5 ms·

Squarespace has “completely and arbitrarily shut down our website”

11 points by eternalban 6y ago

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I'm concerned about HN signal boosting random Twitter threads. This is on the front page, but do we have any idea who this person is or whether they're a reliable source?
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  From my skimming of the Twitter account linked, it’s something related to hydrochloroquine. I can’t speak to the effectiveness or lack thereof of this compound for treatment of anything, but I have seen a lot of sites crack down on anything pro-HCQ, which may be justified if it is a vector for coordinated behavior otherwise forbidden by TOS.
- eternalban 6y ago
  The information you need is one click away: https://twitter.com/drsimonegold https://twitter.com/drsimonegold What I am concerned about is the systemic effort to silence dissenting views. It is entirely possible that the dissenting views are incorrect. This civilization used to pride itself on informed debate, so here is a shout out to the dispossesed children of the Enlightenment: freedom of information and debate is central to our way of life. It must be preserved and it can not under any circumstances become subject to the dictates of the few.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Her profile informs me that she is a "doctor-lawyer-writer-mom", and runs a site called "The Gold Opinion" where facts lead and opinions follow. This doesn't really help me evaluate whether she's a reliable source.
    - eternalban 6y ago
      Does it? This is 'pinned': Quote: Thank you all so much for your support! The new website is up! All of the videos are coming soon, but for now you can find the white paper on #HCQ and the compendium of #HCQ studies. Please consider donating. http://americasfrontlinedoctorsummit.com http://americasfrontlinedoctorsummit.com end Quote.
- Alupis 6y ago
  Does it matter? Knowing Square will shutdown your website/business based off the political opinion of some Square employees is flooring. It makes Square an unacceptable risk for any business.
  - Hnrobert42 6y ago
    These are not political opinions. Spreading discredited information during a pandemic is like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Advocating the use of a medication shown by numerous studies not to work against CoVID-19 is not an unpopular opinion. It is factually incorrect and wantonly dangerous.
    - throwawaysea 6y ago
      There are numerous conflicting studies and opinions on HCQ. A major study that claimed HCQ harmed patients was ultimately retracted (https://reason.com/2020/06/04/the-lancets-hydroxychloroquine-study-is-retracted-by-its-authors/ https://reason.com/2020/06/04/the-lancets-hydroxychloroquine...). CNN ran an article on one of the pro HCQ studies not too long ago (https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/health/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-detroit-study/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/health/hydroxychloroquine-cor...). Their tweet about this study is still up and has no Twitter imposed warnings or censorship (https://mobile.twitter.com/cnn/status/1278964201789194240 https://mobile.twitter.com/cnn/status/1278964201789194240). My point is - when something like HCQ’s effectiveness/safety is undecided, why aren’t people allowed to talk about it? Why aren’t doctors allowed to share their experiences with it? And when do things ever get fully decided to the point that they cannot be challenged at all? And why does censorship apply to some but not all sources?
      - ghthor 6y ago
        We think the censorship of the HCQ treating covid is because the government needs to stockpile HCQ because it's good for treating radiation damage to DNA. Damage that could be caused by cell towers and other radio frequencies. We found a patent[1] for this. The truth of the matter is being hidden from us in a huge psyop. [1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050014785A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050014785A1/en
- encom 6y ago
  Reliable source for what? You can easily verify yourself that www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com has been taken down. And the archive.org captures from the live site references the twitter account in OP. https://web.archive.org/web/20200727231840/https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200727231840/https://www.ameri...
  - aspenmayer 6y ago
    Are they a reliable source for the content posted on their site, is how I read their query.
    - encom 6y ago
      Well, I guess that's for Squarespace to decide.
      - aspenmayer 6y ago
        In this case, they have the first say which is enforceable. A legal case, if brought and substantiated, could have a further decision, which may supersede any prior decision. For your sake, what do you think should happen?
        encom 6y ago
        I think nothing should happen. The information does not violate any laws. Maybe it's utter bollocks, maybe it's not, but I'm tired of american tech companies trying to protect me from "harmful" opinions and information.
        aspenmayer 6y ago
        I guess I just see those “‘harmful’ opinions and information” as the tip of the iceberg. There’s a whole invisible economy around these sites and info. Follow the money.
scalableUnicon 6y ago
Do they loss access to their domain name as well if their TOS is violated? From their website it seems like they offer first year domain registration for free, tied to their account. It seems to fragile if the domain name goes with the suspended account.
throwawaysea 6y ago
These platforms hold way too much power in deciding which speech is allowed and disallowed. There have been many times where trusted public agencies provided incorrect guidance on COVID - why should they enjoy a monopoly on speech and trust on these topics? We need dissenting voices and speculation to be heard, because they are part of the societal journey to ascertain the truth. I’m also concerned that these actions are typically not motivated by a sacred duty to “public safety” but rather politics. Why should anyone trust squarespace if their employees’ politics can affect your business on a whim?
- nient 6y ago
  Hearing the opposing view, doesn't mean we should pay any attention to flat-earthers and conspiracy theorists. We are not going to reach the truth that way.
  - eternalban 6y ago
    No one is forcing you to read their content. If their content is illegal, take them to court. That is why we have a Legal System. The issue here is a company censoring speech. That is the actual issue.
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    Why not? Flat earthers haven’t had much impact as far as public opinion. And HCQ isn’t a conspiracy theory unless you label all new data or speculation or difference of opinion as a conspiracy theory. We have to be careful when we use these labels. For example when the WHO said masks weren’t helpful, was that a conspiracy theory? Were the people nevertheless pushing masks also conspiracy theorists? There are also many experts that support hearing the opposing view by the way. For example, Yale’s public health Dean just came out in support of the right to argue that HCQ could save lives (https://www.thecollegefix.com/yales-dean-of-public-health-defends-right-to-argue-hydroxychloroquine-could-save-lives/ https://www.thecollegefix.com/yales-dean-of-public-health-de...). This statement was made because one of the public health professors at Yale believes HCQ could save lives, and the Dean felt it is important to defend academic freedom and free inquiry. We need that to challenge what might otherwise be incorrect prevailing sentiments on how best to treat COVID. It may be a dead end ultimately, but I am not for shutting down all discussion around it.
hprotagonist 6y ago
because they're crazy people. moving on...
jbob2000 6y ago
These are the people that appeared in that strange "demon semen" video. Don't give them any airtime.

