Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
[flagged] The Cultural Purge Will Not Be Televised (easydns.com)
32 points by StuntPope 264 days ago | hide | past | web | 31 comments | favorite



This sort of thing seems better on a personal blog than that of a company. As opposed to sounding like an enlightened defense of freedom of speech - there's plenty of capacity for doing that in professional writing[1] - it reads like that of someone with an axe to grind, who feels like their favored brand of politics is being tarnished unfairly and claiming victimhood.

Engaging in such victimhood using the platform of your company's blog doesn't sit well with me. As the negative consequences of him writing this will almost certainly be negligible in relative terms for the company, it undermines his argument. If there's a real "cultural purge", we should expect EasyDNS to go bankrupt for defending groups alleged to be "white supremacist", "racist", and "Nazi".

But I gather they won't be. I didn't hear of "#deleteshopify" until I read this post, and I expect I won't hear about it again.

If you're reading this, future people, do me a favor and reply to this thread when #boycotteasydns has caused the company to fold. We can talk about "cultural purges" then.

[1] - http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/01/26/chancellor-statement-on-...


>If there's a real "cultural purge", we should expect EasyDNS to go bankrupt for defending groups alleged to be "white supremacist", "racist", and "Nazi".

So, for his claim that there are often unpleasant consequences for being vocally on one side of the cultural divide to be true, they have to specifically happen to him? This is a ridiculous assertion, whether he is correct has absolutely nothing to do with whether he himself faces those consequences.


Fair point, I should weaken my claim. How do we define a "cultural purge"? I would suggest that for any definition we could agree on, we would agree that the purge the author supposes is not occurring.

There are instances of boycotts succeeding - but those aren't "cultural purges", those are isolated incidents and by corollary to what you wrote, we should discount individual instances. It's the aggregate that matters, and the traffic to alt-right blogs and websites only seem to be growing. The "victimhood" of Breitbart (and other alt-right blogs) seems entirely manufactured.

Ironically I think here the author again defeats his own claims. I'm not aware of peer-reviewed studies, but I gather from the disparate press reports and some nonprofit publications that anti-Semitic, racist, and white supremacist sites are on the rise. The author even points to the need to disallow such a site on their platform. Ample existence of the examples of such sites only lend credence to the belief that there is not a cultural purge going on!

What a strange definition for the term "cultural purge" we would have if we could assert that it's occurring despite a surge in outspoken sentiment that is being "purged".


> I didn't hear of "#deleteshopify" until I read this post, and I expect I won't hear about it again.

This was a rather amusing bit of irony. It's sort of meta to find out about a boycott from a post talking about how boycotts can backfire due to the Streisand effect.


'This sort of thing seems better on a personal blog than that of a company.' Right: next up is #boycotteasydns def. corporations and religious institutions need to butt out of American politics altogether. That includes donations to politicians, etc..


Interesting. What I've been seeing from my fellow liberals lately is freedom of everything except difference in opinion. I think Milo, for example, is a gigantic troll and probably a bad person... but he has a right to speak freely, just like Westboro Baptist Church does.


What Milo does is one thing. What the "church" does is another.

The "church" has a business model of provoking people into confronting them physically so they can sue them. Basically they really run to daddy when they get slapped for poking someone in the eye.


I think munnin_ has it right. We once killed a sizeable deal here (at easyDNS) because it included providing DNS for the Westboro church domains. We just didn't want any part of it.

Again - our decision, no coercion.

Westboro has a right to speak (although not to disrupt the activities of others). But nobody has to agree to give them a platform.

The big distinction is: are you acting under your own volition or under coercion.


I agree with this article mostly, but I do take strong issue with contrasting "boycott" with "free speech". Boycotting is an expression of free speech and freedom of association. It's unlawful for the (US) government to punish you for your speech, but private citizens can shop elsewhere, or ostracize you, or invite you to tea - and encourage others to do so - at will.

That said, I share the OPs dismay at the wholesale unthinking tribalism in US politics today. It's hard to overstate the intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy on display.


TL;BS. Shopify makes it possible for Breitbart to make money selling merchandise. They claim they have nothing to do with it otherwise and do not support their views, people on internet are mad anyways because of course they make money from having Breitbart as a client. Author claims Shopify is being unfairly targeted and the left is continuing its "cultural purge" on free-association and free-speech. Both of which are interesting? claims since boycotts have long been apart of American history "see Tea Party & Montgomery Bus Boycott" and doesn't even mention all of the boycotts of the right against Target (bathrooms & toys), Starbucks(cups says Happy Holidays, & hiring Refugees), and whatever other campaign is on One Million Moms (https://onemillionmoms.com/current-campaigns) and other groups.

My point is that if you choose to do business with a group that may be targeted by social groups on any side because of their political or social positions you run the risk of being associated with that group and might suffer the same consequences.


The issue here is that Shopify are being judged not for their actual stances, but for who they do business with. This is different from boycotting something because of their actual positions. What if no one would rent a building to Breitbart, or provide their offices and employees with internet access, or sell vehicles to their employees, or provide web hosting for them, because of the threat of boycotts against them for doing business with Breitbart? The practice of boycotting people for association rather than actual opinions is seriously bad news if you actually care about free speech, because it means that any group with enough buying power to affect the bottom line of anyone you do business with now is in control of whether or not you're allowed to exist.


If we ever get to a point in society where huge swaths of the population are unwilling to associate with Breitbart in any way, and legislators begin adding laws to the books about segregating businesses into categories of "have dealt with Breitbart" and "have not" and try to (unconstitutionally) apply different rules to each, then perhaps the courts and the public should take your claims seriously.

