> Gab would like to use Stripe or Paypal because they are trusted payment providers, but those networks felt they'd stop being trusted payment providers if they let Gab stay on.
That's an extreme simplification that borders on deceptive. No one is going to stop using Paypal and Stripe because they support a platform. Maybe if they were processing payments for ISIS, but Alex Jones isn't ISIS.
No, Paypal and Stripe were given orders from above and this is them carrying out those orders.
> I'm glad our internet is enough of a distributed commons that many platforms are broadly accessible -- but nobody owes you an audience at the most popular ones.
This would only make sense if there wasn't an active campaign to shut out smaller platforms in order to control the ecosystem. What is the point of making a sound if no one is around to hear it?
Saying people should just change platforms is like saying people should just change internet companies. Sure, HughesNet might be an alternative to the only worthwhile provider in my area, but you can't say with a straight face that the experience is comparable. You're dismissing the problems other people face in getting their voices heard because it doesn't directly affect you. It's easy to take the high road with the deplatforming debate but only if you ignore the bigger picture.
> No, Paypal and Stripe were given orders from above and this is them carrying out those orders.
Who is this "above" giving orders?
Frankly, this is conspiracy theory material. Sure, those companies are reacting to pressure, but it's distributed social pressure, not shady backroom dealings.
I have no idea who is the "above", and nothing on which to speculate. The internet's two largest payment processors both pulling out at the same time that Gab loses hosting, and becomes the target of a widespread slander campaign, definitely seems orchestrated. You can't dismiss that as "conspiracy theory material".
Sure, it could be distributed social pressure, but even that would just be a standalone event resulting from a larger and more subtle push from above to use social pressure as a mechanism for modern information gatekeeping.
Like I said, I'm not speculating as to who or what is behind this push for modern censorship but don't delude yourself into thinking it isn't there.
So, here we have an event - payment processors refusing to serve Gab. The theory is that this is explained by from some entity "above" that we don't know anything about and that clearly acted in secret to force them to do this.
Using the dictionary definition of a conspiracy theory, this is a conspiracy theory.
"Conspiracy theory material" has a strong connotation that a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators doesn't capture at all.
The connotation heavily implies that the theory is to be disregarded as ridiculous and false.
But you know that already, so why am I even telling you?
> No one is going to stop using Paypal and Stripe because they support a platform.
This is objectively false. I would stop supporting a business based on who they support. I have done so many times. From web services to food services, and everything in between.
They're a payment processor. If you believe in a non-discriminatory economy, where anyone with a legal, useful service or skill should be able to collect payment for it, then you simply can't have this position.
Payment processors must follow the law like anyone else and have no obligation to process payments for illegal services, but we can't start mass boycotting them based on the clients they legally do business with. That's a huge incentive for discriminatory practices which are at the behest of the mob.
Lots of people don't accept your premise that white supremacists deserve FRAND terms for access to commercial hosting providers. I'd go so far as to describe it as the mainstream opinion. So: they can quite simply have that position.
If you're familiar with Jesse Singal's journalistic work I think it's straightforward for us to consider what was meant above there.
The question is of "Fascism" Scope Creep, no? Accepting that big tech companies can decide what is and isn't ethical to "amplify" is going to quash some issues where all sides need to be heard and communicate with each other, into a one-dimensional conception of whatever the most popular liberal people think is over the line into "fascism" at a given historical moment. With millions of dollars a day of US military aid going to Israel, for one thing, and state officials pushing to ban boycotts explicitly in law, I don't think it's silly to worry about this.
I'll say I honestly don't know if Stripe and hosting sites dropping white nationalists sets such a uniformally bad precedent. The material reality of it is pretty good. I'm also not going to treat objectors who talk about free speech like children.
I wasn't really invoking his opinions on Gab specifically, but I would be curious to know them. My point was more like: What happens to journalists like Singal when any writing deviating from to the most mainstream of progressive frameworks of thought endangers the resources/finances of the outlet publishing it? Have you Googled his full name?
Yeah, we follow each other on Twitter. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but I'll ask what he thinks about Gab.
Gab isn't a site that respectfully questions orthodoxy regarding trans issues. It's white supremacist Twitter. If it were me in his shoes, I'd find the comparison a little offensive, and also feel like it affirmed and amplified my critics.
My point is exactly the opposite of saying the two are comparable...
The idea is that when Electronic Intifada's webhost or their donation processor or Twitter decides they want some positive PR, more and more they can safely say "It isn't a website that respectfully questions orthodoxy regarding US foreign policy. It's anti-Semitic abuse." That doesn't mean I think EI and Gab are comparable, it means I think other people with connections and power think they are, or it benefits them to normalize the comparison.
I am sympathetic to the BDS movement! I'm just saying, you're suggesting that commercial entities could use commercial coercion against Electric Intifada, which is itself an organization that enthusiastically seeks to use commercial coercion against supporters of Israel.
