
Gab's domain registrar gives 5 days to transfer domain or they will seize it - DanAndersen
https://twitter.com/getongab/status/909646893516414977
======
thatonechad
When you can't defeat someone in a debate, silence them.

~~~
ivraatiems
Is a company morally obligated to serve all customers, and not permitted to
exercise discretion about who they provide services to?

Even if those people are using the company's services to break the laws of the
country the company operates in?

~~~
peoplewindow
It's really a judge's responsibility to decide if they're breaking the law in
this case. DNS registries can't possibly decide if Gab.ai is actually guilty
of what they claim given the incredibly vague wording of the requirements.
Surely Twitter and the Guardian could be argued to also meet such a vague
standard to be banned.

It's quite obvious what's going on here. There's an organised effort to erase
people with right wing views off the internet by people with extremist left
wing views, who simply describe anything they don't like as "hate speech".

~~~
thatonechad
You are spot on. They are trying to do it behind the scenes at this point, but
as the culture war continues to shift to the right winning they will go full
blown. My theory is it will start with google, facebook, and twitter. This is
why its more important to get these alternative media up before its too late.

------
Overtonwindow
This is getting out of hand. Domain registrars should not have the power to
silence speech they disagree with. Not everything is hate speech, and not
every platform promotes it.

------
ryanx435
Richard Stallman has been way undervalued, as a whole, in the last couple of
decades. He has predicted this and other similar situations and worked his
entire career to try to prevent the "tyranny of software companies", or
however he phrases it.

If you don't know who he is, or haven't read up on him recently, please check
him out.

He gave a talk at my college back in 2007/2008 that I went to, talking about
quants and investment algorithms, and how they had directly contributed to the
economic collapse. He made the point that, because all of the algorithms were
closed source and not open to public review, they were dependent on the market
understanding of the individuals who wrote the algorithms. Given the nature of
humanity, many of those individuals likely had faulty or incomplete
understanding of the markets, and therefore the algorithms also misunderstood
the markets. Free (open sourced) code could have prevented that.

Well, i'm not sure I agree with his conclusions about that. I asked him about
his thoughts on the recursive effect the algorithms would have on the market
(the algorithms were so prevalent that they basically were the market makers,
thus changing the market itself to reflect their faulty assumptions about the
market before their existence).

He said it was an excellent question, didn't have an answer, and offered me an
internship to work on that problem under his direction. I declined for various
reasons.

anyways, he was correct about a lot of things.

([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman))
([https://stallman.org/](https://stallman.org/))

~~~
cheez
Disclaimer: I wrote some of those algorithms. I used to believe that as well:
the algorithms are gobbledygook, but once I got into it and really understood,
I realized it's use of the algorithms that was problematic. The first time I
priced mortgage-backed "bonds", I was honestly aghast as to how it was
possible to perpetrate such a structure.

After a lot of testing, I realized that the models were fine, but the politics
behind choosing the parameters were to blame (hint: the ones that gave the
best bonuses).

Just my 2c. Stallman is smart, and correctly called a lot of the stuff that is
happening now, but I don't think he is right there.

------
neo4sure
well done. Apluade this measure...

