Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension(hub.packtpub.com)
hub.packtpub.com
Mozilla and Google Chrome Refuse to Support Gab’s Dissenter Extension
https://hub.packtpub.com/mozilla-and-google-chrome-refuse-to-support-gabs-dissenter-extension-for-violating-acceptable-use-policy/
137 comments
This just seems short-sighted more than anything. It doesn't sound like there's anything technically wrong with the extension (indeed I have often wanted just such an extension), it's merely that the "wrong sort" of people use it. Well, banning it will keep the "wrong sort" of people using it. If everyone jumped on the bandwagon and started using the extension as a generic comment section, then the bright light of day would cleanse it. Instead, by "suppressing" it, they have basically gone out of their way to create a breeding ground.
> If everyone jumped on the bandwagon and started using the extension as a generic comment section, then the bright light of day would cleanse it
Browser extensions aside, if we've learn anything over the past two years of 'Online', it's that this simply isn't true. You can't 'debate' hate speech away.
Browser extensions aside, if we've learn anything over the past two years of 'Online', it's that this simply isn't true. You can't 'debate' hate speech away.
>You can't 'debate' hate speech away.
Surely you can. To believe otherwise is to believe that hate is logically sound. It's just that people's standards for what constitutes "debate" have lowered so much (thanks to Twitter and its ilk) that it no longer holds any persuasive power. Consider that most people in the West were extremely racist just a few decades ago. It didn't take free speech suppression to change this status quo.
Surely you can. To believe otherwise is to believe that hate is logically sound. It's just that people's standards for what constitutes "debate" have lowered so much (thanks to Twitter and its ilk) that it no longer holds any persuasive power. Consider that most people in the West were extremely racist just a few decades ago. It didn't take free speech suppression to change this status quo.
If you can surely debate hate away, it is extremely costing for your mental health.
My own experience is that, when doing it face to face it's more easy, you can really get through someone. People are less "protected" and have more emotional connection.
But on the Internet ? I stopped trying. Every time it's the same thing: People prefer to be 'trolls' and just throw insults and bullshit all day. Unless the person is actually willing to have a real discussion, it's almost impossible to "debate" anything. As soon as you are going to try to have a real argument, an horde will just "dunk" on you throwing colorful name all around.
It's sad but i stopped believing in the possibility of having any interesting argument on the internet if it is not amongst a small community or a very moderated one.
My own experience is that, when doing it face to face it's more easy, you can really get through someone. People are less "protected" and have more emotional connection.
But on the Internet ? I stopped trying. Every time it's the same thing: People prefer to be 'trolls' and just throw insults and bullshit all day. Unless the person is actually willing to have a real discussion, it's almost impossible to "debate" anything. As soon as you are going to try to have a real argument, an horde will just "dunk" on you throwing colorful name all around.
It's sad but i stopped believing in the possibility of having any interesting argument on the internet if it is not amongst a small community or a very moderated one.
I don't think debating is ever a good means to change anyone's point of view on any given subject. Introspection, deliberation, and personal experience, on the other hand, are good means to that end.
Teaching by example is, to my mind, the best way someone can guide others to those personal endeavors, which are the only ones that can grant deep and lasting changes in our world views and beliefs.
Teaching by example is, to my mind, the best way someone can guide others to those personal endeavors, which are the only ones that can grant deep and lasting changes in our world views and beliefs.
And teaching by example also involves setting very clear limits on what is acceptable and what is not.
I think this is one of those points where introverted people differ a lot from extraverted people.
Anybody who has done any amount of debating knows that the 'winner' of any debate is the person who is more prepared and better at the abstract skill of "debating", not the person that is 'right' in any meaningful way. As someone who did a fair amount of debating in school I'm confident I would have won/lost every debate I partook in in exactly the same way even if I was debating the other side of the argument.
That implies that election is not about values or politics, but rather which candidate is more prepared and better at the abstract skill of "debating".
There is some major amount of cynicism to that world view, and I prefer to behave as if the world did not exist like that.
There is some major amount of cynicism to that world view, and I prefer to behave as if the world did not exist like that.
Far from it. I believe that values and politics are very important and specifically because of that we have to get away from overvaluing the traditional debate format which does nothing to effectively highlight either.
I believe the view being expressed is that you cannot necessarily reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.
Confronting people who hold a belief for reasons that are not necessarily based on facts or logic can result in them doubling down instead of reconsidering their position.
Confronting people who hold a belief for reasons that are not necessarily based on facts or logic can result in them doubling down instead of reconsidering their position.
And you can't debate the other side either without being called a bigot.
Look at the hatred Jordan Peterson gets, who by pretty much all measures is as reasonable a human being as you might expect to meet on average.
