Google removes Gab app for violating hate speech policy – The Verge | Hacker News Reader

Google removes Gab app for violating hate speech policy – The Verge

theverge.com

28 pointsrbanffy29 comments

On one hand the kind of people who typically use this service can go fuck themselves directly and promptly, but I'm a little concerned about just how quickly an online community can be shuttered away. It seems to me that this is generally connected to the lack of recognition of the Internet as utility, which is so long overdue that we've all read a book making fun of that issue (Snow Crash).

I can't imagine that many of us are comfortable with the power being wielded right now by so few people, even if the current targets of that power are genuinely despicable.

I find it very concerning. I'm a member of a group that has been accused of hate (mainstream religion). It's completely false, and things have to really be twisted to even pretend it, but get the right mob fired up and I'll be thrown under the bus too. And if you think you're safe, I'll bet I can find somewhere in the world where at least one of your beliefs could be attacked too. That's why due process is important, rather than mob justice.

Worth noting, the app can still be run. Only it cannot be distributed through google play store.

Pretty important distinction too. Android has built in ability to load from alternative sources and does not force folks to use the Play Store for downloads, so this developer is welcome to submit their app to an alternative store (Multiple options).

That's true, but the importance of Play Store distribution has risen from "makes you more discoverable" to "makes you more trust-able" now that Play Store uploads are scanned for malware and have to adhere to Google policies.

I have no desire to run Gab, but the effect of this decision is not only a stand against racists, it also exposes Gab users to a high chance of loading malware.

"as well as a sexist memo from a Google engineer"

This is why I no longer read the verge. Important to separate opinion from facts.

This is why you finally give up on the verge? What would you refer to the memo as: a cool-headed rational argument? I don't even think the engineer understood what he was arguing for; misogyny isn't hard to see, regardless of the intentions.

The weirdest and most uncomfortable part is that he cares enough to alienate his employees, but not enough to encourage productive discussion. It seems like bitterness and resentment towards women.

While I understand why you might not like the phrasing, it speaks deeply about you that this is the one of thousands of verge factual errors you choose to criticize.

I have stopped reading it for a while now. Too politicized and opinionated for my taste.

Facts are never innocent and pure, they always come tainted with opinion. What you choose to emphasize, how you say it and so on is loaded not because people have poor intentions but because language is a limited medium.

Eg, did you hear about the poor innocent statue conservationists who got caught up in a bad situation?

I don't doubt that. But at least make an effort to stay impartial. I think scientific papers do a pretty good job with this.

I sympathize with that sentiment. I found the best way to try to get a "whole" picture is read more (biased) sources. You do end up reading a lot of junk (from whatever your pov happens to be).

What is going on? Are people really afraid that neo-Nazism is gonna make a comeback?

Can't we just acknowledge the situation as a bunch of angry kids saying hurtful things for attention ("I wish you were DEAD!")?

> Are people really afraid that neo-Nazism is gonna make a comeback?

Both neo-Nazism specifically and fascism and white supremacism more generally are at their strongest (membership, groups, activity, non-opposition from government figures) level in the US in several decades right now.

For neo-Nazism specifically it's probably it's strongest ever (actual support for Nazism was perhaps in some respects stronger in the US at some points prior to WWII, but that wasn't neo-Nazism, and that was before the worst Nazi atrocities occurred, much less were known.)

So, no, it's not a speculative future return to past strength (“comeback”) that is worrying about the neo-Nazi movement.

Could you site some sources for this? I just assumed the news was covering it more heavily because money and there are no big wars going on right now.

Its my aggregate impression from a number of different sources. This covers 2016 and differs in some details from my description:

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/...

Well, I'm not going to read that whole thing. If you want to pull out an excerpt I'd read it.

The reason I think it's dangerous for the masses to decide things are facts based on "aggregate impressions" is that the media is not an objective sampling. For example, perhaps hatecrimes under Obama weren't newsworthy, but under Trump they are more-so because it hits all the emotional buttons.

This would lead to increased reporting, leading to an belief of increased prevalence.

I don't remember people getting as angry about Neonazi-marches in 2010, 2005, etc, but that's anecdotal.

What planet do you live on? That's exactly how you start serious problems. You're also implying that verbal bullying is harmless.

They also actually killed someone.

Zemir Begic was dragged from his car and beaten to death with hammers. In front of his wife.

The black teens that did it were "influenced by the events at Ferguson".

So I guess BLM should also be shut down - but instead, Twitter made a special logo for them...

You fail to show that the attack was by a BLM member, encouraged by BLM, cheered afterwards by BLM, I tied to BLM activity. The only relation is supposed motivation by a event with which BLM was also upset.

This is in no meaningful way parallel to the Charlottesville case.

The guy that drove his car into the crowd was not a member of any of the sponsoring organizations of the "Unite the Right" march, either.

As for after the fact cheering of white people's deaths, may I direct you to the cesspit of Twitter...

Could you cite a source that supports your claim please?

I was responding the the claim that neo-Nazis are just a bunch of harmless angry kids.

One guy killed someone.

I don't disagree with you. But this is a private company that has decided that being associated with, doing business with, or providing a platform for neo-nazis (real or pretend) is bad for their bottomline. They made the correct call.

Who is "we"? Different people acknowledged different things, and that is why there is a dispute.

The feeling of being victimized, whether valid or not, only emboldens these people.

About time. The people who use this app seems to have a twisted idea that what they espouse is correct. And they get reprimanded for it the cry FREE SPEACH.

I don't think you understand how free speech works. Its literally the freedom to say whatever you want to, regardless of whether its correct or not. You have the freedom to disagree, but not to censor in public discourse.

Free speech is why we had websites like timecube.com https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube

I don't agree with it any more than any other reasonable person, but the right to say and disseminate the information is there. You can't selectively ignore it because you don't agree.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com