
Why Epik welcomed Gab.com - amaccuish
https://epik.com/blog/why-epik-welcomed-gab-com.html
======
sagichmal
Free speech absolutism misses the forest for the trees. Free speech isn't the
Ur-state of a just society, it's a means to an end, and the end is the
reduction of suffering.

When free speech reduces suffering, it's a good tool and should be applied.
When free speech increases suffering -- and there can be no doubt that G*b
increases suffering -- then it's inappropriate. Consequently, this is a Bad
Post, and a really Bad Look, from Epik.

~~~
lliamander
Gab's issue (as far as I can tell) is that they have issues curbing explicitly
illegal behavior (such threats of violence).

But your view on free speech as it relates to suffering is nebulous and
myopic.

The crux of free speech is this: do we trust people to judge the words and
ideas of others for themselves, or do we not?

If you believe that you have the capacity (and responsibility) to judge ideas
for yourself, then you must grant other people the right to express those
ideas.

~~~
sagichmal
> The crux of free speech is this: do we trust people to judge the words and
> ideas of others for themselves, or do we not?

This is a free-speech-centric view of the world, and my claim is that this is
(at least) an insufficient, and (at most) the wrong perspective for shaping
society. The correct and highest thing to optimize for is not the maximization
of free speech, but the minimization of suffering.

~~~
vorpalhex
> the wrong perspective for shaping society

Who says I want your shape for my society?

> The correct and highest thing to optimize for is not the maximization of
> free speech, but the minimization of suffering.

Why should we minimize suffering? Should we get rid of all pointed knives and
force the world to eat their steak with plastic cutlery? Then again, steak
causes it's own suffering, maybe we should feed the world with baby food.

What does it mean to suffer? Is losing a sparring match suffering? Is coming
in last place in a race suffering? What about when someone calls me ugly or
fat? What if someone really doesn't care for cats?

Why do you have some special right to design my world? What if instead I got
to design yours?

~~~
sagichmal
> Who says I want your shape for my society?

I don't care what you want.

I think my shape for society is better than yours, objectively better, better
in the ethical and practical sense, and every other sense besides. I'm laying
out my reasoning for why it is I think that, and you can agree or you can
disagree.

We can both lay out our reasoning, and our conversation can be read by other
people, and they can think about which version of society they'd prefer to
live in, and they can work to make that idea a reality, too, if they like.

~~~
lliamander
By reducing the totality of the human experience of suffering to a single
quantity, you give your ethical framework the patina of objectivity. However,
without an instrument that could actually _measure_ this quantity, any
governance structure based on your framework would be at the mercy of
sophists, pity mongers, and empathy traps.

~~~
sagichmal
> However, without an instrument that could actually measure this quantity,
> any governance structure based on your framework would be at the mercy of .
> . .

All systems -- government, financial, computer -- are social systems, in that
they're built with human beings as the foundation, and not the other way
around.

Because humans are subjective, squishy, and imprecise, it follows naturally
and unavoidably that systems built on top of us need to accommodate those
properties as invariants. They should not (because they _can not_ ) presume
their foundation as some kind of objective, fixed, precise spherical cow of
uniform density.

Yes, measurement of suffering is subjective. No, that's not a reason to avoid
doing it. It's precisely that subjectivity which makes the systems built on
top of it sound.

------
amaccuish
Don't understand the whole "how awful it was for Godaddy to pull out". That's
their choice, and Epik have decided to take Gab on, isn't that how the
internet works. Freedom of association?

I would however prefer that we live in a society where no one would "welcome"
Gab, but we sadly we don't yet; something to work towards I guess.

------
alphabettsy
Interesting excerpt: “Although, I did not take the decision lightly to accept
this domain registration, I look forward to partnering with a young, and once
brash, CEO who is courageously doing something that looks useful. As I reflect
on my own journey as a truth-seeking tech entrepreneur, I have no doubt that
Andrew will continue to develop not only as tech entrepreneur but also as a
responsible steward — one that can balance bravado with diplomacy and who
tempers courage with humility.”

I can understand wanting to uphold free-speech, but to pretend this CEO,
Andrew, has some noble goal in mind and who’s company hasn’t been posting
Anti-semetic tweets from their company account is sickening to me. It’s
certainly about free-speech but let’s not pretend this guy isn’t a bigot.

------
trynewideas
Don't have to click through to answer that: it got them on the front page of
HN.

~~~
db48x
It is sad how newsworthy doing the right thing is.

~~~
phoobahr
How is this the right thing? Or the wrong thing for that matter? There are no
utilities, common carriers not governmental agencies in play. This is an
entirely contractual matter amongst civil parties. Everyone here is free to
say what they want (so long as it’s not otherwise illegal), pursue a
contractual agreement and engage (or not) the meta conversation regarding the
context of the transaction.

Should this go terribly wrong for one party or another (such as, say, hosting
speech that is libellous, threatening or otherwise contravened by law) they
can engage in that public meta discourse as well. It will certainly be spoken
about without or without them.

This is hardly the right thing. It isn’t the wrong thing either. It’s just a
thing that, like all decisions, carries risks and responsibilities.

~~~
threatofrain
Arguably big entities which outpace the law have a noblesse oblige to exercise
a lightness of authority.

------
sxp62000
In real life, if somebody borrowed my megaphone and started shouting racist
things, I'd have the right to snatch it away because it belongs to me. So the
private companies that refused service to Gab were doing nothing wrong.

Also, just noticed that Epik calls itself the "Swiss Bank of Domains", so
they're staying true to their brand I guess.

~~~
oceanplexian
A private website isn't a megaphone. No one is forcibly making people visit a
URL and read their content (Beyond say...spam or clickbait, and in that case,
sure, I can sympathize with you). But the internet is a lot more like a
library than it is a crowded city street with a megaphone.

You can go your entire life on the internet and not have to read an opposing
political viewpoint. Especially if you read curated content from mainstream
media outlets that don't allow commenting, voting, and social participation.
Or simply skip the comments. It isn't that hard to avoid the "hateful"
content.

~~~
sxp62000
The internet aspired to be a library, but even libraries are curated. I'm not
saying people shouldn't be allowed to say whatever they want to say, but a
private company has the right to refuse service to customers who intentionally
won't or are unable to meet their terms of service. This has applied to all
sorts of things in the past and still does, e.g. filesharing, pornography and
music streaming sites.

Also, let's not kid ourselves that the stand that Epik has taken has anything
to do with free speech. It's good for their business, just like it's good
business for news agencies to have a view point and not remain neutral. People
who run torrent and porn sites and companies who host them have used this
argument for ages.

------
0x8BADF00D
I vouched this thread. While I realize it may be upsetting to many, it is
still an important discussion to have. Freedom of speech has always been
controversial - the ACLU famously defended white supremacists in National
Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977).

When you restrict freedom of speech for a group you don’t agree with, it leads
to a toxic society that only tolerates viewpoints on the whims of the majority
of society. This is clearly not what the Founding Fathers intended.

~~~
wild_preference
The treatment of Gab is terrifying. It became an easy crux for everyone to
publicly hang their disapproval on for easy moral points, and created a chain-
reaction where nobody wanted to be the one left holding the bag.

~~~
happytoexplain
I find the popularity of the hatred and calls to violence based on which
political party or religion you affiliate with hosted on Gab much more
terrifying than the possibility that some people are falling on the "wrong"
side of the question as to whether such content justifies removal from a
platform that is privately managed but widely used in a public fashion. I
think both problems are important and complex, but I also think the former
overshadows the latter dramatically, and that informs my opinion when the two
issues collide.

------
sjacks
Your comment suggests that the likes of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram be
wiped off the net for their part in providing accounts to multiple rapists
murderers and terrorists. Let's get rid of all social media, including this
site, you know, just to be sure!

------
stillbourne
You are free to say what you want. You are not free to the stage upon which
you pronounce your bullshit from. If you walk into a Taco Bell and start
screaming at the top of your lungs that liberals are hosting satanic child
abuse rings in the basement, I fully expect the manager to kick you out and
ban you. Now replace "Taco Bell" with Gab. How is that different?

~~~
james_pm
Should the landlord be able to terminate the lease of the Taco Bell in the
event that they don't kick people out efficiently and effectively enough?
Should it be assumed that Taco Bell agrees with the statements of this person
who came in screaming?

~~~
aptwebapps
Depending on the terms of the lease, yes.

No, but if they say similar stuff on their own (i.e. Gab's official Twitter
account, may tweets now deleted), you don't have to assume anything.

------
onetimemanytime
Can Epik be bullied from others _above_ the stream?

