Hacker News Reader

Comment by xrjpi | Hacker News Reader

>Moving to the ActivityPub protocol as our base allows us to get into mobile App Stores without even having to submit and get approval of our own apps, whether Apple and Google like it or not

They also had the option of creating an ActivityPub compatible API, no? But yes I guess it's easier this way.

Having said that I wonder if they'll allow federation to happen. Most Mastodon instances restrict and censor speech so they will probably add Gab to the blocklist immediately but it would be cool if they could federate with other free speech instances. But then, what would be the point of using Gab instead of just other Mastodon instance?

View on HN

Deciding what content is allowed on your private platform is not censorship. The platform owner is exercising their own form of speech.

Incorrect.

> Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by a government[5], private institutions, and corporations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Why aren't you quoting a real dictionary?

References 2-4 are popular dictionaries.

I like how the "private institutions, and corporations" part doesn't actually have a citation associated with it.

I am not required to host your speech on my platform. The only free speech protection that is guaranteed in the United States is from the government stifling a citizen's speech and even that is fairly limited with free speech overridden by safety and security concerns on a fairly regular basis. That a particular platform doesn't want your speech is their right under their ability to speak. You cannot be forced to advocate a position you do not agree with.

You're conflating the definition of the word "censorship" with the legal protections of the First Amendment. They're too separate concepts.

That's not what he's saying. You're allowed to censor people on your platform.

Privatized censorship is legal in the US, but it is still censorship.

For example, the MPAA was formed because the movie industry felt it was better to self-censor than to have the government censor them.

If your movie contains anything the censors don’t approve, then it will not get an R rating, and will not be distributed to theaters, etc.

They even censor political speech sometimes: https://boingboing.net/2007/12/20/mpaa-censors-torture.html

OK. By the same token, demanding that all speech be allowed on a private platform is censoring the platform owner's speech. So whichever position you take, you are advocating for censorship, and we have successfully reduced a useful word to an insult we can shout at anyone who uses their speech in a way we dislike. Neat trick.

no its not. censorship is stopping you from talking. allowing everyone to talk is the opposite of censorship. the platform owner can say whatever they want.

That's not the same token at all.

-Demanding the owner not let someone say something Vs. -Demanding the owner let someone say something

I mean, they're both demands vis-a-vis the owner. But what they're demanding are the opposite of each other.

I don't use gab.

> what would be the point of using Gab instead of just other Mastodon instance?

This question answers itself. "Gab" is a brand name. Other Mastadon instances are not. People will join the brand name, the underlying technology is irrelevant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com