If you read my original comment you'll see I am not actually calling for censorship. I am calling for any developers responsible for providing Gab with technical assistance to re-evaluate what they are doing with their skills. It's a matter of professional ethics and it matters quite a bit to me. If they are helping Gab in any capacity they either agree with the content on it, or are taking a cynical payday. Either way its repulsive and it needs to be called out.
While we are on the subject of censorship: yes people with vile viewpoints exist. Yes they have a right to express those viewpoints. NO a platform does not have to help them spread said viewpoints. I would like to remind you that Gab is a _business_, not a government. They are under no obligation to honor the 1st amendment. It's no different than places like Hacker News which heavily moderates its content. Codes of conduct exist for a reason and it is to protect the vulnerable. If you don't feel that deeply in your bones it's likely because you aren't a member of a demographic that is under threat.
Gab, by its very existence and prominence legitimizes racism, nazism, sexism, violence, etc. It creates a community and a sense of moral righteousness around it. People are _dying_ and the country is on the brink of chaos. We can't ignore this threat any longer. Gab _can_ in fact moderate hate speech on their platform. They just don't either because they believe it or because it's profitable. Either way I hope their business dies and they go broke because what they are doing is wrong.
> If you read my original comment you'll see I am not actually calling for censorship. I am calling for any developers responsible for providing Gab with technical assistance to re-evaluate what they are doing with their skills. It's a matter of professional ethics and it matters quite a bit to me. If they are helping Gab in any capacity they either agree with the content on it, or are taking a cynical payday. Either way its repulsive and it needs to be called out.
You ARE calling for censorship. It's no less censorship just because it's developers doing the censorship instead of governments.
> While we are on the subject of censorship: yes people with vile viewpoints exist. Yes they have a right to express those viewpoints. NO a platform does not have to help them spread said viewpoints. I would like to remind you that Gab is a _business_, not a government. They are under no obligation to honor the 1st amendment.
The thing about unalienable human rights is that they are UNALIENABLE. The right to free speech doesn't simply go away when you put a business in charge.
I agree that the first amendment doesn't apply to businesses, and this is one of the largest reasons that we should be concerned about the increasing control that businesses have over the most influential of our communications platforms. This how free speech dies--all mainstream communications are moved onto corporate platforms where free speech isn't protected, and then opponents of free speech call for censoring views they disagree with.
You seem to be under the misconception that free speech is only important because of the first amendment, but the opposite is true. The first amendment is only important because it protects free speech, which is what really matters.
> It's no different than places like Hacker News which heavily moderates its content.
It's different because Hacker News purports to be a forum for specific topics, rather than a general communications platform like Gab or Twitter.
> Codes of conduct exist for a reason and it is to protect the vulnerable. If you don't feel that deeply in your bones it's likely because you aren't a member of a demographic that is under threat.
And here we get to the crux of what you completely ignored in my previous post: the censorship you're demanding DOESN'T PROTECT THE VULNERABLE. It just doesn't work. The people who hold racist, nazi, sexist, violent, etc. viewpoints don't simply disappear because you censor them. They still exist, and censoring them merely drives them together, into more unified communities, since they can't talk to anyone else. We lose the opportunity to talk to them, and change their minds. The censorship you're demanding is not the solution to to the division in our culture, it's the CAUSE of the division in our culture.
When you call for censorship, you're opening Pandora's box. Maybe today you can successfully censor Nazis, but only a few short decades ago, Nazis were in power and censoring other people. Censorship doesn't benefit the right ideas, it benefits the ideas that are in power, and the ideas that are in power aren't always right. Before you throw away free speech and call for censorship, consider that free speech allows YOU to say what YOU'RE saying, and in the future it may be YOUR ideas that are censored.
No I'm not. No amount of caps lock changes that and the entire rest of your argument rests on this point [0].
People have a right to say what they want its true. I am simply saying we have no obligation to make their message easier to find. Nor do we have any obligation to connect people of like mind. In this specific case I am calling out those developers responsible for helping Gab and telling them I think they are morally repugnant. My stance in the original comment was that of professional ethics. If you help platforms like Gab stay online, I think you should be ashamed.
> And here we get to the crux of what you completely ignored in my previous post: the censorship you're demanding DOESN'T PROTECT THE VULNERABLE.
I didn't ignore your argument. I disagree with it because you are trying to assert a position that I am not taking. De-platforming does work. It's not about preventing someone from saying something. It's about adding friction to their ability to spread that message. Vulnerable communities ask for it all the time. People can say whatever they want it's true but the world is not obligated to amplify that message.
While we are at it, what about disinformation campaigns from hostile foreign governments? Anti-vaxxers? Climate change deniers? Bots? Trolls? Does all that get to continue unabated? Hows that working out?
We are living in an unprecedented time where objective truth is no longer collectively agreed upon and fringe viewpoints have made their way to the mainstream. I will happily admit that I don't have all the answers but I can tell you that the status quo is not working and we need to start thinking out of the box.
I stand by what I said: you ARE ignoring my core points. If you want to prove otherwise, please provide answers to these simple questions:
1. What do you think happens to racists when they are no longer allowed to talk? Do they suddenly become not racist? Disappear in a puff of smoke?
2. How do you propose we change racists minds if not by talking to them?
3. Do you think corporate platforms will always only make progressive ideas easier to find? Or are you open to the possibility that if we allow companies to pick and choose what speech they make easier to find, they may choose ideas you disagree with to make easier to find?
> People have a right to say what they want its true. I am simply saying we have no obligation to make their message easier to find.
You're saying people have a right to say what they want, but then you're proposing that Gab not make it easier to find certain messages by not allowing people who say that message to say what they want. So which is it: do people have a right to say what they want, or not?