There are many online articles these days saying things like "yet another white male point of view" horribly generalizing all white males as the same and that is some how acceptable. It's no different that than me saying all black men listen to hip hop and have big hair. (I'm struggling to generalise but I'm sure the point is clear)
Look at the hatred Jordan Peterson gets, who by pretty much all measures is as reasonable a human being as you might expect to meet on average.
There are many online articles these days saying things like "yet another white male point of view" horribly generalizing all white males as the same and that is some how acceptable. It's no different that than me saying all black men listen to hip hop and have big hair. (I'm struggling to generalise but I'm sure the point is clear)
>To believe otherwise is to believe that hate is logically sound.
Not at all, people are simply not logical as much as we like to pretend we are.
Not at all, people are simply not logical as much as we like to pretend we are.
Not many people have an argument be it in real life or online, where one changes the other's opinion 180 degrees. But at the very least your words plant the seeds of doubt. I think it's normal that changing a point of view that you've held for many years to take time.
That is because of survivors bias, there will always be hate online, that does not mean it will be the same people.
> You can't 'debate' hate speech away.
Not sure what your definition of "hate speech" is but if it includes racism, then yes, racists can change their mind:
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/08/the-white-sou...
Not sure what your definition of "hate speech" is but if it includes racism, then yes, racists can change their mind:
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/08/the-white-sou...
"You can't argue people out of their beliefs" is an acceptable generalization because it's mostly true. There are exceptions, but, for the most part, when a progressive talks to a fascist, for example, there is likely to be little movement in the beliefs of either. In fact, their views are likely to become more entrenched.
https://phys.org/news/2015-05-political-myths-entrench.html
Long-term conversation can and does work, but not the sort of hit-and-run debates that happen on social networks and forums.
https://phys.org/news/2015-05-political-myths-entrench.html
Long-term conversation can and does work, but not the sort of hit-and-run debates that happen on social networks and forums.
I think this has to do more with teaching people proper debate and communication skills than simply banning a platform because you can't teach their users proper debate.
[deleted]
Yes, through long-term building of trust and deep personal relationships.
This is very, very different from an internet comments section, where it is basically impossible.
This is very, very different from an internet comments section, where it is basically impossible.
I would argue that internet comments section is exactly what's needed actually. Simply banning them away is basically hiding it under the rug. But that's not going to do anything productive. Banning them will now re-enforce their beliefs and now they will just go to another platform which will be an echo chamber of even more similar "hate" views. This brings up 2 problems -
1. Now we don't even know what they are talking about / planning some extreme crime etc 2. Those people are now only exposed to views which agree to their own points and not exposed to opposing views. So there's nothing which would even allow them to change their minds.
Humans aren't born racist / hateful. They learn it from the environment around them. By exposing them to more counter points, you can make them unlearn that hate too.
1. Now we don't even know what they are talking about / planning some extreme crime etc 2. Those people are now only exposed to views which agree to their own points and not exposed to opposing views. So there's nothing which would even allow them to change their minds.
Humans aren't born racist / hateful. They learn it from the environment around them. By exposing them to more counter points, you can make them unlearn that hate too.
You say they learn if from the environment around them. This is exactly right, and this is exactly why you ban racists from your open platforms.
There will always be hardcore hateful people who hide deep in the pockets of the internet. The point is to not normalise them, not let them spread their hatred in public, and not to make people think that sort of attitude is ok.
They are exposed to counterpoints constantly, and it is not changing them.
There will always be hardcore hateful people who hide deep in the pockets of the internet. The point is to not normalise them, not let them spread their hatred in public, and not to make people think that sort of attitude is ok.
They are exposed to counterpoints constantly, and it is not changing them.
> They are exposed to counterpoints constantly, and it is not changing them.
This is not correct. This very post's topic implies they aren't exposed to counterpoints. Banning them from every platform possible doesn't allow them to be exposed to counterpoints.
Allowing hateful people doesn't mean we are normalizing it.
Also the definition of "hate speech" is extremely vague now a days.
> You say they learn if from the environment around them. This is exactly right, and this is exactly why you ban racists from your open platforms.
So you are saying that not allowing these people on open platforms where they are exposed to counterpoints (let's say 5% bad + 95% good) so that they all jump to another platform (8chan for example) where they are exposed to an even higher saturation of bad (100% bad) is good? That's basically exposing them to an even worse environment now. That's exactly what's making this situation even worse. Every mass shooting etc was planned on those worse platforms (4chan, 8chan) etc.
This is not correct. This very post's topic implies they aren't exposed to counterpoints. Banning them from every platform possible doesn't allow them to be exposed to counterpoints.
Allowing hateful people doesn't mean we are normalizing it.
Also the definition of "hate speech" is extremely vague now a days.
