
Alt-social network Gab booted from Google Play Store for hate speech - janober
https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/17/alt-social-network-gab-booted-from-google-play-store-for-hate-speech
======
joelrunyon
Meanwhile twitter is being used to threaten assassinations -
[https://twitter.com/search?q=assassinate%20trump&src=tyah](https://twitter.com/search?q=assassinate%20trump&src=tyah)

I get there's ugly stuff on the internet, but when did all the platforms
decide to start being the moral center of determining what's acceptable
speech. Hate speech is still protected speech (in the US anyways)[1] no matter
how horrible it is.

> A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of
> the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the
> detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the
> government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial
> safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Hate_speech_laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Hate_speech_laws)

~~~
leereeves
They aren't the moral center. They're firmly on the left and banning their
political opponents. Hate speech exists on all platforms and comes from both
sides; it's only an excuse here.

~~~
nl
This isn't really left vs right.

There's plenty on the right who are more than happy to condemn Nazis.

~~~
leereeves
Gab aren't Nazis.

~~~
nl
And Twitter don't favor the left.

If they favored the left then they would have implemented much stronger anti-
harassment policies a long time ago. Instead the greatest sin you can do is
dox someone, which will get you banned forever.

To make it clear: On Twitter, you can have a Swastika for an avatar, and post
oven memes while tagging Jewish members and you won't get banned. OTOH, if you
unmask one of the people posting those memes you will get banned.

I'm not sure what political stand that is, but it doesn't seem particularly
left (or right!) wing to me.

~~~
leereeves
> Twitter don't favor the left.

Of course they favor the left. The founder even said he was sorry about
Twitter helping elect Trump.

~~~
nl
There are plenty on the right who say the same thing. Some are even members of
the Republican party and in Congress.

~~~
leereeves
How many donated a million dollars to Obama?

[http://www.ebony.com/news-views/obama-foundation-tech-
billio...](http://www.ebony.com/news-views/obama-foundation-tech-billionaires)

~~~
nl
You realize that is _after_ Obama left office, right?

My argument isn't that Evan William's doesn't have political opinions. It is
that Twitter's policies don't reflect them.

Your point was:

> They're [Twitter] firmly on the left and banning their political opponents.

I'm sure you can point to many right-leaning commentators who have been
banned, and I can point to many left-learning.

But as far as I can see they don't ban people for political views, instead
they bad them for specific behaviors; specifically direct threats or doxing.

~~~
leereeves
I'm not talking about Twitter's actions here. I don't know everyone they've
banned so I can't tell if they are biased.

I'm talking about Gab being right-wing and therefore banned by Apple and
Google, while Twitter, which also hosts hate speech, is not banned, because
they are left-wing.

~~~
nl
> Of course they favor the left. The founder even said he was sorry about
> Twitter helping elect Trump.

> How many donated a million dollars to Obama? [Twitter founder Evan Williams]

> I'm not talking about Twitter's actions here.

Hu?

~~~
leereeves
I mean, I'm talking about Twitter's politics, not their bans.

They get away with hosting hate speech because they're on the left. Meanwhile,
another platform that's on the right is banned by Apple and Google with that
excuse.

------
zcombo432
Does Google still stand for "free and open Internet"?

"Our values remain the same: The Internet should be competitive and open.
That’s how it works today and how it has always worked. It’s a level playing
field, where new entrants and established players can reach users on an equal
footing. If Internet access providers can block some services and cut special
deals that prioritize some companies’ content over others, that would threaten
the innovation that makes the Internet awesome."

[https://www.google.com/takeaction/action/freeandopen/index.h...](https://www.google.com/takeaction/action/freeandopen/index.html)

~~~
rdtsc
Pretty sure some equal footing is more equal than other.

I have no doubt even Stalinist Russia had something in its constitution about
being a workers paradise where everyone's needs were equally met etc etc"

That's basically how propaganda works by changing and redefining words and
concepts.

------
axaxs
Sorry to comment twice on a thread...but after thinking more, I really feel
this is a dangerous precedent. The internet has been largely dominated by a
few companies. I'd go as far as to call them nearly ubiquitous. When these
companies start pushing political views, and start banning or otherwise
blocking dissent, it becomes dangerous. What if, in retaliation, farmers of
the Midwest banned shipments to California? Sure they'd survive, but not as
conveniently. This is how civil wars start, and I think the two sides should
start recognizing this and not pandering to the loudest voice.

~~~
jdoliner
> This is how civil wars start

This is what civil wars look like. Politicians being shot, people calling for
the assassination of a sitting president, public institutions deciding which
side they're on.

