Hacker News Reader

Comment by rvz | Hacker News Reader

There you go. They are totally clueless on how far the de-platforming can go. The domain provider, hosting companies can do the same and de-platform them as well.

Perhaps lets go far to de-platform them of their bank accounts, credit cards, etc since they are too private companies? Can we also contact their phone / energy provider(s) to shut off their electricity as well so they cannot access the internet?

So what is their response? Don't like it? "BuILd yOur Own VISa / mASteRcArD paymeNtS pLATFORM", "buIlD yOUr oWN IsP", "BuiLD YOUr oWN doMain PRoviDER", etc, etc.

As I said, creating a big tech dystopia on trying to get those you don't like to be de-platformed off of the internet which the point is anyone can get this same treatment. Not just this single user.

View on HN

Be nice then.

Is that what you will say after the Big Tech companies have de-platformed you as well? It is not just Andrew Tate, but they will do this to anyone they don't like, and they do not care and won't ever change and this was a coordinated ban. Why wait until a social media mob appears to execute this mass ban?

Like I said, this is creating a big tech dystopia on trying to get those you don't like to be de-platformed off of the internet via a mob, which the point is anyone can get this same treatment. Not just this single user and perhaps you think it's OK for the banks, payment platforms, etc to do the same?

So the next time someone you like gets the same co-ordinated mass ban; let's tell them to 'Be nice' to the big tech companies. So on to the next 'villain' of the week.

Turn your computer/smartphone off, is also good advice in a similar vein. I don't make a living from going around shouting my mouth off saying offensive and derogatory stuff about women, designed to trigger and demean them, so being deplatformed isn't a risk for me. While I'm a follower of Voltaires "I hate what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" line of libertarianism, at the same time large companies I totally understand don't have the compunction to be forced to do business with you and promote your agenda if it doesn't fit with theirs. The man in question still has the right to shout his mouth off all over the internet. It's just that now Google/FB/TikTok have realised it's not in their interest to have such a negative presence on their services. He doesn't need or deserve airtime on the monopolistic BBC or NBC either but I think you'd find it ludicrous proposition that he should be given it, free of charge, to promote whatever agenda he likes. He's still free to set up a website, stand on the street and tell people about his mysoginy, organise public meetings,you name it. The serious issue in this case is that his "it's just a bit of fun honest" get-out clause doesn't wash, because his mysoginistic talk is backed up with actual physical violence against women, and controlling and coercive behaviour toward them in the real world. So it's not a case of "OMFG platform capitalist monopolies shutting people down judge jury executioner no oversight OMFG" this is a case of real people at those companies deciding it's in everyone's interest they don't do business with him. A book publisher would do the same thing. Behind every company are people with feelings and concerns, not blank evil algorithms out to shutdown random lives with no comeback. Do you think the women working at Google/FB/TikTok were impressed with his content and want to work for companies that promote it?

andrew tate is a violent misogynist human trafficker, banning him from everywhere on earth is not anywhere near dystopia or censorship.

How is he "human trafficker" ? Is there any source?

"Nice" could get you in some chinese censorship. Are we back on banning magazines because they are not christian and they degrade the pure souls of human beings?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com