> You say they learn if from the environment around them. This is exactly right, and this is exactly why you ban racists from your open platforms.
So you are saying that not allowing these people on open platforms where they are exposed to counterpoints (let's say 5% bad + 95% good) so that they all jump to another platform (8chan for example) where they are exposed to an even higher saturation of bad (100% bad) is good? That's basically exposing them to an even worse environment now. That's exactly what's making this situation even worse. Every mass shooting etc was planned on those worse platforms (4chan, 8chan) etc.
Even if that were true, it would still be possible to drown it. Flood the extension used by racists with an Eternal September of normal people. This is how we deal with extremist views in the real world - allowing them to sequester themselves together is what leads to the amplification chambers. Banning the extension just means that the people who already care about using it will continue to do so, while new users are pushed away.
> Browser extensions aside, if we've learn anything over the past two years of 'Online', it's that this simply isn't true. You can't 'debate' hate speech away.
When debating online, there's really two groups you need to keep in mind - the person/people you're debating, and the people reading the debate. Reading without interacting is generally accepted to be far more common than actually interacting, so that's probably the largest group. So even if you can't convince the person you're debating, you might be able to convince those who are just reading and don't have a strong attachment to either side.
Or you can give up, attempt to ban the badthink, and admit that your ideas do not have merit. Because that's what a lot of the watchers will interpret that refusal to engage as.
When debating online, there's really two groups you need to keep in mind - the person/people you're debating, and the people reading the debate. Reading without interacting is generally accepted to be far more common than actually interacting, so that's probably the largest group. So even if you can't convince the person you're debating, you might be able to convince those who are just reading and don't have a strong attachment to either side.
Or you can give up, attempt to ban the badthink, and admit that your ideas do not have merit. Because that's what a lot of the watchers will interpret that refusal to engage as.
Why exactly would people want to share a space with racists, antisemites, and every kind of vile hatred? Why would you not go to place that does not accept that kind of utter garbage instead?
Rome wasn't built in a day. It might be a wretched hive of scum and villany now, but as it gets picked up by more and more people, some of those people won't be quite as extreme as the average. Unless there was someone deliberately banning users who weren't extreme enough, over time the community would inevitably become more moderate (or more likely, shrink and die).
It's practically an axiom - in any community without iron-fisted moderation and gatekeeping, the original hard core will end up complaining about how great it used to be before all the normies invaded.
It's practically an axiom - in any community without iron-fisted moderation and gatekeeping, the original hard core will end up complaining about how great it used to be before all the normies invaded.
Well, I don't use Twitter either.
Don't you think that despite being uncomfortable with people that have opinions that you perceive as immoral, that banning them will only heighten their cause and become more radical?
It just seems evident to me that unpersoning them will force them in to a place that reinforces their own ideological biases which would make them more radical, and with being a social outcast, they'd have nothing to lose.
It just seems evident to me that unpersoning them will force them in to a place that reinforces their own ideological biases which would make them more radical, and with being a social outcast, they'd have nothing to lose.
With safe harbour laws the concept of editorial control comes up as a legal test that courts use to determine intermediary liability. By going this route Mozilla is now declaring that not only are they taking responsibility of what extensions they publish, but also how those extensions in turn are used by users. One level deeper of indirections.
So any site which has an EULA that forbids adblockers can use this case as a example of Mozilla exercising editorial control of extension use by users. If Mozilla is willing to exercise editorial control over users behavior for the dissenter extension, then the same apply for any other extension.
Looking in my list of extensions I can identify several which could be potential abused. I would be very sad to see the kind of restrictions that would happen if Mozilla would be forced to be liable for it.
So any site which has an EULA that forbids adblockers can use this case as a example of Mozilla exercising editorial control of extension use by users. If Mozilla is willing to exercise editorial control over users behavior for the dissenter extension, then the same apply for any other extension.
Looking in my list of extensions I can identify several which could be potential abused. I would be very sad to see the kind of restrictions that would happen if Mozilla would be forced to be liable for it.
The real question in my mind is when do browser makers start directly blocking websites they believe to be bad? After all both Chrome and Firefox are made by people with very strong political views. So far they've not abused SafeBrowsing to exercise political control over the internet, but the companies producing them are willing to block or politically rerank extensions, web links, domain names they host, news they summarise and so on.
How long do we have before browsing to gab.ai triggers a "This page has been blocked for your safety" page because a bunch of activists said the content made them feel unsafe?
How long do we have before browsing to gab.ai triggers a "This page has been blocked for your safety" page because a bunch of activists said the content made them feel unsafe?
This is a very good point, and one that I hadn't considered. From TFA:
> When asked for more clarity on which policies Dissenter did not comply with, Mozilla said that they received abuse reports for this extension. It further added that the platform is being used for promoting violence, hate speech, and discrimination, but they failed to show any examples to add any credibility to their claims.