Like, I think, most people, I'm a believer in boycotts. You bring the pressure you have to bear on the causes you believe in, and the most potent pressure most people have at their disposal is commercial. It's also itself a straightforward application of free speech. But, then, that's effectively what's happening to Gab, too. It's (again) not clear to me why anyone who is OK with boycotting would be up in arms about it --- excepting people who are sympathetic to Gab's mission. Let me be clear that there's no subtext that you're one of those people!
The Overton Window is moving too quickly these days for us to be making judgements on deplatformization based on what is and isn't something the average person wants to see.
Censorship is unethical because it's a giant slippery slope of subjectivity
What does that actually mean? How would you translate it into any sort of policy short of complete and absolute non-regulation of speech (or, really, anything if you just pick something other than 'censorship' as a scare-word).
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak for me."
— Martin Niemöller
Alex Jones is a paranoid lunatic, misinterpreting a very real assault on demographics like the straight white male as full-on white genocide, as well as many unrelated issues like immigration, but that doesn't really make him a white supremacist. Being afraid that your demographic is being targeted doesn't make you a supremacist. There are many minority demographics right now who validly feel that way. Calling for the extermination of other races would make him a white supremacist. Alex Jones being a white supremacist is a false narrative perpetuated by the informal group of gatekeepers trying to silence his platform.
> How would you translate it into any sort of policy short of complete and absolute non-regulation of speech?
That's false absolutism. You cannot dismiss censorship as a "scare-word". It's scary for a damn good reason. Right now they're only coming for the socialists. Soon they will come for someone you care about, and then I wonder if you will still be so readily apologetic for the information gatekeepers of the new era.
"Calling for the extermination of other races would make him a white supremacist."
It seems to me like you're ignoring the plain definitions of simple words in constructing this statement. Wanting to preserve a dominant position in society (which is what it sounds like Jones' concern is) makes one a supremacist. Wanting to eliminate other groups makes one something else, perhaps an "eliminationist" or "exterminationist". They are distinct. You can be both, but you can also be the former without being the latter. Assuming Jones is not an exterminationist, that is entirely consistent with him being a supremacist who either has scruples or doesn't feel the situation is desperate enough yet.
People who feel threatened may reasonably speculate he (or others who are sympathetic to supremacist views) might become an exterminationist if the situation appeared more desperate. That's neither a "true" nor "false" narrative, but a plausible yet uncertain prediction.
You could be right about that. I'm not really here to defend Alex Jones' position. I honestly don't know enough about the dude and what he wants. However I will defend his right to a platform as long as he is operating within legal bounds.
Right now we are having a national conversation about the right of an ISP to hold a monopoly over its customers. We don't think it's fair that the only worthwhile ISP in an area can charge tiered amounts for different levels of internet access.
The same conversation is just beginning with regard to platform rights. It's one thing to secure your right to connect to the internet. But we need to secure the right for people to connect to you.
"Right to a platform". What does that mean? Can you generate an answer that isn't morally equivalent to a demand for FRAND terms for Alex Jones? Remember, FRAND is an exceptional case in commerce; it's (for instance) what you do to get your patented IPR into a global standard. It's not the expected default.
Try to have a debate in any moderately left forum about topics like feminism or economics without having some people come out of the woodwork with character assassination and insults, disregarding your opinion as a priviliged cis white male. It's a real thing and it's ridiculous. I get told all the time I'm not allowed to participate in conversations based on my sex, sexual orientation, and skin color.
I feel like I need to correct you on a couple of things.
People being mean to you in a forum is not evidence of "a very real assault on demographics like the straight white male".
You don't have to be a genocidal maniac to be a white supremacist.
'White genocide' is not something someone yelled in the heat of the moment - it's an old neo-Nazi term and it is obviously intended to justify extremism - after all, what response is inappropriate if you're a victim of genocide?
The people Niemöller was talking about faced imprisonment, torture and murder. The oppression the owners of Gab face involves putting on pants and driving some servers to the nearest colo facility.
Aristotle was not Belgian.
The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself."
And the London Underground is not a political movement.
I disagree. I doubt we'll get to any sort of shared position via internet forum, I was simply pointing out that the parent comment was objectively false.
That's an extreme simplification that borders on deceptive. No one is going to stop using Paypal and Stripe because they support a platform. Maybe if they were processing payments for ISIS, but Alex Jones isn't ISIS.
No, Paypal and Stripe were given orders from above and this is them carrying out those orders.
> I'm glad our internet is enough of a distributed commons that many platforms are broadly accessible -- but nobody owes you an audience at the most popular ones.
This would only make sense if there wasn't an active campaign to shut out smaller platforms in order to control the ecosystem. What is the point of making a sound if no one is around to hear it?
Saying people should just change platforms is like saying people should just change internet companies. Sure, HughesNet might be an alternative to the only worthwhile provider in my area, but you can't say with a straight face that the experience is comparable. You're dismissing the problems other people face in getting their voices heard because it doesn't directly affect you. It's easy to take the high road with the deplatforming debate but only if you ignore the bigger picture.