~~~
MollyR
Are you saying we are in a civil war ? I dont want to believe it, but . .

Republicans were shot at by an alt-left radical. Scalise was in the ICU.

Another alt-left radical Clayton Carter murdered a GOP committee member in
front of his wife.

Mainstream Media is completely politicized

An alt-right radical murdered Heather Heyer a protester.

Today a missouri state senator Nadal called for the assasination of a sitting
us president. It also trended on twitter. Twitter did nothing.

The only thing that gives me hope of deescalation is both the right and left
media is finally denouncing violence on both sides.

CNN pundits and FOX pundits are all denouncing ANTIFA and the alt-left, and
the alt-right and racists.

~~~
j2kun
"Alt-left" is a fabricated term that does not refer to a movement. It creates
a false equivalency between white supremacists and people who protest them.

~~~
jdoliner
So would you describe the person who shot Scalise as mainstream left then?

~~~
j2kun
Did he self-identify as alt-left? Literally nobody identifies as alt-left.
Unless he did, it's irrelevant to my comment.

~~~
jdoliner
He self identified as left.

~~~
j2kun
Exactly. Alt-left is a term made up by literal white supremacists to make
violent leftist terrorists look like they're a broad, organized movement. They
use it to excuse themselves for the violence their side commits. It gives them
non sequiturs to distract in conversation, as you and the root comment
successfully did.

~~~
hashberry
"The alt-right didn’t invent ‘alt-left.’ Liberals did."[0]

[0] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-
partisan/wp/2017/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-
partisan/wp/2017/08/17/the-alt-right-didnt-invent-alt-left-liberals-did/)

~~~
j2kun
Right.

[http://www.snopes.com/2017/08/17/is-the-alt-left-a-real-
thin...](http://www.snopes.com/2017/08/17/is-the-alt-left-a-real-thing/)

------
jdoliner
Little by little, Silicon Valley is supplanting the government. At this point
it should be obvious that Silicon Valley companies feel no need to follow
regulations imposed on them by the government. Some do, but those that don't
aren't punished and generally wind up with faster growing businesses because
of it. The government makes a symbolic effort to prevent hate speech, but
where their efforts end Silicon Valley's begin. SVs efforts are much farther
reaching and much more swiftly applied. And, of course, there is no oversight,
no law or set of guidelines that Google must follow to decide what is and
isn't "hate speech." Google gets to decide, they have the power.

Do you think you have a right to privacy in this country? You might have that
right, as long as the SV companies decide to stick up for it. But it should be
obvious at this point that, that right won't eve be enforced by the nominal
"government."

~~~
j2kun
You act as if Google didn't just pay a multibillion dollar fine for violating
a law based on censorship of certain shopping comparison websites.

SV is not beyond the power of governments, governments are just slow to catch
up. For good reason.

~~~
jdoliner
By supplanting the government I really only meant The United States
government. Google, it seems, is still willing to payout to foreign
governments. Since they might actually Something that our government does
often too, so it seems to sort of come with the territory of being one of the
most powerful organizations in The US.

I'd be astonished if our government had the spine to levy such a fine against
Google or start an anti-trust investigation for stuff like this which, to me,
seems like a pretty obvious abuse of their power as a platform.

~~~
j2kun
A cursory Google search shows they paid a fine to the US government that is
only 1/5 the EU fine, and that was in 2011, when its stock was 1/5 what it is
today.

[edit formatting and remove snark]

------
axaxs
yikes... I'm conflicted. Not a huge fan of Torba, first of all. I checked out
Gab a few times, and while I think intentions were good, there is a lot of
hateful stuff there. That said, Gab as a platform and app doesn't itself
promote hate, so I'm not sure I agree with removing it. That would be like
removing Telegram because terrorists have been found to use it.

~~~
faet
Much of it depends how public it is. For instance something like whisper needs
to remove nudity/hate speech else they'll be kicked off iOS/playstore. But,
you can still send it directly without issue.

~~~
axaxs
Let's take Torba out of the equation and just say innocent Dev A wants to
create a truly free speech platform, where anything goes and only illegal
things get removed. Like voat, per se. We all see how that turned out.

I'm kind of curious why we can't have an uncensored platform that represents
both sides. Is it because good people prefer censorship?

~~~
jszymborski
Sorry, but while speech is protected, not all speech is protected.

Hate speech and incitement of violence is a felony in most free democracies
that protect speech.

~~~
Overtonwindow
That is incorrect, and I respectfully disagree. You're half-way there. Hate
speech is protected speech. Incitement of violence is completely different
from hate speech, and it is absolutely illegal. Consider the following
scenarios:

1) Standing up and saying "I hate black people. I wish they would all die." 2)
Standing up and saying: "I hate black people, if you see them, kill them."

There's a clear difference here. The first is speech, an opinion, not
directing action, advocating for violence, or to break a law. I say that's
protected, as distasteful as it may be. The second is clearly criminal, and
illegal. It is speech, but it is directing violence, and a law to be broken.
That is the incitement of violence and a crime.

~~~
jszymborski
You're correct, I was mistaken. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2017/05/30/ha...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2017/05/30/hate-speech-is-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment-oregon-
mayor-says-hes-wrong/)

------
wisdomdata
next dilemma for a startup - figuring out which bit of the splinternet you are
going to target - the chinese, the confederate, the islamic or the general
part.

~~~
Overtonwindow
Splinternet. Wow, that is a very good point. The real scary part is when it
gets super, super easy to get on the Darknet. When everything is highly
encrypted, and those who want to wallow in hate can do so, to their hearts
content, because they will be off into the ether on their own, without
supervision, without oversight. Then the only recourse will be full and total
government control over the internet. Outlandish as it may seem, it's
possible.

------
MichaelBurge
Maybe it's because the "first impression" of Gab when the reviewer uses it is
that it's a bunch of trolls; while for e.g. Tor you have to dig a bit to find
the drugs that everyone is using it to buy.

~~~
joelrunyon
Maybe a better angle would be having a place / tab / section where it's
contained or marked as such? Marking vile content is one thing - wholesale
censorship is another.

------
chrisstanchak
I'm glad to see this at the top of HN.

If you aren't personally outraged by this, you should take a step back..try to
be as objective as you possibly can...and consider what it really means.

We are watching the collapse of the First Amendment.

No matter how much we may hate what someone has to say, we should DEFEND the
right for them to say it. That's a principle that makes this country what it
is.

Somehow this power must be reigned in.

~~~
fra
What you are suggesting does not fall under the First Amendment, and indeed
would be hugely freedom-denying.

Private individuals and businesses have always had the right to (non-
violently) restrict speech in their private spaces. As long as they do not
victimize a protected class, private businesses may reserve the right not to
serve anyone.

Now, I am a statist so I am all for designating businesses as "essential
infrastructure" and tightly regulating them. That being said, I'm not sure all
the libertarian-types on HN would like it all that much.

------
cocktailpeanuts
What's amazing is the same people who blog or tweet saying that it is right
that these companies ban these organizations based on content are the same
people who seem to believe they believe in net neutrality. These people also
spend tons of time online tweeting about how some group is acting to get rid
of net neutrality. So are you for or against net neutrality? Make up your own
mind if you're going to be criticizing others.

It's such a hypocrisy but nobody can speak out about this hypocritical
behavior because then automatically they will be branded a nazi.

It's also stupid that every time I make comments like this that I have to
clarify, double clarify, triple clarify that I am against these hate speech
groups (which should be obvious), because if I don't include this line, I'm
also suddenly a nazi.

All I'm saying is it's a hypocrisy if you passionately advocate for things
that are completely contradictory to each other.

~~~
acdha
This seems backwards: network neutrality ensures that anyone is free to setup
a host with whatever rules they want. If you treat the network as a neutral
layer, there's less risk if a particular service chooses not to support
something — whereas in a world of paid prioritization you'd have to worry
about, say, paid prioritization or outright blocking as well as the other
costs.

(This is one of the reasons I'm not a fan of Facebook's subsidized internet —
the intentions can be pure but it's still unsettling to see the barriers to
entry for a competitor)

~~~
cocktailpeanuts
My point was not about whether net neutrality is right or wrong, but that the
same person sometimes protests AGAINST net neutrality when it fits their
agenda, and sometimes pretend as if they're the guardian of the justice who's
supposed to guard net neutrality. That's hypocritical.

People should instead have rational conversation about pros and cons and make
an informed decision, but that's impossible nowadays because people can easily
label one another nazi.

~~~
acdha
You seem to be conflating network neutrality with requiring companies to host
content which violates their terms of service. I think it's reasonable to
distinguish between those layers — someone who wants to find content Twitter
won't host can easily go to gab or 4chan but it's much harder to switch ISPs.

~~~
cocktailpeanuts
Someone who wants to publish an app to Android cannot easily go somewhere else
to publish their app.

I do get your point and I understand what you're saying, but at the same time
this is not the same as "if you don't like Twitter just go somewhere else to
post your microblog", because Android users don't have any other alternative.

~~~
acdha
If you want to talk about app stores, that's a valid point which deserves
conversation but it's not typically covered by network neutrality.