If that's the case, who's to say that Firefox itself hasn't been used for these purposes?
> When asked for more clarity on which policies Dissenter did not comply with, Mozilla said that they received abuse reports for this extension. It further added that the platform is being used for promoting violence, hate speech, and discrimination, but they failed to show any examples to add any credibility to their claims.
If that's the case, who's to say that Firefox itself hasn't been used for these purposes?
Yip, in other words section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has limits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
Gab is now releasing their own browser, based on Brave, without the BAT token, and with the Dissenter extension built in. https://github.com/gab-ai-inc/defiant-browser People seem to like it: https://twitter.com/james_a_quinn/status/1125496383883042816
While Brave is building from the core to the periphery, i.e. creating something based on solid fundamentals, Gab is taking Brave and polishing it a bit to their liking.
Due to this I suspect that the Gab browser will only get a following in a certain sphere, i.e. ideologigcal Gab followers. Otherwise you can simply use Brave or Chrome.
There was criticism by Eich et al. who noted that Gab is sending all kinds of data back home.
Gab seems to be focused on providing a service to their followers, without having the actual technical expertise to create something solid based on true privacy.
(I.e. it doesn't matter when we collect the data because we are actually on the right side of the fence)
Nevertheless I am excited to see where all of this is going and I welcome any additional browser, which is good for creating a competitive market.
The fact that Gab can, without much knowledge, "create" a browser interface within days shows how great Chromium is for the advancement of the open web.
The only thing that needs to be solved is the governance of chromium with it becoming the de facto standard on the web.
Due to this I suspect that the Gab browser will only get a following in a certain sphere, i.e. ideologigcal Gab followers. Otherwise you can simply use Brave or Chrome.
There was criticism by Eich et al. who noted that Gab is sending all kinds of data back home.
Gab seems to be focused on providing a service to their followers, without having the actual technical expertise to create something solid based on true privacy.
(I.e. it doesn't matter when we collect the data because we are actually on the right side of the fence)
Nevertheless I am excited to see where all of this is going and I welcome any additional browser, which is good for creating a competitive market.
The fact that Gab can, without much knowledge, "create" a browser interface within days shows how great Chromium is for the advancement of the open web.
The only thing that needs to be solved is the governance of chromium with it becoming the de facto standard on the web.
It's actually not true, what Eich was talking about, w/r/t data collection, and Gab appreciated the feedback. Using a Google Font is not tracking, and the YouTube/other embeds which are a feature of the extension have been made opt-in. Gab has also pointed out instances of Braves data collection and analytics gathering. Unlike Brave, the Gab team doesn't benefit from betraying user privacy, they don't want it. Of course Gab is focused on providing a service; they're building and shipping, defending free speech. I find the project very interesting: A browser that focuses on free speech, on enabling easy user modification, on refusing to be limited to what the big tech app stores say is okay... It could be a big jumping off point.
I too find it very interesting.
Thanks to Chromium, we are seeing a diverse range of projects emerging that cater to different groups.
Although the Dissenter extension, while a good idea, is essentially dead, there are basically no lively discussions.
So what's the point of using their product? Most users seem to think of it as a statement.
The idea of including BTC payments is certainly interesting, but it will fail, too, in the sense of Gab Browser not becoming succesful beyond a very small niche group.
Brave has been working for years to create actual incentives for the platform to flourish, it is beyond me how the Gab team thinks they can pull something similar off without any working incentive systems.
And Brave is not censoring anything. It is extremely difficult to build systems that protect user privacy, this has been ongoing for years, but not having user data is the whole point of the Brave project. If they fail with this, they won't be succesful.
The whole point of the Gab Browser is to protect free speech, even though strictly speaking no one has limited their free speech on a browser level, they could get the same free speech with using Chromium+Dissenter extension.
The idea with the Browser is to anticipate possible future censorship by Google, certainly legitimate.
Since they do not care about data, they haven't gone to great length of making sure they don't get any user data. If I remember correctly, every url visited in the Gab browser is sent to Dissenter, that's how the extension works.
The aggressivenes with which the Gab team goes against Brave on Twitter, wile taking all of their hard work without a single 'thank you', is what annoys me the most.
They seem to think free speech means everyone fighting for sensible solutions need to be "on their side", and everyone who isn't with them is against them.
Thanks to Chromium, we are seeing a diverse range of projects emerging that cater to different groups.
Although the Dissenter extension, while a good idea, is essentially dead, there are basically no lively discussions.
So what's the point of using their product? Most users seem to think of it as a statement.
