The Dirty Business of Hosting Hate Online | Hacker News Reader

The Dirty Business of Hosting Hate Online

gizmodo.com

9 pointsrbanffy8 comments

It seems the irony of calling out sites that draw attention to black-on-white crime, while in the same article drawing attention to white-on-black crime, is lost on the author.

Implying, but not outright saying, that only one of those inspires hate.

I'm very glad someone did this trawling. Corporations are, and have been, getting away scot-free with an unbelievable amount of reputation laundering.

> “Most people engaging with extreme right ideologies, memes, views are doing so online and often not part of a formal network, organization or political movement.”

This seems like a problem that could be solved by giving right-leaning people a platform to peacefully organize. Deplatforming and segmentation leads to right-wing activists lacking good examples for peaceful demonstration. There are peaceful right-wing political activist organizations but they get deplatformed by intolerant anarchists like this article's author and then others have trouble finding peaceful outlets for their viewpoints.

My (fairly rudimentary) understanding of the United States is that the right wing controls most of its governmental apparatus as well as the biggest news outlet. How are they being 'deplatformed' or segmented in any way?

They're right wing in some ways, but not others. E.g. even just legal immigration is still at about 1 million per year.

This is a mantra repeated by the far-left as an excuse for their excessive protest against the ability of the right-wing to speak. They usually point to Fox News and the Republican senators as evidence of right-wing power in the US, but these are constituted of neoconservatives (who's movement descended from ex-Trotskyites in New York City, where neoconservative media is based). If you compare the platforms of most of today's Republicans on social issues then you would find them to the left of Obama in 2008, most agreeing with Obama's free-trade deals (which they passed). The only thing distinguishing the GOP establisent and 2008/2012 Obama is the occasional extra tax cut.

Most movements of actual right wing activism are straw manned, attacked, deplatformed or subverted.

I find that reducing politics to a one-dimensional left-right is unproductive, and leads to people arguing past each-other.

E.g. you will pick one property by which Republicans/Fox News aren't right wing, while your counterpart will pick one by which they are. Without saying which property you picked to represent right-wing-ness, you/your counterpart will be baffled as to how you/they could possibly believe Republicans/Fox News are/aren't right wing.

I agree, but I was trying to simplify for someone who said "they have a rudimentary understanding". There's many distinctions to make: on the right there's paleoconservatives, neo conservatives, right-leaning libertarians, nationalists, right-leaning populists, fascists, and classical liberals. On the left there are social liberals, democratic socialists, left-leaning populists, left-leaning libertarians, socialists, anarchists, and neoliberals. What I see overall is a coalition of anarchists and neoconservatives to pressure neoliberals and libertarians to deplatform all groups on the right besides the neoconservatives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com