5 ms·

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

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.
- pvg 8y ago
  It's not at all baffling when you realize it's really just a bunch of complaining about how tough it is to be in the bigot business (non-bigot businesses don't want to do business with your bigot business!) with free-speech lipstick applied. Sure, the bigot business is probably a tough business to be in. There are a lot of other tough businesses that are far more interesting to talk about.
tptacek 8y ago
The ACLU defended the Nazis in Skokie because they were denied permission to march on public streets. They were right to do so. But, contrary to a widely-held belief on HN, "popular" private property in the US is not generally required to be available for protest, let alone for someone to set up their own shop peddling their messages. Gab's complaint isn't that they're being "denied a platform" --- though that's one of several falsehoods they're surely like you to believe. It's that they're being denied access to the most convenient and cost-effective platforms. Essentially, they're demanding FRAND access to cloud providers for white supremacist Twitter. And FRAND isn't the default anywhere in commerce, let alone for white supremacists. Someone was always going to take Gab's money. Even Stormfront, which is simply Gab without the pretend rules about harassment, is still up and running. As well, it was always going to come out which providers are willing to take Gab's money, and we'll see what impact that has on them in the market, when other people exercise their freedom of speech and association and refuse to do business with those providers.

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.

pvg 8y ago
It's not at all baffling when you realize it's really just a bunch of complaining about how tough it is to be in the bigot business (non-bigot businesses don't want to do business with your bigot business!) with free-speech lipstick applied. Sure, the bigot business is probably a tough business to be in. There are a lot of other tough businesses that are far more interesting to talk about.

tptacek 8y ago

The ACLU defended the Nazis in Skokie because they were denied permission to march on public streets. They were right to do so. But, contrary to a widely-held belief on HN, "popular" private property in the US is not generally required to be available for protest, let alone for someone to set up their own shop peddling their messages. Gab's complaint isn't that they're being "denied a platform" --- though that's one of several falsehoods they're surely like you to believe. It's that they're being denied access to the most convenient and cost-effective platforms. Essentially, they're demanding FRAND access to cloud providers for white supremacist Twitter. And FRAND isn't the default anywhere in commerce, let alone for white supremacists. Someone was always going to take Gab's money. Even Stormfront, which is simply Gab without the pretend rules about harassment, is still up and running. As well, it was always going to come out which providers are willing to take Gab's money, and we'll see what impact that has on them in the market, when other people exercise their freedom of speech and association and refuse to do business with those providers.