're staying true to their brand I guess.

oceanplexian 8y ago
A private website isn't a megaphone. No one is forcibly making people visit a URL and read their content (Beyond say...spam or clickbait, and in that case, sure, I can sympathize with you). But the internet is a lot more like a library than it is a crowded city street with a megaphone. You can go your entire life on the internet and not have to read an opposing political viewpoint. Especially if you read curated content from mainstream media outlets that don't allow commenting, voting, and social participation. Or simply skip the comments. It isn't that hard to avoid the "hateful" content.
- sxp62000 8y ago
  The internet aspired to be a library, but even libraries are curated. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to say whatever they want to say, but a private company has the right to refuse service to customers who intentionally won't or are unable to meet their terms of service. This has applied to all sorts of things in the past and still does, e.g. filesharing, pornography and music streaming sites. Also, let's not kid ourselves that the stand that Epik has taken has anything to do with free speech. It's good for their business, just like it's good business for news agencies to have a view point and not remain neutral. People who run torrent and porn sites and companies who host them have used this argument for ages.

alphabettsy 8y ago

Interesting excerpt: “Although, I did not take the decision lightly to accept this domain registration, I look forward to partnering with a young, and once brash, CEO who is courageously doing something that looks useful. As I reflect on my own journey as a truth-seeking tech entrepreneur, I have no doubt that Andrew will continue to develop not only as tech entrepreneur but also as a responsible steward — one that can balance bravado with diplomacy and who tempers courage with humility.” I can understand wanting to uphold free-speech, but to pretend this CEO, Andrew, has some noble goal in mind and who’s company hasn’t been posting Anti-semetic tweets from their company account is sickening to me. It’s certainly about free-speech but let’s not pretend this guy isn’t a bigot.

sjacks 8y ago

Your comment suggests that the likes of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram be wiped off the net for their part in providing accounts to multiple rapists murderers and terrorists. Let's get rid of all social media, including this site, you know, just to be sure!