
Gab.com Booted from Hosting Provider Due to User Account - vabmit
https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1056362626077220865
======
partiallypro
There is a lot of strawmanning when it comes to free speech. Virtually no one
claims the 1st Amendment guarantees people a platform or that it applies to
corporations. Yet, I see people clarifying that constantly...when no one is
saying otherwise. Free speech as an American ideal, that's all people are
really saying.

Anyhow, Joyent has every right to shut down their hosting services to anyone
they feel...and no one really says otherwise on that point either. The
sticking point is, are we headed down the right path on this issue? Are we
setting the right precedent, because while we all likely agree that things
like Daily Stormer and Gab are platforms for truly hateful people...are we
emboldening them by driving them underground?

Likewise, as cloud providers beginning to show too much discretion over
content? Let's take it outside of politics and into copyright. What if AWS
hosted a new video streaming service, and some corporation XYZ claimed a
(false) copyright violation. Amazon has a large contract with corporation XYZ
because of Prime Video and kicks the video services off of AWS with short
notice. Would that be acceptable, essentially putting that company out of
business? Sure, it would legally not be a problem but would it be a moral
problem?

Back to politics. Let's say GCS hosted DailyCaller or something, and employees
internally find out and force it off because they find it as morally
outrageous as the pentagon contract. It sounds crazy, but it could totally get
to that point.

That seems like a bit of a leap from where we are now, but with cloud
providers starting to show more and more discretion of what they host, I don't
rule out that we could slip our way to things like that happening. It also
seems increasingly likely that the more politicized the major players become,
the more likely political disagreements could effectively ruin alternative
platforms.

Gab might rightfully deserve being kicked off, but we do need to tread
carefully on what type of precedent we are setting going forward as things
like this become normalized.

~~~
jbarciauskas
>Are we setting the right precedent, because while we all likely agree that
things like Daily Stormer and Gab are platforms for truly hateful people...are
we emboldening them by driving them underground?

Yes. No.

I don't find the slippery slope argument compelling. As a society we can
decide what is and isn't within the realm of reasonable debate and discourse.
Whatever the lines are, the discussion of racial supremacy and systematic
oppression and elimination of others seems like something we should all be
able to agree is outside the bounds.

~~~
partiallypro
Since there have been large crackdowns on these sites, violence and seething
has ticked up across the globe, and the "far right" has taken control of more
governments (and I'm not talking about Trump, I'm talking about Europe/South
America where there are open threats of violence and anti-Semitism.) I am just
saying that perhaps driving these people underground where they can't be
monitored is not the best approach.

I would argue that it is possible that cracking down on public platforms them
gives them a platform in and of itself that once did not exist. It's similar
to a Streisand effect. People become even -more- radicalized because they feel
"oppressed." It sort of reminds me of how the ATF raid on Waco unwittingly
played into their cult's idea of the apocalypse and has since bred people like
McVeigh.

THAT is the slippery slope.

------
bmarquez
Joyent, the hosting provider, has a history of pulling the rug from under
people.

Here's an HN discussion of Joyent ending lifetime hosting accounts:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4391669](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4391669)

I also knew someone who was using BingoDisk and was left hanging when it was
sold to another company.

------
paraditedc
I have been following the issue of Internet polarization since 2014 [1], and I
propose two different ways to mediate the situation on a societal level:

\- Have a neutral platform to facilitate discourse and mutual understanding.
This is hard as it requires a largely informed populace.

\- Complete segregation of groups having different opinions. This proves to be
also hard because of incidents like this.

[1] [https://paradite.com/2014/11/11/internet-polarized-
society/](https://paradite.com/2014/11/11/internet-polarized-society/)

~~~
jbarciauskas
What if, instead of either of these, we made it clear as a society that
advocating violence against or the elimination of a class of people is
unacceptable and we gave no venue for that conversation whatsoever?

------
Tycho
The real question is, was there external pressure applied to the hosting
company or was this entirely their own decision?

~~~
minimaxir
What is the "external pressure" in this case?

~~~
tootahe45
The usual lynch mobs (which FB & Twitter allow on their platform) reported it
en masse I'm guessing. This works well for getting conservatives banned on
social media because their report systems are somewhat automated, but it also
works for domains and email providers. I think they recently got Gab booted
off Azure too.

~~~
lgierth
"Lynching" is a terrible term to use for filling out an online abuse form,
while there have been 11 people murdered by a white supremacist.

~~~
jbarciauskas
Yes. The victims at Tree of Life today were victims of lynching, not the
platform on which the lynching was promoted.

------
mychael
I don't visit Gab, but I will definitely be closing my Joyent account.

If you're not a courageous and principled defender of free speech, you should
get out of the cloud business.