But until then, you are describing a slippery slope that doesn't make me feel bad one whit.

And to provide an example of this:

"What if no one would rent a building to the American Nazi Party, or provide their offices and employees with internet access, or sell vehicles to their employees, or provide web hosting for them, because of the threat of boycotts against them for doing business with the American Nazi Party?"

Or let's take it back 50 years:

"What if no one would rent a building to the American Communist Party, or provide their offices and employees with internet access, or sell vehicles to their employees, or provide web hosting for them, because of the threat of boycotts against them for doing business with the American Communist Party?"

Or substitute any extreme you like. The KKK, for example.

What you're misunderstanding about free association is that every person - and every business - has the right to choose not to associate as well. Association is not compulsory, and neither is listening to speech. Bad actors like "actual Nazis" (I am not claiming Breitbart is such) do not have a constitutional right to do business with anyone they like. Free association doesn't mean the market must be blind to the participants involved.


If a group has enough buying power to affect your bottom line that means those people are/were your customers that you should be paying attention to anyways.

You could play the hypothetical game all day, and what's the point when you can make up any number of unlikely situations? Also let's point out that's not what's actually happening at all.


This post has been repeatedly [flagged] ... which is exactly what the ENTIRE ARTICLE IS ABOUT.


True, but it's also standard for HN users to flag rhetorical advocacy pieces, especially ones with sensational titles.

My gut feeling is that more users are flagging this one because they think it's off-topic for HN than because they disagree with it, but that's just a guess.


That would actually make me feel better if you're right.

That said in my mind it's on-topic for HN since YC themselves have been on the receiving end of what the article talks about (it does mention the outcry to remove Thiel from the FB board, but not that YC also faced pressure to cut ties to Thiel)

The point is: Thiel is completely within his rights to endorse Trump. It's not like he forfeited his humanity by doing so.


Nobody is accusing him of being unlawful or outside his rights to endorse him. Nor, as far as I'm aware, has he been deprived on any right by that association.

It seems you have an issue with people speaking out against him. He chose to publicly support Trump, he could've voted and contributed behind closed doors like most other wealthy people. He chose to make his opinion public because he understands that he is influential and he hoped to exert that influence, but you can't have it both ways.


he could've voted and contributed behind closed doors like most other wealthy people

At least one Silicon Valley CEO can tell you how that one worked out for him.


There was a public outcry to have him ejected from the FB Board because of his political beliefs. That is no different than wanting to get somebody fired from their job for theirs. The attempt failed, "the Zuch" was criticized for defending Thiel's right to having his own opinion.


So everything is working exactly as it's supposed to... People voice their opinion to those in power, those in power make a decisions and make their stance known. Are you saying you don't want these people to receive public criticism? Otherwise I'm not sure what there is left. Nothing actually happened, just people exchanging words on either side.


It's not clear to me what you're pushing back against. 'StuntPope expressed that they thinks this submission is relevant to HN and has been repeatedly flagged, and understood and expressed acceptance (with some additional, civilly expressed comments) for the explanation 'dang provided.

You seem to be reading a lot more into their comments than is needed. I read nothing in their comments other than clarification based on what's in your replies. They've just expressed a desire to discuss the submission, which seems to actually support the idea of criticism.


He said:"The point is: Thiel is completely within his rights to endorse Trump. It's not like he forfeited his humanity by doing so."

Which implies that someone was arguing the contrary.


Which, as they clarified, there has been. I've witnessed as much on HN.

They explicitly did not imply that something was unlawful, which is how you phrased your reply:

Nobody is accusing him of being unlawful or outside his rights to endorse him. Nor, as far as I'm aware, has he been deprived on any right by that association.


There have been people attempting to take his rights away or claim it was unlawful? Lol.


He should be evicted from Facebook's board, and from YC. There's clear, straightforward reasons to believe that, and saying so is a perfectly reasonable exercise of free speech. You clearly disagree. But so what? That's how it's supposed to work: you can disagree, and say so, and say why.


Recently I have posted a few pieces on HN which could have been labeled "Anti-Trump" or "pro liberal" or whatever and they have been flagged as well (you can see them on my profile). So in case you are implying that flagging this specific post would be sign of a particular suppression of a contrary view point (against liberal view points) then you are wrong.

That's the problem with every group that perceives discrimination (or actually is discriminated): They interpret every single occurrence as proof of the discrimination, even while the cause of their perception might be much more trivial and unrelated.


It's especially ironic because one of the other posters mentioned about how he'll only believe it (your claim that there is a cultural purge) if it actually happens to you.


That wasn't the claim I made, and I think you know it. I'll repeat my claims since you can't bother to make such assertions truthfully:

    If there's a real "cultural purge", we should expect EasyDNS to go bankrupt for
    defending groups alleged to be "white supremacist", "racist", and "Nazi".
    
    But I gather they won't be. I didn't hear of "#deleteshopify" until I read this
    post, and I expect I won't hear about it again.
    
    If you're reading this, future people, do me a favor and reply to this thread
    when #boycotteasydns has caused the company to fold. We can talk about "cultural
    purges" then."


"Your only recourse is whether to associate or disassociate with somebody."

Might I suggest disassociating yourself from the federal government by learning the difference between state citizenship and federal citizenship and take appropriate action.

More info here:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/taxes.htm#CITIZENSHIP


Anyone else catch the Obama quote?

>There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard

> truthiness refers to the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true.


flagged again




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: