Hacker News Reader

Comment by manfredo | Hacker News Reader

I think it's important to distinguish between platforms that host content of a given topic, and platforms that are specifically set up for a certain topic. For example, Reddit has /r/motorcycles, but I wouldn't call it "a motorcycling discussion platform". I'd call advrider.com or bayarearidersforum.com motorcycle discussion platforms. They're websites specifically set up for motorcycling related discussion. A website that takes a strong stance on free speech like Gab probably has a significant overrepresentation of White Nationalists, by virtue of displacement - most other big platforms ban this content so they migrate to the few places that do allow it. In that sense I think it's fair to call Gab "a platform that tolerates white nationalist" but not "a white nationalist platform".

Equating tolerance of an idea as endorsement for an idea is the root of a lot of problems we see today, in my opinion.

View on HN

Respectfully, I think you want that to be important, and in the airless vacuum of a message board it might be, but common sense says that a "free speech" venue that is absolutely overrun with white supremacist speech, run by a committed white supremacist, simply is a white supremacist site.

Are you just going to ignore the fact that the official Twitter account for Gab actively promotes white supremacist talking points? It only takes about 30 seconds of scrolling through their feed to see this.

I scrolled for not only 30 seconds or so but at least a minute. Nowhere do I find Gab actively promoting white supremacy. As far as promoting "white supremacist talking points" this is a pretty substantially different actually supporting white supremacy, and support for that allegation is still pretty vague. The closes things I found are:

> “Hate speech” is free speech, as decided unanimously by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Sure, white supremacists may be more keen to protect hate speech but this statement is factually correct.

> Right-wing platforms provide refuge to digital outcasts — and Alex Jones

Again, hosting a speaker is not the same as promoting or endorsing what is said. By this logic, Berkeley endorsed Milo Y.

> At some point you have to ask yourself: just who is pushing for the censorship? Once you learn who, there is no going back. You can’t unsee what has been seen. You can’t unlearn what has been learned.

Arguably echoes allegations that Jewist people control the media, but this is vague at best.

Furthermore, the account states that it would not ban left-wing speakers that had written hateful message about whites:

> The @verge defends the anti-white hate of @sarahjeong then turns around and maligns Gab as “alt right” for defending free speech for everyone (including Sarah!)

I think official Gab twitter account is consistent Gab's claim to allow all legal speech, including hateful speech regardless of political leaning.

> Arguably echoes allegations that Jewist people control the media, but this is vague at best.

Don't insult our intelligence. It is obviously a vile statement about Jewish people.

http://archive.is/q8Guu if you need it to be even more obvious.

Andrew Torba is obviously a neo-Nazi, so can we put this argument to rest.

This comment was flagged. It's not, like, the most substantive comment on the thread, but it's not un-substantive. Patrick isn't calling someone here a neo-Nazi, as an epithet. He's pointing out that Torba is one. I think he's probably right. If he's wrong, make an argument; don't abuse the flag button.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com