The idea of including BTC payments is certainly interesting, but it will fail, too, in the sense of Gab Browser not becoming succesful beyond a very small niche group.
Brave has been working for years to create actual incentives for the platform to flourish, it is beyond me how the Gab team thinks they can pull something similar off without any working incentive systems.
And Brave is not censoring anything. It is extremely difficult to build systems that protect user privacy, this has been ongoing for years, but not having user data is the whole point of the Brave project. If they fail with this, they won't be succesful.
The whole point of the Gab Browser is to protect free speech, even though strictly speaking no one has limited their free speech on a browser level, they could get the same free speech with using Chromium+Dissenter extension.
The idea with the Browser is to anticipate possible future censorship by Google, certainly legitimate.
Since they do not care about data, they haven't gone to great length of making sure they don't get any user data. If I remember correctly, every url visited in the Gab browser is sent to Dissenter, that's how the extension works.
The aggressivenes with which the Gab team goes against Brave on Twitter, wile taking all of their hard work without a single 'thank you', is what annoys me the most.
They seem to think free speech means everyone fighting for sensible solutions need to be "on their side", and everyone who isn't with them is against them.
Everyone's in favour of the free market until it does something they disagree with. Anyone can start a new browser. Gab could fork Chromium or Firefox, even.
Or they could probably just make a bookmarklet.
But that wouldn't get any attention and hate groups like Gab thrive on controversies like this. HN is doing them a favour here. They're not doing anything new or original (remember the Genius annotator, anyone?).
Or they could probably just make a bookmarklet.
But that wouldn't get any attention and hate groups like Gab thrive on controversies like this. HN is doing them a favour here. They're not doing anything new or original (remember the Genius annotator, anyone?).
Disagreement with a particular provider or producers actions within the free market is not equal to disagreement with the free market in general. AFAIK Gab isn't calling for regulation of the market to prevent this, so there's no contradiction here.
In fact gab is participating in the free market exactly how you'd expect a believer in the free market to act, they're creating their own browser: https://github.com/gab-ai-inc/defiant-browser
In fact gab is participating in the free market exactly how you'd expect a believer in the free market to act, they're creating their own browser: https://github.com/gab-ai-inc/defiant-browser
Well, publishing an article and complaining on Mozilla's platform is part of the free market as well.
As long as Gab is not demanding government intervention, it's up to the private parties to solve their conflicts.
As long as Gab is not demanding government intervention, it's up to the private parties to solve their conflicts.
HN is not doing them a favor, except when you think that HN reader are actually incapable of thinking themselves, and need to be protected from knowledge.
I refute this picture of humans.
Silencing developments with ignoring them would actually do Gab a favor, whatever that means exactly. The term "hate group" is not clearly defined, anyway, and a propaganda-term in itself, and a tool of so-called 'hate'. .
I refute this picture of humans.
Silencing developments with ignoring them would actually do Gab a favor, whatever that means exactly. The term "hate group" is not clearly defined, anyway, and a propaganda-term in itself, and a tool of so-called 'hate'. .
In other words, mental gymnastics to justify that your opponents are morally wrong and you're right, and because they're wrong, I have every right to stop them by any means necessary.
WAHa_06x36(4)
It makes perfect sense. If you create tools to ban certain types of speech, say intolerance of homophobia, what happens when a homophobe acquires those tools?
Because any tool will be eventually misused and abused.
Because any tool will be eventually misused and abused.
What "tools" do you need to "create" to "ban certain types of speech"? What does that even mean?
You don't need tools to kick nazis off your platform. And who cares what homophobes do on their platforms? Don't use them.
You don't need tools to kick nazis off your platform. And who cares what homophobes do on their platforms? Don't use them.
Laws and practices that help you exclude certain opinions.
Like for example in this case the Mozilla Acceptable Use Policy. Change a few words, add some statements, and it can be used against Antifa.
Homophobes were just an example, you can substitute with Nazis or others.
Like for example in this case the Mozilla Acceptable Use Policy. Change a few words, add some statements, and it can be used against Antifa.
Homophobes were just an example, you can substitute with Nazis or others.
You don't even need to change anything. The article already mentions promoting violence was one of the reasons.
So yes, the whole point of Antifa is already unacceptable by that policy.
So yes, the whole point of Antifa is already unacceptable by that policy.
Then don't change it.
When you start summoning demons, you don't always get to choose who the demon decides to eat... Oh, you might get to point it in the direction of your enemies to begin with, sure. But eventually it'll start eating people you like, and by that point it'll have grown far too large to control.
[deleted]
10 years ago we had something similar already.
"Why the lucky stiff" from the ruby community wrote MouseHole, a local web proxy that could be used to inject a commenting overlay to the web. Only the participants would see it.
It was a lot of fun being able to comment on that overlay of the Internet.
"Why the lucky stiff" from the ruby community wrote MouseHole, a local web proxy that could be used to inject a commenting overlay to the web. Only the participants would see it.
It was a lot of fun being able to comment on that overlay of the Internet.
Funny how even this article, which kind supports gab, always associates them with terrorism (violence for political goals) while in both cases mentioned the perpetrators used other social media networks more and with more impact.
When you get bad reputation, truth doesn't matter. Everyone "knows" they are trash so... vaguely say it's against ToS.
Right now they should pull a corporate spin, rebrand and move on. CommunityChat™ - a comment section for tribe and vibe; Share you goals, feelings and achievements with a global community of mind-liked users.
When you get bad reputation, truth doesn't matter. Everyone "knows" they are trash so... vaguely say it's against ToS.
Right now they should pull a corporate spin, rebrand and move on. CommunityChat™ - a comment section for tribe and vibe; Share you goals, feelings and achievements with a global community of mind-liked users.
These are from https://gab.com/popular right now:
https://gab.com/brannon1776/posts/cDQ4dUJNKzIycHRib3ZKSU9lbT...
https://gab.com/TheSeven/posts/NUZFZXQrTk9qS0tJVlo5SHZsYnFEZ...
https://gab.com/Doomer90/posts/MERObDkzVHlKK2dISDg0OFE2Um9rU...
https://gab.com/IKNOWTHETRUTH1488/posts/Q1VhM3h1REJNa05udE93...
Is this really what you are wanting to defend? Is this just a "bad reputation" where "truth doesn't matter"?
https://gab.com/brannon1776/posts/cDQ4dUJNKzIycHRib3ZKSU9lbT...
https://gab.com/TheSeven/posts/NUZFZXQrTk9qS0tJVlo5SHZsYnFEZ...
https://gab.com/Doomer90/posts/MERObDkzVHlKK2dISDg0OFE2Um9rU...
https://gab.com/IKNOWTHETRUTH1488/posts/Q1VhM3h1REJNa05udE93...
Is this really what you are wanting to defend? Is this just a "bad reputation" where "truth doesn't matter"?
Personally I don’t agree with any of that - but I’ll defend someone else’s right to be wrong.
That is easy to do when you are not threatened by these people.
But they literally kill people. And they will kill many more if they gain more power. Do you think those dead people will thank you for your brave efforts?
But they literally kill people. And they will kill many more if they gain more power. Do you think those dead people will thank you for your brave efforts?
>But they literally kill people. And they will kill many more if they gain more power. Do you think those dead people will thank you for your brave efforts?
Who are "they"? Who is literally killing people? Those are very serious accusations to just be thrown around within such a broad, imprecise, and vague message. Moreover, who are you to decide for the rest of us what kind of speech is deemed dangerous or otherwise? I don't think any collective's arbitrary criteria should automatically apply to limit free speech, if there should be a limit, that is.
These are immensely important issues that have to be decided through very careful deliberation, not just a vague sentiment or subjective impression held by a group of people, as it dictates the manner in which we communicate and express ourselves with one another, and that shouldn't be up for grabs.
Who are "they"? Who is literally killing people? Those are very serious accusations to just be thrown around within such a broad, imprecise, and vague message. Moreover, who are you to decide for the rest of us what kind of speech is deemed dangerous or otherwise? I don't think any collective's arbitrary criteria should automatically apply to limit free speech, if there should be a limit, that is.
These are immensely important issues that have to be decided through very careful deliberation, not just a vague sentiment or subjective impression held by a group of people, as it dictates the manner in which we communicate and express ourselves with one another, and that shouldn't be up for grabs.
You are aware that most of recent mass murderers have been from the far right, many even posting on gab?
You are aware that mass murdering is and has been carried out by people encompassing the whole religious and political spectrum, right?
So? That does not make this problem any less real, nor does it make it go away.
So, stop paying your taxes because you're supporting the biggest terrorists of all time.
There are way more racists than you think. The ones you see on Gab are the tip of the iceberg and they're not even a fraction of a percent as violent as the state-funded ones.
Also, speech is not violence.
There are way more racists than you think. The ones you see on Gab are the tip of the iceberg and they're not even a fraction of a percent as violent as the state-funded ones.
Also, speech is not violence.
If you go out looking for it, you will find a LOT more of that stuff on Twitter, Facebook, Patreon (Search for it) and Reddit. Gab is a free speech platform - similar to how phone carriers aren't held liable for what people speak on it, same way for Gab. It's not Gab's responsibility if the users are talking garbage.
I didn't go looking for it. I literally went to the page of the most popular posts, and scrolled down a couple of times.
It absolutely, 100% is Gab's responsibility for not policing their platform. In fact, they invite this kind of behaviour. This is exactly what they want on their site.