You just want to say you're pro free speech and anti-censorship, so you're saying "make their message easier to find" instead of "allow them free speech on your platform", but they're the exact same thing. A rose by another name would smell as sweet.
Keep in mind, platforms like Reddit/Twitter/Facebook originally sold themselves as communications platforms. I doubt even you would be okay with telephone companies refusing to connect calls between people they don't like--why is it okay for a newer communications platform to refuse service to people they don't like?
> De-platforming does work.
No, it absolutely does not. When Reddit censored bigots, they just went to Voat, and now they have a community where if they say something reprehensible, nobody downvotes them or counterargues. We've just put them in an echo chamber where they can organize and communicate unchallenged, without hearing any reasonable viewpoints.
Even if every single open-minded person on the planet refused to allow racists to post on their websites, racists would just create their own websites. Do you really think there are no racists or terrorists or anti-vaxxers who are capable of writing a Twitter/Gab clone?
> While we are at it, what about disinformation campaigns from hostile foreign governments? Anti-vaxxers? Climate change deniers? Bots? Trolls? Does all that get to continue unabated? Hows that working out?
> We are living in an unprecedented time where objective truth is no longer collectively agreed upon and fringe viewpoints have made their way to the mainstream.
Objective truth has NEVER been collectively agreed upon. All the objectionable groups you mention existed before the internet. Crazies have ALWAYS existed.
What's different now is that with increased communication, mixing of communities, and the loss of social inhibitions caused by the anonymity and impersonality of the internet, sane people are suddenly confronted with the craziness that has always existed.
And yes, crazy people are able to communicate with each other in unprecedented ways. But that cat's out of the bag--unless you're proposing that we shut down the entire internet, they're going to be able to communicate, whether it be on Twitter or Mastadon or Gab or some equivalent platform created for racists by racists.
But the flipside is that SANE people are able to communicate with crazies in unprecedented ways. Where previously a racist could live their entire life only talking to their racist family and neighbors, now a person of color from the other side of the world away can call them out when they post something racist on Twitter, and tell them that what they are saying isn't true.
If we push the crazies off mainstream platforms, that doesn't solve the problem--they just go on being crazies. But if we allow them to communicate on mainstream platforms, we get to explain to them why their crazy beliefs are wrong. Over and over again, publicly, so that anyone who comes across bigoted or hateful or otherwise harmful ideas also comes across the truth. It's much more difficult than sweeping racists under the carpet and pretending they don't exist, but it actually stands a chance of changing racists into open-minded people.
> I will happily admit that I don't have all the answers but I can tell you that the status quo is not working and we need to start thinking out of the box.
Let's look at what the status quo is:
Reddit: "You agree not to use any obscene, indecent, or offensive language or to provide to or post on or through the Website any graphics, text, photographs, images, video, audio or other material that is defamatory, abusive, bullying, harassing, racist, hateful, or violent. You agree to refrain from ethnic slurs, religious intolerance, homophobia, and personal attacks when using the Website."
Twitter: "Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease."
Facebook: "We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation."
The status quo is already doing exactly what you want, and it's not working. So yes, I agree the status quo is not working.
1. Of course not. I am not an idiot. Fringe viewpoints belong on the fringes. It's why they are called that.
2. You don't and can't. It's been shown that when they do change their minds it's often through indirect means.
3. A company has a right to do whatever it wants within the confines of the law. I am saying they should make better choices and shame on the ones that don't.
This argument has gotten circular and pointless. The tone of your responses has gotten frankly combative and rude and your counter argument is based upon a false premise. I've clarified my original intent as much as I care to. If this is how you engage with those that you disagree with I would encourage you to find a better approach. I am out of this conversation.
I capitalized two words in my entire post, for emphasis to make the meaning clearer. I'm not sure what your objection to this is.
> 1. Of course not. I am not an idiot. Fringe viewpoints belong on the fringes. It's why they are called that.
Okay, so that's a straightforward admission that you're demanding companies do something that doesn't create the change you're looking for.
> 2. You don't and can't. It's been shown that when they do change their minds it's often through indirect means.
I think it's been shown that it's difficult, not that it's impossible.
> 3. A company has a right to do whatever it wants within the confines of the law. I am saying they should make better choices and shame on the ones that don't.
Okay, but I'm saying that the choices you're shaming them for are the better choices.
> This argument has gotten circular and pointless. The tone of your responses has gotten frankly combative and rude and your counter argument is based upon a false premise. I've clarified my original intent as much as I care to. If this is how you engage with those that you disagree with I would encourage you to find a better approach. I am out of this conversation.
I don't think I'm being combative and rude. Every step of the way I've attempted to attack your assertions rather than attacking you personally. You have not given me the same courtesy.
This reaction is consistent with my assertion that your actual position is just to avoiding people who you disagree with, rather than actually creating any change.
While we are on the subject of censorship: yes people with vile viewpoints exist. Yes they have a right to express those viewpoints. NO a platform does not have to help them spread said viewpoints. I would like to remind you that Gab is a _business_, not a government. They are under no obligation to honor the 1st amendment. It's no different than places like Hacker News which heavily moderates its content. Codes of conduct exist for a reason and it is to protect the vulnerable. If you don't feel that deeply in your bones it's likely because you aren't a member of a demographic that is under threat.
Gab, by its very existence and prominence legitimizes racism, nazism, sexism, violence, etc. It creates a community and a sense of moral righteousness around it. People are _dying_ and the country is on the brink of chaos. We can't ignore this threat any longer. Gab _can_ in fact moderate hate speech on their platform. They just don't either because they believe it or because it's profitable. Either way I hope their business dies and they go broke because what they are doing is wrong.