4 ms·

We have written to Google, Microsoft, and other companies in the Valley to advise them that their shortsighted boycott – one motivated by partisan political con

We have written to Google, Microsoft, and other companies in the Valley to advise them that their shortsighted boycott – one motivated by partisan political considerations and pressure campaigns – has had the side effect of denying us access to technologies we need such as PhotoDNA. This is a problem. If you don't like gab, fine, but any social network running at scale is going to need assistance in keeping child sexual abuse material away. When your partisan poo-flinging contributes to the victimization of children, it's time to step back and reassess.

kitotik 6y ago
Well played. The “think of the children” trick is almost always effective and difficult to counter.
- Karunamon 6y ago
  This is no "play". I hadn't known until now that SV's ideologically-motivated hatred of alternative social networks had kept Gab from having decent CSA mitigation tech (I thought this was something you could get under more-or-less FRAND or as-needed terms), but apparently you need their blessing to do so. Forget partisan politics for a moment. How is that not anticompetitive?
John23832 6y ago
If Gab doesn’t have the resources to operate responsibly, and also cannot garner the support needed to do so, then it’s arguable that Gab shouldn’t exist.
- iagovar 6y ago
  Ok, lets put our entire communications into the hands of a handful of corporations. What could go wrong.
  - John23832 6y ago
    That’s not what I said at all. It’s just gabs responsibility to maintain their standards on their own.
    - iagovar 6y ago
      But it's the implication, because you can say the same about every big corp competitor, and even about big corps depending on when you draw the boundaries.
      - John23832 6y ago
        It’s not the implication at all. If you believe in startups growing into large businesses (which we have numerous examples of in tech), then that implication is obviously untrue.
        throwaway894345 6y ago
        I believe the parent is (somewhat inartfully) talking about presently established players (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc) growing into large businesses and then greasing the pole behind them by lobbying for legislation that they can relatively easy afford, but which would be a prohibitive expense for upstarts.
        salawat 6y ago
        It's called pulling up the ladder behind you, and every social media platform started as a comms hub fro sexual exploitation of children and human trafficking as soon as people figured out how to use it. Yet when you kick in regulatory measures that everyone else implements as a pre-req of doing business, then you, as the governing body, must accept responsibility when a particular private actor is being threatened with existential compliance failures because tge licensor of your reference impl doesn't like the color of said private actor's business philosophy. Private actors are extensions of government, and in large part proportional to the degree of centralization within a vertical. It's about time more people started taking this into account.
- claytongulick 6y ago
  Under this theory, none of the current social media giants could have ever existed. They all started out small and mostly unmoderated.
  - John23832 6y ago
    They abided by the rules at the time and they either had help, or did it on their own.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      Or the rules were introduced, augmented, or enforced after they became established ("greasing the pole").
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > cannot garner the support needed to do so, It strikes me as imprudent to make one company or even a cabal of companies the gatekeepers to an entire industry. Seems like it would rightly fall afoul of antitrust law.
  - John23832 6y ago
    There are rules making bodies in any industry.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      If the law requires cooperation with those regulatory bodies (which is to say that the law is deputizing this regulatory body, implicitly or explicitly), then I don't see how those bodies can legally blackball other players. At least, one would hope that a deputy of the government is bound by the same rules which constrain the government itself, or else it's trivial for the government to circumvent any of its constraints (e.g., if the majority party wants the IRS to penalize the minority party, simply deputize some organization affiliated with the majority party, require that businesses obtain the cooperation of that deputy org, and then have that deputy organization blackball businesses affiliated with minority party members).
      - John23832 6y ago
        Gab isn’t being blackballed. Gab isn’t restricted from doing business. It’s just forced to do it’s business on its own because it’s not seen as a good citizen. “We could better regulate our site if you gave us better tools to do so” isn’t valid. If they “care about the kids”, the cost for outside help with that is clear, also deal with the far-right/extremist elements on your platform as well. Gab doesn’t want to do that, so the other players are distancing themselves. This mean that the quality of their content moderation when it comes to child pornography is their responsibility. “I’ll do what I want and you must enable me” isn’t a valid argument.
        throwaway894345 6y ago
whatsmyusername 6y ago
They are welcome to build their own system, or find an ideological peer that built a system to partner with. Why should I, as a business owner, be required to do business with those I find repugnant?
linuxftw 6y ago
Section 230 makes them not liable. So, not really.

kitotik 6y ago

Well played. The “think of the children” trick is almost always effective and difficult to counter.

