Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Or in other words: "Entity believes that discretion can be misused, despite thinking discretion is important"

Which is an extremely reasonable position.

(I've never heard of Gab.)



view as:

Well, now you have. It's white supremacist Twitter.

Sounds like a good thing to ban, but I'm still wary of the exact method. ('we can ban anyone' clauses, and the idea of generic payment providers being the arbiters)

There are many racists and ISIS terrorists on twitter. I guess by your ridiculous logic, twitter is an Isis facebook

I see. Dare to disagree with Thomas Ptacek and you get shadow banned?

I think you're confusing the fact that people have repeatedly argued that Gab isn't white supremacist twitter with the notion that it has somehow been established that it isn't. But, of course, it is. Even Voat has better bona fides than Gab.

Later

It's probably not just a coincidence that every time this comes up on HN, there's a Popehat thread about Gab at the same time. Here's Ken today with a telling citation to Gab's own Twitter account from earlier this year:

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1027671587825172480


Unless you can provide evidence where gab says they are Nazis, they support Nazis, or you've found some advertising materials there they advertise to Nazis, you're not winning this argument. Unless you're petty enough to keep having my comments flagged.

We haven't banned anyone here. But please don't post unsubstantive comments.

Telling Thomas he's factually wrong is considered unsubstantive now?

That's like saying Twitter is a female-supremacist Gab. There sure are many open sexists who hate men on Twitter:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/octavia-sheepshanks/feminis...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/ny-times-journalist...

Maybe the short format lends itself to people posting dumb, thought-free comments.


>Maybe the short format lends itself to people posting dumb, thought-free comments.

It doesn't just lend itself, it exists for that express purpose.

The problem is people using Twitter as a primary venue for discourse which need more context or nuance than the platform allows.


Legal | privacy