It absolutely, 100% is Gab's responsibility for not policing their platform. In fact, they invite this kind of behaviour. This is exactly what they want on their site.
I would disagree. There is a difference between publisher and platform. If Gab was publishing illegal stuff themselves, then it would be different. Gab actively takes down speech which is illegal (action to violence type). But simple hate speech (even if it's offensive and rude) is still free speech and legally covered by the first amendment in the US.
Same way Google isn't held liable for hosting illegal pirated content as long as they take it down. But you can't go sue Google because they show you news about something which you find offensive.
Same way Google isn't held liable for hosting illegal pirated content as long as they take it down. But you can't go sue Google because they show you news about something which you find offensive.
The law does not define morals, or ethics.
They invite the worst kind of hatemongers to their site. That makes them as bad in my books. If all you care about is whether they are following the letter of the law or not, that is a very naïve and childish view.
They invite the worst kind of hatemongers to their site. That makes them as bad in my books. If all you care about is whether they are following the letter of the law or not, that is a very naïve and childish view.
But you can argue Twitter does the same. I see hate speech against my race and gender all the time. For evidence, just look at what happens when people post "it's ok to be white". Notch did it recently: massive meltdown. Very obviously these platforms are full of people who don't think it's OK to be white, which is pure racist hatred. Where are the bans? Why does saying such an innocuous thing trigger such hatred with no response from these supposedly hate-fighting platforms?
What about all the hate towards Trump when he says good morning, have a nice day? Nothing happens.
Of course, we know why. It's because the people who run them are fine with the right kind of hate, if they believe it to be justified by history.
What about all the hate towards Trump when he says good morning, have a nice day? Nothing happens.
Of course, we know why. It's because the people who run them are fine with the right kind of hate, if they believe it to be justified by history.
>The law does not define morals, or ethics.
Yes, the law codifies a unified set of rules and definitions. Morals and ethics do not have that quality.
Yes, the law codifies a unified set of rules and definitions. Morals and ethics do not have that quality.
On the other hand, wanting to silence those you disagree with is very mature.
The argument boils down to what exactly is hate speech. Something which you find offensive could be totally okay to a lot of other people. Culture, language, satire/comedy/sarcasm etc all play a huge role in what's offensive to someone. I am an immigrant from another country and things which are said there is offensive here and vice versa.
I wasn't saying that Gab has "good" content. I was just pointing out that press, and regular joes, associate Gab with terrorism because of 2/3 terrorism cases, In those cases the terrorists used other social media sites with a greater impact.
This association with terrorism isn't a fair representation of the truth.
This association with terrorism isn't a fair representation of the truth.
I don't know what you expect from a website where people go when they get banned from everywhere else.
I expect people to maybe not make such a huge effort to protect and defend this utter garbage.
That's cool, not everybody has to like free speech; defending free speech or not is purely a political opinion, like many other issues.
See, I'd be more impressed by the "we're just defending free speech" argument that comes up so often if it was ever for anything other than racism, sexism and hate.
Upholding principles only count when it's uncomfortable. Otherwise they're not principles.
Of course the things getting pushed away are unpalatable, that's why they're targeted.
Of course the things getting pushed away are unpalatable, that's why they're targeted.
It's also used for pornography, e.g. when Tumblr decided to clean their platform, the LGBT+ community seemed to be hit especially hard.
This is a bizarre blog post to have on the Packt website. Can anybody write these? Packt already had a bit of a low-quality book-mill smell to it, and now they're beating the "why can't the nazis catch a break" drum. Do not want.
Wasn't was something similar to this in the late 90s - I can't remember the name but I remember it having similar issues.
Good. Far-right hate is unacceptable, and no company with a conscience should ever support it.
Far left is no better than far right - nobody is even listening to each other anymore.
The far left is not killing people. The far right is, in significant numbers.
Do you see a difference now?
Do you see a difference now?
If you consider communism as far left, then yes the far left has absolutely killed millions. If you do not consider communism far left, I don't know what to tell you.
I suspect he's talking about individuals and activist groups in the US and Europe, rather than governments, state actors, and more formal armed militias and rebel groups.
Broadly speaking, one side believes that the government should only own guns while the other side believes that everyone should own guns. So that makes sense that you won't likely see a radical leftist use guns but you could very much see an authoritarian radical leftist government use weapons against it's defenceless civilians.
Expanding your criteria to encompass all of history isn't really all that helpful. Today, in the actual situation we are experiencing as opposed to political movements that have been dead for decades, the far right are more violent than the far left by a large margin.
far right are more violent than the far left by a large margin.
Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but you're going to have to define your terms more narrowly if you want your argument to hold. Which countries, who's "we", are we talking state actors or individuals, how to Maoist rebel groups in Asia and South America feature into your calculus etc.
Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but you're going to have to define your terms more narrowly if you want your argument to hold. Which countries, who's "we", are we talking state actors or individuals, how to Maoist rebel groups in Asia and South America feature into your calculus etc.
Given what we're talking about here (i.e. Gab) I'm referring to US-based groups.
We are talking about what is relevant in the here and now. We are talking about murders that are happening now.
Ok, so there's no far-right murders happening NOW. Because NOW is an instant, a single point in time.
Which means you need a time range to care about.
And 'relevant'?
Is a murder in Sri Lanka relevant? New Zealand? Venezuela? Just the US? You seem to be being as obtuse as possible.
Which means you need a time range to care about.
And 'relevant'?
Is a murder in Sri Lanka relevant? New Zealand? Venezuela? Just the US? You seem to be being as obtuse as possible.
Far left is no better than far right
Perhaps true in aggregate across all countries and history. Absolutely not true in any given local situation.
Perhaps true in aggregate across all countries and history. Absolutely not true in any given local situation.
You're kidding, right? There's no situation in which the far right is better than the far left? Even when the far left launches a terrorist attack?
It sounds like you're defining 'far right' to be worse than 'far left', and then presenting that relationship as your conclusion.
It sounds like you're defining 'far right' to be worse than 'far left', and then presenting that relationship as your conclusion.
That's not at all what I was trying to say (and reading what I wrote I can see how it could be misunderstood). The far left has obviously in very many places and at very many times been absolutely horrific.
My point was that claiming that there is an equivalence between the two in general (and specifically today in the US for example) is I believe false. Basically talking about the "far left" and "far right" in the abstract is meaningless as terms meaning nothing in and of themselves. You have to talk about it in a particular time and a particular place for it to have any meaning.
My point was that claiming that there is an equivalence between the two in general (and specifically today in the US for example) is I believe false. Basically talking about the "far left" and "far right" in the abstract is meaningless as terms meaning nothing in and of themselves. You have to talk about it in a particular time and a particular place for it to have any meaning.
“What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
"free speech" has become a wedge issue, a cudgel used by crypto-fascists to induce well-meaning centrists to actively fight for their cause. All you need is the thinnest veneer of respectability covering your bigotry and a stampede of individuals who nominally hate what you stand for will fight relentlessly for your interests.
In the world of the free speech absolutist, we are all obligated to sit politely on the sidelines listening to white nationalists recruit and further their cause, cheered by the health of the marketplace of ideas.
Thin gruel.
In the world of the free speech absolutist, we are all obligated to sit politely on the sidelines listening to white nationalists recruit and further their cause, cheered by the health of the marketplace of ideas.
Thin gruel.
Hmm, first time I heard of this. Maybe I can even continue some of my beloved flagged HN discussions on there! Sounds great!
Sure, if you are looking for somewhere to be a racist, islamaphobe or antisemite, it's a wonderful place.
Censorship will be their downfall :)
Can people stop trying to make "comment on every website" extensions happen. That must be the 1000th attempt.
Both browsers offer sideloaded extensions as well as open source cores that can be set to use their own stores.
While troubling that they have such ability, they make their terms of use clear and do offer motivated users the ability to chose alternative plugin sources.
While troubling that they have such ability, they make their terms of use clear and do offer motivated users the ability to chose alternative plugin sources.
Neither browser allows sideloaded extensions in its standard build:
Chrome:
> As of Chrome 33, no external installs are allowed from a path to a local .crx on Windows (see Protecting Windows users from malicious extensions). As of Chrome 44, no external installs are allowed from a path to a local .crx on Mac (see Continuing to protect Chrome users from malicious extensions).
https://developer.chrome.com/apps/external_extensions
Firefox:
> What are my options if I want to install unsigned extensions in Firefox?
> The Nightly and Developer Edition versions of Firefox have a preference to disable signature enforcement.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing
Chrome:
> As of Chrome 33, no external installs are allowed from a path to a local .crx on Windows (see Protecting Windows users from malicious extensions). As of Chrome 44, no external installs are allowed from a path to a local .crx on Mac (see Continuing to protect Chrome users from malicious extensions).
https://developer.chrome.com/apps/external_extensions
Firefox:
> What are my options if I want to install unsigned extensions in Firefox?
> The Nightly and Developer Edition versions of Firefox have a preference to disable signature enforcement.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing
Sure you can. You can load unpacked extensions in Chrome - I do it all the time when developing extensions.
They don't stay enabled though I think, you need to turn them back on after every restart.
That’s Safari. I have unpacked extensions loaded up in chrome all the time because I can’t figure out how to push an update to an extension I made