Karunamon 6y ago
This is no "play". I hadn't known until now that SV's ideologically-motivated hatred of alternative social networks had kept Gab from having decent CSA mitigation tech (I thought this was something you could get under more-or-less FRAND or as-needed terms), but apparently you need their blessing to do so. Forget partisan politics for a moment. How is that not anticompetitive?

John23832 6y ago

If Gab doesn’t have the resources to operate responsibly, and also cannot garner the support needed to do so, then it’s arguable that Gab shouldn’t exist.

iagovar 6y ago
Ok, lets put our entire communications into the hands of a handful of corporations. What could go wrong.
- John23832 6y ago
  That’s not what I said at all. It’s just gabs responsibility to maintain their standards on their own.
  - iagovar 6y ago
    But it's the implication, because you can say the same about every big corp competitor, and even about big corps depending on when you draw the boundaries.
    - John23832 6y ago
      It’s not the implication at all. If you believe in startups growing into large businesses (which we have numerous examples of in tech), then that implication is obviously untrue.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        I believe the parent is (somewhat inartfully) talking about presently established players (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc) growing into large businesses and then greasing the pole behind them by lobbying for legislation that they can relatively easy afford, but which would be a prohibitive expense for upstarts.
      - salawat 6y ago
        It's called pulling up the ladder behind you, and every social media platform started as a comms hub fro sexual exploitation of children and human trafficking as soon as people figured out how to use it. Yet when you kick in regulatory measures that everyone else implements as a pre-req of doing business, then you, as the governing body, must accept responsibility when a particular private actor is being threatened with existential compliance failures because tge licensor of your reference impl doesn't like the color of said private actor's business philosophy. Private actors are extensions of government, and in large part proportional to the degree of centralization within a vertical. It's about time more people started taking this into account.
claytongulick 6y ago
Under this theory, none of the current social media giants could have ever existed. They all started out small and mostly unmoderated.
- John23832 6y ago
  They abided by the rules at the time and they either had help, or did it on their own.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Or the rules were introduced, augmented, or enforced after they became established ("greasing the pole").
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throwaway894345 6y ago
> cannot garner the support needed to do so, It strikes me as imprudent to make one company or even a cabal of companies the gatekeepers to an entire industry. Seems like it would rightly fall afoul of antitrust law.
- John23832 6y ago
  There are rules making bodies in any industry.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    If the law requires cooperation with those regulatory bodies (which is to say that the law is deputizing this regulatory body, implicitly or explicitly), then I don't see how those bodies can legally blackball other players. At least, one would hope that a deputy of the government is bound by the same rules which constrain the government itself, or else it's trivial for the government to circumvent any of its constraints (e.g., if the majority party wants the IRS to penalize the minority party, simply deputize some organization affiliated with the majority party, require that businesses obtain the cooperation of that deputy org, and then have that deputy organization blackball businesses affiliated with minority party members).
    - John23832 6y ago
      Gab isn’t being blackballed. Gab isn’t restricted from doing business. It’s just forced to do it’s business on its own because it’s not seen as a good citizen. “We could better regulate our site if you gave us better tools to do so” isn’t valid. If they “care about the kids”, the cost for outside help with that is clear, also deal with the far-right/extremist elements on your platform as well. Gab doesn’t want to do that, so the other players are distancing themselves. This mean that the quality of their content moderation when it comes to child pornography is their responsibility. “I’ll do what I want and you must enable me” isn’t a valid argument.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago

whatsmyusername 6y ago

They are welcome to build their own system, or find an ideological peer that built a system to partner with. Why should I, as a business owner, be required to do business with those I find repugnant?

linuxftw 6y ago

Section 230 makes them not liable. So, not really.