~~~
jbarciauskas
The US standard for what is legally free speech is absurdly low. Why should
companies hold themselves to it? Why should they force themselves to support
organizations that promote the wholesale elimination of other classes of
people?

~~~
stuart78
The ‘US Standard’ for free speech is exactly where it should be, and applies
to the government’s role in censoring citizen speech. Joyent, as a business
has no obligation to support anything outside of their own policies.

~~~
syshum
The "US Standard" generally means the standard by which the people of the US
value the concept of Free Speech, which extends beyond that of the 1st
amendment. We the people of the US codified our position on speech in the 1st
amendment of our governing document to ensure that our government would never
infringe upon our most vital right as free humans.

This however does not in anyway mean we believe others including large
corporations should have the right to infringe upon said rights simply because
"its a business"

There are many avenues one could seek to hold Joynet and others like them that
proclaim to be open to all in their advertisements then reject many they
disagree with. First and foremost would be Truth in Advertisement laws, Fraud,
and other legal regulations which if they were properly enforced these
companies would be clearly violating

No the "US Standard" of Free Speech is not just about government censorship,
that is ignorant and naive view of what Free Speech is as a concept. Free
Speech is concept where by a person is free to express themselves with out
fear of censorship from either government or society at large. Free Speech
today is under massive attack not by government in the US (yet) but by society
at large.

//Edit for the record. I do not have nor do I plan to sign up for a Gab
account (or twitter Gab's competitor) this is not about Gab as a service, I
honestly could not care less about Gab it is about the precedent this sets
when it comes to cloud and other internet infrastructure

~~~
drivingmenuts
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I suggest you re-read that and point to where it says "society at large". The
1st Amendment is a restriction on the government, not on the people (except
maybe the "peaceably" bit).

~~~
syshum
The Constitution is a document establishing and limiting government power. It
has nothing to do with what I am talking about

Freedom of speech exist beyond and outside of the 1st amendment, that fact
that many people believe all free speech issues are limited only to the 1st
amendment and government censorship is part of the massive problem we have in
society at large

------
sremani
Isn't @Joyent part of Samsung ?

[https://www.joyent.com/blog/samsung-acquires-
joyent](https://www.joyent.com/blog/samsung-acquires-joyent)

This should be really interesting in days to come.

~~~
minimaxir
Er, why? That seems unrelated.

~~~
sremani
A private american company imposing its standards on "free speech" does not
have same ring as Korean conglomerate imposing its standards on "free speech"
in America.

This may be or may not an angle of attack. I am speculating it would be.

------
walrus01
The irony of a bunch of Rand worshipping free market libertarians being
outraged and indignant when another private business no longer wants to take
their money.

~~~
sbuttgereit
I am find Rand an invaluable philosophical resource. While I wouldn't count
myself an Objectivist, I certainly find more correct with Objectivism than
not.

From this perspective, a few observations. Joyent should be able to do
business with whomever they want, period. So long as they don't commit fraud
or infringe on the rights of others in so doing, then they are within their
rights AND within their moral prerogative to not do business with Gab. Note
also that there is no moral obligation of Joyent to give Gab a platform and
they're not doing so is not censorship: Gab's right to free speech cannot
rightfully compromise Joyent's right to speech or association. The only way
Joyent would be in the wrong here is if they represented to Gab that their
business was acceptable/welcome and they did so with fore-knowledge of that
business; and even then they'd only be in the wrong due to the short notice of
termination given and the resulting damage to Gab's business, not because of
the change of heart. To suggest that those that think like me might think
otherwise is to speak without the requisite education to comment or is simple
intellectual dishonesty.

Regardless the degree to which you hate Rand and those that think like me, the
ridiculous and ill-informed hyperbole that your message contains is
unwarranted and leads to the very state of affairs in which we find ourselves.
It doesn't matter toward which "team" you express unmitigated hate, it only
matters that you and those that shout disparagements (regardless of which side
they sit) advocate acting on raw emotion rather than reason... indulging in
hate over disagreement and debate. The facts, the truth, and the legitimate
back-and-forth of competing ideas tested by reason seems to matter not once
that's done. It may play well to the home team, but it does nothing to advance
the discussion in the more general sense.

Very sad.

------
vabmit
The "Gab.com banned from PayPal" post is still up. But, this post has been
hidden.

------
revel
Let's get real for a second here: gab courted neo-Nazis and became a refuge
for anti-semitites and racists precisely because that was their target user
base. Gab's pearl-clutching about anti-semitism is about as genuine as an
arsonist's complaints about smoke. I will not miss gab, nor will I miss it's
fetid assortment of wastrels. The best thing I can say about gab is that their
pathetic shrieks at least made me laugh.

Oh, and "Free speech" has nothing to do with forced hosting for assorted
terribles. This is one of the most persistent and irritating
misinterpretations of the first amendment. "Free speech" covers the government
and the government alone.

------
jbob2000
> Big tech can not stop us. The mainstream media can not stop us.

> The People will defend freedom against tyranny as they always have and
> always will.

> God bless you all and God bless...

These comments are kind of partisan, no? A neutral company would just say
“hey, we’re going to a new service because of X, back soon!”. Let the users
cry “free speech, god bless”.

------
zzo38computer
I like free speech, even if I do not agree what they are saying. Although, a
hosting provider could stop their service if they do not like it I suppose,
although I think they should not do so unless it causes technical problems
such as 100% CPU usage or stuff like that, although I am not saying they do
not have the right to ban them, only that my opinion is to don't. But, you
could just use a different hosting provider, I suppose. One hosting provider
will not necessarily be available forever anyways.

------
lgleason
Irregardless of what you think of Gab etc.. Unless the platform is being used
for illegal activity and or it is engaging in something that breaks the law
these service providers can and should be treated like the phone company. In
other words the phone company does not turn off your phone because you are a
nazi, racist etc.. Also, and this is an important distinction, there has been
no established link between the shooters activity on Gab and what he did. IE:
it does not appear that he collaborated with others on it to plan things etc.
on the service... and if he had, odds are he probably also used other
providers more extensively such as gmail etc..

Hosting providers policing things like this is akin to vigilante justice vs
letting it go through the legal system where there is actually due process for
everybody, not just the people that the mod likes.

~~~
daxterspeed
Setting up your own hosting provider (read: servers) might be a bit of a
hassle, but it's nothing compared to setting up your own telephone network.
Gab is free to purchase their own servers and provide the necessary
facilities.

~~~
legostormtroopr
Sure, you don't need shared hosting, just setup your own servers. Until
someone kicks you out of there server space...

Sure, you don't need shared server space, just setup your own co-location
facility. Until someone decides not to give you backhaul...

Or until someone decides they won't provide you with DNS. Or DDoS protection.
Or Payment gateway. Or... or... or...

The reality we are facing is that some political opinions (even relatively
benign ones) aren't allowed access to the same resources as others.

Gab is benign, they started based on people getting kicked off Twitter -
because you don't need Twitter, just start your own. So they did. And now they
find themselves being booted around, because of virtue signalling tech
companies.

~~~
anarazel
> Gab is benign, they started based on people getting kicked off Twitter

Read the official twitter profile (what they write and reteweet). And then
tell me again that they're not explicitly reaching for the racist fringe.

------
lgleason
For all of the people saying that Joyent can do this because they are a
private company that statement there is a catch to this. All service providers
are exempt from being sued for content on their platform under safe harbor
under the argument that they were neutral platforms. If they are going to
start to curate content by kicking companies like Gab.com off then it is time
that a few copyright, libel test cases against these companies make their way
to the courts given that it is in violation of the spirit behind safe harbor
as it is stated in section 230 of the communications decency act.. It also is
going beyond the "good Samaritan" definition.

~~~
duskwuff
This is incorrect on multiple levels.

The term "safe harbor" is typically used to refer to the provisions of the
Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA), not the
Communications Decency Act you're discussing. OCILLA protects hosting and
network providers from liability for copyright infringements committed by
their customers, so long as they aren't aware of the infringement and don't
directly benefit from it, and so long as they comply with the DMCA takedown
process. This is, obviously, completely irrelevant to this situation.

The CDA actually does the exact opposite of what you are claiming here. It
explicitly _indemnifies_ service providers for blocking content, regardless of
whether that content is constitutionally protected or not -- it reads in part:

> (2) Civil liability: No provider or user of an interactive computer service
> shall be held liable on account of—

> (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or
> availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene,
> lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise
> objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected
> […]

~~~
lgleason
Yes, but the preamble tells a much different story as to the intent of the
act.... There is also talk about updating the act as well which is a better
solution IMHO because a lot has changed since it was written.

------
dna_polymerase
Joyent is a private company, they can choose to refuse doing business with
anyone they like to, I think this was confirmed (by supreme court) a few weeks
ago when some baker refused the business of a gay couple. (That decision is
protected by the same first amendment that Gab claims to be protecting!
Brilliant really.)

However, for everyone looking to host at Joyent: Beware they might cancel on
you, too. And giving a company 2 days notice is far beyond comprehension. I
wouldn't want to deal with this. I think it's really poor business standards.

~~~
jbarciauskas
It doesn't seem like this scenario should make you nervous unless your
platform is a venue for discussing genocide.

~~~
dna_polymerase
There were many cases in which hosting companies decided to terminate accounts
for whatever reason. And that's generally not a big problem, but 2 days notice
on a weekend is just outright shitty behaviour. I can understand Joyent trying
to cut ties to Gab, but seriously guys, give them time to migrate.

~~~
jbarciauskas
11 people died and this is where you want to make a stand?

