Hacker News Reader

"The US government coming in and telling a private entity, no you must tolerate free speech on your property is historical fact and precedent."

The first amendment says that the government cannot restrict free speech it has nothing whatsoever to do with a private entity tolerating "free speech" on their property.

The totality of the public space being private property in the aforementioned scenario sounds like a unique situation and a poor position to reason from.

In general not only do you not have a free speech interest in communicating on someone else's property the government forcing facebook to carry your message would actually be compelling them to communicate their approval of your message.

You would be protecting a wholly imaginary free speech interest while trespassing on a real one.

The totality of the public space being private property in the aforementioned scenario sounds like a unique situation and a poor position to reason from.

Really? Because most of YouTube and Facebook very much strikes me as public space. That's how the population thinks of it. That's how society uses it.

You would be protecting a wholly imaginary free speech interest while trespassing on a real one.

Does anyone really think that YouTube not getting to censor people is hampering YouTube's ability to express their political expression? No one in 2018 mistakes a random YouTuber's opinion for YouTube's. Only people interested in silencing others hold to such an opinion. Such an opinion only makes sense, if you directly equate censorship to "expression."

YouTube does have an editorial stake to the product that they can present to their advertiser customers. However, YouTube has stepped way beyond that line! The same goes for Facebook.

In other news if you start holding an open air forum on your political issue of choice inside your nearest walmart you will probably be asked to go do this outside on the public sidewalk.

Nobodies rights will be violated by this.

It is plainly wrong to say the 1A has “nothing whatsoever” to do with private entities.

Not only has the GP indicated one case (JWs) but there are shopping mall cases and many others where a “public forum” doctrine has extended 1A scrutiny to private property.

(That said I think the analog here for the public forum is somewhere well down the OSI stack. In Layer 7 I am pretty firmly a believer that the private actor discriminates how she pleases.)

Ain't gonna happen in this case, for two reasons:

1. Jehovah's witnesses tend not to shoot up synagogues, whereas an otherwise typical member of Gab did.

2. Antisemitism isn't a protected class.

I can see from your comments that you are one of those, "I'd defend to the death your right to say it," people. I must admit, I would not defend to the death someone's right to spew hate toward Jews. That's not my hill to die on. I rather feel . . . the opposite. I'm glad that Gab got kicked off GoDaddy, and if I had my way, they'd be relegated to the dark corners of Tor.

A muslim shot up a gay night club, we don’t ban Islam or mosques or deplatform Muslims from the internet for holding similarly antisemitic views. To suggest such an action would be roundly decried and the person drummed out.

Similarly, as much as anyone hates antisemitic speech, it IS protected speech because it’s free speech.

At some point we are going to have to decide in this country if we wish to continue forward with the enlightenment and grow up as a society where we actually talk to eachother again, or are we going to descend back into declaring someone a heretic and burning them, or in modern parlance, deplatforming and doxing.

You don’t stop ignorance by banning it or doing virtual book burnings, you stop it by educating people with the ignorant viewpoint.

Banning speech and ideas simply grows it underground, where you never get to witness it through glad handing, but you will experience it at the worst possible outcome instead.

> A muslim shot up a gay night club, we don’t ban Islam or mosques or deplatform Muslims from the internet for holding similarly antisemitic views. To suggest such an action would be roundly decried and the person drummed out.

This is a false equivalency and a weak argument, where you are suggesting that all muslims are both terrorists and anti-semites.

A "terrorist" shot up a gay night club, and yes, we do ban terrorist propaganda from the public square, or are you advocating for allowing ISIS/Taliban/Al Qaeda, etc, to be allowed to preach their hatred and drum-up support?

If that guy was an "otherwise typical" user of gab, and gab has ~500,000 active users(per wikipedia), why hasn't there been more than one story about gab-user-gone-wild in the media?

Isn't that (the fact this guy shot 11 Jews dead and the other users haven't) exactly what "otherwise typical" refers to?

The way he talked on Gab seems pretty typical of users there, so going and shooting people seems like the only thing that wasn't typical.

Or are you arguing something else?

It is the violence that people have a problem with not the speech right? I mean if the neighbors upstairs are talking about how much the hate me I don't have a problem though that would change if they knock on my door with baseball bat in hand.

It sounds like Gab is being de-platformed for the typical part and not the otherwise part.

I've got a pretty big problem with the speech too!

I don't understand how people can claim on one hand that Instagram/Facebook/Whatever is making people more superficial while at the same time claim that people encouraging each other to be violently racist has no effect at all.

It sounds suspiciously as if you're drawing a direct comparison between the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War 2 and Gab getting kicked off GoDaddy. That can't possibly be an argument you really want to make.

His argument is that few people caring about something doesn’t mean that thing doesn’t matter.

Isn't that, like, an extremely banal observation? It doesn't mean it does matter either. Meanwhile: what was the point of comparing this situation to internment camps?

Banally true, yes.

> It doesn't mean it does matter either.

Someone said something doesn't matter because "few people care", just one example of something that mattered and about which also "few people cared" refutes that reasoning. They're not making an argument, they're refuting one.

edit: Another example would be Linus' announcement of Linux at the time. Few people cared, in contrast to the people who today find Linux extremely important, or depend on it without knowing. And there you go, I now made a "direct" (whatever that means) comparison between Linux and Japanese being put into concentration camps in the US, as well as a "direct" comparison between Linux and neo-nazis being deplatformed. The point matters more than the comparison used to make it.

> The point matters more than the comparison used to make it.

Only if we assume the soundbite it's just like when Japanese Americans were put in concentration camps didn't happen.

The point could have been made without the comparison, by writing something like this:

"Surprisingly few people cared" is a very poor metric to apply to a principle of rights and justice.

And then we can discuss how social norms and the legal system interact, rather than have this conversation.

The complaint wasn't that it was worded poorly, but that a direct comparison was made at all, using kinda spooky language such as "It sounds suspiciously as if you're drawing a direct comparison" and "That can't possibly be an argument you really want to make.".

English isn't my first language, even I had no problem understanding the intention of the words, and arguing against the "strongest plausible interpretation" is in the guidelines.

> And then we can discuss how social norms and the legal system interact

Personally I'm content with it being settled that "few people care" is an invalid argument.

That's clearly a refutation by counter-example, not an argument or claimed equivalence of the events.

It's weird that you would try to push such an infamous counter-example out of bounds instead of making an argument.

It sounds suspiciously as if you're drawing a direct comparison between the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War 2 and Gab getting kicked off GoDaddy. That can't possibly be an argument you really want to make.

You know better than that, and you should know full well I'd expect better of you.

Then why not just write

"Surprisingly few people cared" is a very poor metric to apply to a principle of rights and justice.

?

Because I'm not as skilled at 1st drafts as you are, apparently.