~~~
cocktailpeanuts
Yes, in fact your point was exactly my point. I do believe this is something
that needs to be discussed in the context of net neutrality but people seem to
have hard time thinking that way for some reason. I think it's some sort of a
"boiling the frog" phenomenon where people have a fixed notion of what "net
neutrality" is in terms of examples, but if you think about it it's all about
how a network needs to be neutral.

What makes it worse is a lot of people advocate for net neutrality but when it
comes to things like this they think it's the right thing for the "network" to
be not neutral.

------
75dvtwin
cannot wait till this Google gets broken up as monopolies should be.

Social networks should be in federated out in separate companies (may be even
more than one). Search engine ... same thing.

".. Woodrow Wilson was right when he said in 1913, “If monopoly persists,
monopoly will always sit at the helm of the government.” We ignore his words
at our peril. ..."

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/opinion/sunday/is-it-
time...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/opinion/sunday/is-it-time-to-
break-up-google.html?mcubz=0)

------
Animats
First they came for the Nazis, and I said nothing because I was not a Nazi.

Then they came for the far-right, and I said nothing because I was not a far-
righter...

~~~
mcphage
Then everyone stood around saying "Good job, everyone!" and giving people high
fives?

------
sergiotapia
Mods, why is this flagged off the front page? It's definitely news worthy that
the day Gab raised $1 million dollars, they get booted off the Play store.

------
retox
Why is this article flagged?

~~~
flukus
Because they type of person that wants things like this banned also don't like
the ban to be discussed or widely known.

------
KekDemaga
Let's hope he doesn't sign up for hacker news.

~~~
jacquesm
If some of the comments in this thread are to be believed he'd fit right in.

~~~
KekDemaga
Care to point one out in particular?

~~~
jacquesm
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042346](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042346)

~~~
retox
Innocent until proven guilty.

~~~
jacquesm
This is not a court of law.

~~~
EdSharkey
Until all the facts come out and a person is proven to be guilty, we
(Americans) assume they are innocent of any crimes. This is a protection for
the individual against the tyranny of the mob. It's a culture thing as much as
it is a legal thing, this assumption of innocence.

~~~
jacquesm
> Until all the facts come out and a person is proven to be guilty, > we
> (Americans) assume they are innocent of any crimes. > This is a protection
> for the individual against the > tyranny of the mob. It's a culture thing as
> much as > it is a legal thing, this assumption of innocence.

Bollocks. This is the case in quite a few countries but America is an
exception to this rule. Let me explain why: In America, contrary to many other
countries the accused has his mug shot, full name, house address and plenty of
other details including conversation with his neighbors and his grade school
teacher paraded in the media some times even before they've been properly
charged.

When Hans Reiser was accused of the murder of his wife I was one of very few
people on HN asking for people to hold back their judgment until the facts
were in and until he was declared guilty (which eventually happened).

One reason for this is that there was at that point in time no evidence at all
that he had actually committed that crime, all there was was a substantial
amount of circumstantial evidence.

Now, if there had been a home video of Reiser killing his wife on youtube then
that would have held me back from making that comment, even if for legal
purposes the judge would still have had to go through the whole 'presumed
innocent' routine the facts would have proven to _me_ that he would be found
guilty with a likelihood close enough to certainty that advocating his
innocence until proven guilty would border on the grotesque.

So, if you want to take a stand here and advocate that this person, who used
his car to attempt to murder dozens and who successfully murdered at least one
person and who is on the record as being a supporter of a group of people
which has made no bones about their willingness to do violence and of who we
have some pretty good video of him doing that particular deed of which he
stands accused them I'm fine wit h that, that's your right. In the meantime
the accused has his name plastered all over the media and he's going to have a
hard time even finding a jury that is not already roughly where I am: that if
he's going to plead 'not guilty' he's going to have to pull an outside size
rabbit out of his hat.

FWIW and if you haven't seen it yet, go watch the video footage (which to me
is some pretty strong proof) of this persons actions and then come back here
and argue their innocence.

And if you are really so concerned about the rights of the accused put in a
cent or two towards protecting their privacy in the media until they've been
found guilty, you know, like countries do that really care about protection of
the individual against the tyranny of the mob.

~~~
EdSharkey
I suspect you and I agree on more than we disagree.

> Bollocks. This is the case in quite a few countries but America is an
> exception to this rule.

I was speaking to you, the individual jacquesm, not your tribe. I was trying
to be "that guy" who always says, "now let's not rush to judgment" all while
the mob is grinding their axes and reaching for their pitchforks.

> When Hans Reiser was accused of the murder of his wife I was one of very few
> people on HN asking for people to hold back their judgment until the facts
> were in and until he was declared guilty.

I think I was too, (I hope I was too, it was a long time ago, I don't
remember). Too many lazy folks rush to judge after they're fed whatever line
they get in the media.

> So, if you want to take a stand here and advocate that this person, who used
> his car to attempt to murder dozens and who successfully murdered at least
> one person and who is on the record as being a supporter of a group of
> people which has made no bones about their willingness to do violence and of
> who we have some pretty good video of him doing that particular deed of
> which he stands accused them I'm fine with that, that's your right. In the
> meantime the accused has his name plastered all over the media and he's
> going to have a hard time even finding a jury that is not already roughly
> where I am: that if he's going to plead 'not guilty' he's going to have to
> pull an outside size rabbit out of his hat.

I can't rush to judge the guy even though there's video evidence showing
vicious killing. He might have chosen the wrong day to go off his meds and was
insane that day. Let the facts come out and pray justice is properly served.

Whether he's guilty or not, I don't want to live with him. I want him put away
forever at the very least, irregardless of his motives or frame of mind when
he went on the rampage.

I simply won't call the guy a murderer until he's judged that way, but other
than that I hope we don't disagree much.

> And if you are really so concerned about the rights of the accused put in a
> cent or two towards protecting their privacy in the media until they've been
> found guilty, you know, like countries do that really care about protection
> of the individual against the tyranny of the mob.

America is so screwed up, I know. The bloodsuckin' media whores, corporations
getting the finest government they can buy, the broken culture. It's enough to
drive me to the bottle.

I can't do much to fix the brokenness, but I can at least speak and encourage
others to the good. Based on what you've written in the past, I think your
heart in the right place, and I don't think I can lecture you where good is
concerned.

~~~
jacquesm
Fair enough, thanks for the detailed response! Note that 'temporary insanity'
is exactly what he will claim as his defense if he's halfway smart.

~~~
EdSharkey
Oh, probably. Just hoping the trial doesn't become a circus and the outcome is
legit.

------
sakabasataka
Hate has no place on a modern tech platform. Good for Google. Your move App
Store.

~~~
jdoliner
App Store never allowed Gab in the first place.

------
EdSharkey
totalitarian _toh-tal-i-tair-ee-uh n_

adjective

1\. of or relating to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties
of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects
of life.

2\. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others;
authoritarian; autocratic.

noun

1\. an adherent of totalitarianism.

------
wavefunction
Presumably you can still side-load it so racists got nothing to complain
about.

------
ericfrederich
Wonder if the already-installed app is still usable or if it relied on some
Google services. If it was still usable I hope Google did a remote removal of
it.

------
blfr
What does "alt-social" mean?

Anyway, my guess is that this was caused by Andrew Anglin, editor in chief of
the Daily Stormer, taking up residence at Gab.ai[1].

[1] [https://gab.ai/andrewanglin](https://gab.ai/andrewanglin)

------
aaron695
> Gab is aimed at people interested in “Western values, individual liberty,
> and the free exchange of ideas” looking to avoid the “special interests
> pushing a very specific agenda” in tech. If that dog whistle isn’t loud
> enough...

Not sure that's a dog whistle.

With even the article admiting they can't find a valid reason for it to have
been kicked from the Play Store, it's almost a self fulfilling prophecy.

~~~
cookiecaper
Once you start believing that all your political enemies are utilizing "dog
whistles" and "code language", it's basically a lost cause. There's no arguing
with someone who will _literally_ assign a negative meaning to otherwise
innocuous words and statements if they can't find anything real to nitpick.

~~~
rdtsc
> Once you start believing that all your political enemies are utilizing "dog
> whistles" and "code language"

Heh, just a month ago someone told me that Trump was using secret hand
gestures towards Putin during dinner at some summit there were at. I thought
ok sure, how do you disprove that.

"He scratched his nose, it seems". "Nah, that's code for body was buried in
concrete successfully". "Alrighty then..."

------
cookiecaper
This is the issue with any "unmoderated" or "anti-censorship" network/project.
We see it over and over again. If this is your mantra, you're going to be used
by unsavory characters, and that toxin will eclipse your entire brand/project.
Tor is a good example of this, and to some extent, it has happened with
Reddit.

We need censorship-resistant networks, but they _should not be advertised that
way_ , because that will attract entirely the wrong type of early adopters. As
if the chicken-and-egg problem needed additional complication.

