Gab.com, A Social Site that the Pittsburgh shooter used, is being deplatformed
251 replies, posted
Corporate censorship is a doubled edged sword tbh. Although it worked out here since the views they are banning here are malicious, letting companies decide what are acceptable to be shown could lead to a really bad precedent.
I don't think most of the companies that participate in this 'deplatforming' actually cares about their integrity anyway, since they probably host a lot other similar websites.
Not saying I support these nazi views though, just that it is easy for stuffs to fall down a slippery slope if people aren't vigilant about things like this, and I really don't trust 'the people' for this.
If you don't agree with Popper, then don't try to twist his words to support literally the opposite of what they actually mean. I'm not here to argue with you about whether or not he's right, I'm calling out a downright dishonest appeal to his writing.
Can we not provide them more fuel? this kind of post just feeds the narrative of """tolerant left"""
because one of them killed almost a dozen people
I don't condone lynching Nazi's and his post was dumb but just to be clear there is a huge world of difference between wanting to exterminate a group of people based on their race or religion, and wanting to prevent said extermination.
And I agree with that, but any call to violence is a call to violence. You shouldn't be doing the same thing you're calling them out for as it just further divides people and gives them another excuse to go against you ("well look how hypocritical they are")
To be fair, a post that's 4 hours old might not necessarily be indicative of the whole website.
although it does already have 117 ups
On the other hand, yesterday I checked the site out myself to see how bad it was, looked up "jews" and sorted by popularity rather than time, and, uh, it wasn't exactly any better than that.
9 and 10 month old posts complaining about the jews running and ruining everything.
I can't bring up any pictures now because the site's decided to shut itself down, but if it does go back up (or you can find a way to bring the discussions back up), you can see they weren't exactly great people.
You should learn to read. Are you implying nazis are "prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument"? Hint: They don't, and they don't care. This is exactly what Popper is talking about.
You know, it's kinda really telling how it's always threads about literal nazis getting shut down that get so infested with people going "but but but free speech!!!!!!!" It's almost as if free speech isn't what they're actually taking issue with. You never see like 2/3rds of these people arguing free speech in threads not about nazis.
They don't need fuel for their shitty conspiracy theories. They'll pull their bullshit either way so you may as well just deplatform them and make it more difficult for them to convert people.
Right, cause they only play the victim when people try and shut them up and not totally every chance they get whether they're being opposed or not.
If they're deplatformed then... They kinda have no place to spew their vitriol and try to convert others? This isn't exactly a complicated topic so I'm honestly not sure how you didn't see that.
Yeah, we shouldn't provide more fuel to feed the narrative of the "violent left" when condemning an ideology that resulted in millions of people getting murdered in cold blood simply for their ethnicity. Oh wait.
I'm uncomfortable with monolithic providers like this having such widespread veto power concentrated in them. This sentiment mostly comes from watching how puritan payment processors are and how negatively that affects artists relying on selling commissions, both sfw and nsfw. Sure, it's their TOS and they're a private company so they can ban what they like, but it still doesn't sit right with me that companies like that can just make arbitrary value judgements for everybody else- and perhaps more vitally, that these service providers are huge and near-monopolistic enough that any kind of alternative is essentially impossible.
Ugh, pinging daddy too.
They even gave them the option to transfer ownership to another registrar. It's like they don't know what a registrar is.
I've been @ shit posting them all day and they don't have the balls to say anything back
The only the response I got was from this crotchety old turtle ass lookin motherfucker and HE doesn't have the balls to tweet me back he only has time to retweet his epic own
Nazis are such big bitchies
Okay, if people are still going to repeat this nonsense, let me summarize Popper's position.
Popper believes that the fundamental characteristic of a liberal democratic ('tolerant') society is its acceptance of ideologies. The common argument at the time against this view of liberalism was the idea that it is self-defeating, because an ideology that refuses to participate in the democratic process (like Nazism) can easily subvert it, and the only options for the society are to either abandon the pretense of liberalism or be subsumed.
Popper rejects this view on the grounds that it is reasonable for a liberal society to reserve force as a reasonable method when no other option exists. He recognizes that groups like Nazis cannot be 'met on the level of rational argument' and are trained to use force in response to words- and he still maintains that tolerance should be maintained so long as those groups represent a minority and the democratic processes can still exist. As long as you can still express free speech, vote, lobby, and otherwise prevent those groups from taking power, then whether they can be beaten through rational argument is irrelevant.
If you reach the point where those democratic methods become untenable, then you must suppress the intolerant ideology through force. Until then, democracy can survive the presence of even violent ideologies, responding with law enforcement rather than suppression. That's Popper's argument, and it's made completely clear when you actually read the book. The idea that what Popper actually meant is that Nazis are dangerous and should be suppressed whenever possible is disingenuous bullshit.
You don't have to agree with Popper, but fuck off with this 'I read an out of context paragraph on the Internet, let me tell you what he really meant' garbage.
Lmao. Do it you fucking dorks. GoDaddy will curb stomp you either by being in the right or through attrition.
Well unless the current US government has a soft spot for Nazis that may influence court decisions.
Ah, shit
Catbarf you can't fool me, I read that comic and everything
You're doing the worst thing you can in this situation. Ignoring what I'm saying and justifying why you can do the same thing they can't. You're giving them an excuse to attack and making the entire left look bad by being a hypocrite.
It shouldn't matter who the recipient of the threats are. If you give them fuel, they'll use it. They will jump through hoops to justify themselves. If you give them a way to justify themselves, nothing will change.
You have to take away all ways they can justify their actions and bring others into their cause ("look how hypocritical the left is, they deplatformed us for threats and then threatened us!!!"). If you feed the fire, even if you feel they deserve it, the flame will never go out and you'll divide people more. We need to pull people together, not give them more reasons to hate the left.
That's the problem. You can't get through to people completely unwilling to even hear you out and they don't need a reason to hate you. People like Derek Black unfortunately seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
Yeah, and trying to shut them up actually gives them fuel as opposed to making them look like dumbasses.
Still gotta try
Censorship implies that parts of what they are saying are being redacted or corrected selectively by a governing body. That's not what's happening; they are simply being denied service from a business.
Imagine if you went into a resteraunt, bought a burger, sat down and started yelling "Niggers!" at the top of your lungs, you would probably be told to shut up or get the hell out. That's what's happening here, they paid for a service, started hosting a festering cesspool of rascism, and now their hosts are pulling their plug on their service. That's not censorship, that's being denied service because you're actively going out of your way to be a complete fucknut.
You're free to say whatever you want, but nobody is obliged to provide you with a megaphone.
You're not going to get through to then people who are unwilling to listen, but you are going to get through to the large amount of people who hang more in the middle.
"Guys, stop, you're only making them feel like they're right!" shouted biohazard99 as the president declares the media the enemy of the people, and another bomb is intercepted in-transit to CNN.
The companies responding to Gab are laggards. They don't have our safety in mind they're just following the capitalist compulsion to make money and have already extended every olive branch and made every concession to the racists & fascists. Gab regularly posts anti semitic or racist content on their twitter profile and should have been banned long ago but EVEN NOW GAB IS STILL TWEETING AND THEIR ACCOUNT IS STILL ON TWITTER. It's only when a huge amount of people find out or a high profile event happens that they start having the aesthetic of actually fighting against hate groups.
Also nazis will just invent random shit if the world doesn't agree with them take a look at this:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3jZZGmUcAAyIe0.jpg
Validation is not required.
If I read your post in a different way and the sentiment here is that you mean that deplatforming doesn't work. It works.
It stops them from recruiting. Alex Jones' itunes app got to the top of itunes for a while but his viewership (even counting the app store thing) has been cut. His videos used to get millions of views but now he's struggling so much because his website is not as popular no matter how you cut it.
They really don't live in anything resembling reality at all, do they?
I'd compare the situation more to a company owning the roads in a town and refusing to allow people to shout "niggers" on the roads.
No, it's working, I suppose silencing (not censorship!) is okay so long as it's being used on the right people. Gab really isn't the hill I want to fight for, honestly. I don't think it'll be a monumental loss for freedom of speech if it folds in on itself.
If you are providing someone with a platform, and they abuse it, you can damn well kick them out.
Again, we're talking literal nazis. Of course it's okay.
Ok ignoring the gab situation. I have one question.
Does anyone here think that twitter and facebook should be forced to give islamist terrorists a platform to spread their ideology and recruit more killers.
I genuinely don't understand how we all agree that Isis and other islamist groups should be banned from using social networks to recruit more extremists, spread their ideology and organise murders, and with nazis, people call it authoritarian to do so.
If you think twitter and facebook should be forced to allow Isis to use their platform and that it's somehow a free speech issue, i've got nothing else to say, we just disagree.
But If you think It's ok with Isis and not with nazis, do not tell me it's a principle issue.
this really reminds me of the "YELL AT BLACK PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET" comic