11 points by eternalban 6y ago

I'm concerned about HN signal boosting random Twitter threads. This is on the front page, but do we have any idea who this person is or whether they're a reliable source?

aspenmayer 6y ago
From my skimming of the Twitter account linked, it’s something related to hydrochloroquine. I can’t speak to the effectiveness or lack thereof of this compound for treatment of anything, but I have seen a lot of sites crack down on anything pro-HCQ, which may be justified if it is a vector for coordinated behavior otherwise forbidden by TOS.
eternalban 6y ago
The information you need is one click away: https://twitter.com/drsimonegold https://twitter.com/drsimonegold What I am concerned about is the systemic effort to silence dissenting views. It is entirely possible that the dissenting views are incorrect. This civilization used to pride itself on informed debate, so here is a shout out to the dispossesed children of the Enlightenment: freedom of information and debate is central to our way of life. It must be preserved and it can not under any circumstances become subject to the dictates of the few.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Her profile informs me that she is a "doctor-lawyer-writer-mom", and runs a site called "The Gold Opinion" where facts lead and opinions follow. This doesn't really help me evaluate whether she's a reliable source.
  - eternalban 6y ago
    Does it? This is 'pinned': Quote: Thank you all so much for your support! The new website is up! All of the videos are coming soon, but for now you can find the white paper on #HCQ and the compendium of #HCQ studies. Please consider donating. http://americasfrontlinedoctorsummit.com http://americasfrontlinedoctorsummit.com end Quote.
Alupis 6y ago
Does it matter? Knowing Square will shutdown your website/business based off the political opinion of some Square employees is flooring. It makes Square an unacceptable risk for any business.
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  These are not political opinions. Spreading discredited information during a pandemic is like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Advocating the use of a medication shown by numerous studies not to work against CoVID-19 is not an unpopular opinion. It is factually incorrect and wantonly dangerous.
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    There are numerous conflicting studies and opinions on HCQ. A major study that claimed HCQ harmed patients was ultimately retracted (https://reason.com/2020/06/04/the-lancets-hydroxychloroquine-study-is-retracted-by-its-authors/ https://reason.com/2020/06/04/the-lancets-hydroxychloroquine...). CNN ran an article on one of the pro HCQ studies not too long ago (https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/health/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-detroit-study/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/health/hydroxychloroquine-cor...). Their tweet about this study is still up and has no Twitter imposed warnings or censorship (https://mobile.twitter.com/cnn/status/1278964201789194240 https://mobile.twitter.com/cnn/status/1278964201789194240). My point is - when something like HCQ’s effectiveness/safety is undecided, why aren’t people allowed to talk about it? Why aren’t doctors allowed to share their experiences with it? And when do things ever get fully decided to the point that they cannot be challenged at all? And why does censorship apply to some but not all sources?
    - ghthor 6y ago
      We think the censorship of the HCQ treating covid is because the government needs to stockpile HCQ because it's good for treating radiation damage to DNA. Damage that could be caused by cell towers and other radio frequencies. We found a patent[1] for this. The truth of the matter is being hidden from us in a huge psyop. [1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050014785A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050014785A1/en
encom 6y ago
Reliable source for what? You can easily verify yourself that www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com has been taken down. And the archive.org captures from the live site references the twitter account in OP. https://web.archive.org/web/20200727231840/https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200727231840/https://www.ameri...
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  Are they a reliable source for the content posted on their site, is how I read their query.
  - encom 6y ago
    Well, I guess that's for Squarespace to decide.
    - aspenmayer 6y ago
      In this case, they have the first say which is enforceable. A legal case, if brought and substantiated, could have a further decision, which may supersede any prior decision. For your sake, what do you think should happen?
      - encom 6y ago
        I think nothing should happen. The information does not violate any laws. Maybe it's utter bollocks, maybe it's not, but I'm tired of american tech companies trying to protect me from "harmful" opinions and information.
        aspenmayer 6y ago
        I guess I just see those “‘harmful’ opinions and information” as the tip of the iceberg. There’s a whole invisible economy around these sites and info. Follow the money.

scalableUnicon 6y ago

Do they loss access to their domain name as well if their TOS is violated? From their website it seems like they offer first year domain registration for free, tied to their account. It seems to fragile if the domain name goes with the suspended account.

throwawaysea 6y ago

These platforms hold way too much power in deciding which speech is allowed and disallowed. There have been many times where trusted public agencies provided incorrect guidance on COVID - why should they enjoy a monopoly on speech and trust on these topics? We need dissenting voices and speculation to be heard, because they are part of the societal journey to ascertain the truth. I’m also concerned that these actions are typically not motivated by a sacred duty to “public safety” but rather politics. Why should anyone trust squarespace if their employees’ politics can affect your business on a whim?

nient 6y ago
Hearing the opposing view, doesn't mean we should pay any attention to flat-earthers and conspiracy theorists. We are not going to reach the truth that way.
- eternalban 6y ago
  No one is forcing you to read their content. If their content is illegal, take them to court. That is why we have a Legal System. The issue here is a company censoring speech. That is the actual issue.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  Why not? Flat earthers haven’t had much impact as far as public opinion. And HCQ isn’t a conspiracy theory unless you label all new data or speculation or difference of opinion as a conspiracy theory. We have to be careful when we use these labels. For example when the WHO said masks weren’t helpful, was that a conspiracy theory? Were the people nevertheless pushing masks also conspiracy theorists? There are also many experts that support hearing the opposing view by the way. For example, Yale’s public health Dean just came out in support of the right to argue that HCQ could save lives (https://www.thecollegefix.com/yales-dean-of-public-health-defends-right-to-argue-hydroxychloroquine-could-save-lives/ https://www.thecollegefix.com/yales-dean-of-public-health-de...). This statement was made because one of the public health professors at Yale believes HCQ could save lives, and the Dean felt it is important to defend academic freedom and free inquiry. We need that to challenge what might otherwise be incorrect prevailing sentiments on how best to treat COVID. It may be a dead end ultimately, but I am not for shutting down all discussion around it.

hprotagonist 6y ago

because they're crazy people. moving on...

jbob2000 6y ago

These are the people that appeared in that strange "demon semen" video. Don't give them any airtime.